You are on page 1of 465

Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.

5
Page No.1
GOVE!"E!#
Elements of the State
DE $%E &!D DE '&C#O
GOVE!"E!#(
Co )im C*am v. Val+e, #an )e*
(194!
Co Km Cham has a cv case n CFI Mana
nsttuted under the Repubc of the
Phppnes durng the perod of |apanese
occupaton. |udge Dzon aeges that the
case shoudnt be contnued because:
1. The PEC and RP under
|apanese mtary
occupaton were not de facto
governments.
2. McArthurs procamaton
nvadated a
|udca proceedngs and |udgments of
Phppne Courts under the PEC and the
RP.
3. Lower courts have no |ursdcton to
contnue pendng |udca proceedngs wth
the absence of an enabng aw to grant
such authorty.
A wrt of mandamus was ssued to the
|udge orderng hm to take cognzance and
render fna |udgment of the case. "he
f#rst #ss$e nvoved was whether or not the
PEC and the RP were de facto
governments. And the SC hed that they
were by expoundng on the dfferent knds
of de facto governments (whch are sted
beow) and pontng out that a acts and
proceedngs of the PEC/RP (whch was
cassfed as a de facto government of the
second form) are good and vad.
1. Government that USURPS by
FORCE or BY
THE VOICE OF THE MA|ORITY the rghtfu
ega government.
2. Government of PARAMOUNT
FORCE.
3. Government estabshed by
the natve
nhabtants who rse n INSURRECTION
aganst the parent state.
The se%on& #ss$e revoved around
McArthurs procamaton. It dd not have
the effect of nvadatng and nufyng a
|udca proceedngs and |udgments of
Phppne Courts under the PEC and the
RP by vrtue of the prncpe of POSTLIMINY
n nternatona aw.
Postmnum s a prncpe n nternatona
aw whch consders vad, except n a very
few cases, the acts done by an nvader,
whch for one reason or another t s wthn
hs competence to do so, notwthstandng
the fact that the terrtory whch has been
occuped by hm comes agan n the power
of ts egtmate government or
soveregnty.
The last #ss$e was the queston of whether
or not an enabng aw was requred. It
snt. Conquest or coonzaton s mpotent
to amend aws. Laws reman unchanged
unt the new soveregn by a egsatve act
creates such change.
In e- (aturnino .ermu+e,
(19'6!
A awyer questons Artce 18 of proposed
1986 Consttuton regardng who the
provson refers to when t says Presdent
and Vce Presdent. The court dsmsses t
outrght for ack of |ursdcton and a cause
of acton.
Pettoner's aegaton of ambguty or
vagueness of the aforequoted provson s
manfesty gratutous, t beng a matter of
pubc record and common pubc
knowedge that the Consttutona
Commsson refers theren to ncumbent
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.2
Presdent Corazon C. Aquno and Vce-
Presdent Savador H. Laure, and to no
other persons
Pettoners have no personaty to sue and
ther pettons state no cause of acton. For
the egtmacy of the Aquno government
s not a |ustcabe matter. It beongs to
the ream of potcs where ony the peope
of the Phppnes are the |udge. And the
peope have made the |udgment; they
have accepted the government of
Presdent Corazon C. Aquno whch s n
effectve contro of the entre country so
that t s not merey a de facto
government but n fact and aw a de |ure
government. Moreover, the communty of
natons has recognzed the egtmacy of
the present government. A the eeven
members of ths Court, as reorganzed,
have sworn to uphod the fundamenta aw
of the Repubc under her government.
In re- Letter o/ &sso0iate $usti0e
e1nate Puno
Ths s an admnstratve matter n the SC.
Puno was eevated n the senorty
rankngs of the CA from no. 12 to no. 5.
Ths, however, caused |aveana and
Campos to fe a moton for
reconsderaton. Puno countered by sayng
that Aquno had pedged that "no rght
provded under the 1973 Consttuton sha
be absent from the Freedom Consttuton"
and thus by vrtue of Secton 2 E.O. 33,
Puno can cam senorty. Ths was
debunked by the SC on the ground that a
revouton changes everythng because t
went n defance of the then exstng 1973
Consttuton. The core ssue at hand was
precsey WON the exstng ega order was
overthrown by the revoutonary
government. It was. The tte resstance
met by the new government, contro of
the state, appontment of key offcers n
the admnstraton, departure of offcas of
the prevous regme, and the revamp of
the mtary and |udcary sgnaed the
pont where the ega system had ceased
to be obeyed by the Fpno peope.
Estra+a v. Desierto
(2001!
Erap aeges that he s st the Presdent,
abet on-eave, where as Arroyo merey
cams to be Presdent. He sought to en|on
the respondent Ombudsman from
conductng any crmna compants
aganst hs offce unt after the term of hs
presdency was over and ony f egay
warranted. The f#rst #ss$e rased by the
respondents s that the case s a potca
queston and therefore outsde the
|ursdcton of the SC. To determne
whether or not the queston s potca,
the court ooks to the most authortatve
gudene n determnng such ssues:
|ustce Brennans words n the 1962 case
of Baker v. Carr. The Phppnes eadng
case s Tanada v. Cuenco, where ths
Court, through former Chef |ustce
Roberto Concepcon, hed that potca
questons refer:
"to those questons whch, under the
Consttuton, are to be decded by the
peope n ther soveregn capacty, or n
regard to whch fu dscretonary authorty
has been deegated to the egsatve or
executve branch of the government. It s
concerned wth ssues dependent upon
the wsdom, not egaty of a partcuar
measure."
The court hed that the Arroyo
government was not a revoutonary
government as compared to ts Aquno
counterpart. EDSA I nvoved extra-
consttutona exercse of peope power
revouton (and s thus a potca queston
and not sub|ect to |udca revew) whereas
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.(
EDSA II provoked the resgnaton of the
sttng presdent whch resuted n the
successon of the vce presdent (whch s
ntra-consttutona and thus |ustcabe).
EDSA I overthrew the whoe government.
EDSA II sought to petton the government
for redress of grevances whch ony
affected the offce of the Presdent.
CO!(#I#%E!# &!D "I!I(#&!#
'%!C#IO!(
&CC'& v. C%GCO
ACCFA s beng sued by CUGCO because
of aeged voatons of a coectve
barganng agreement, dscrmnaton
aganst members, and refusa to bargan.
The CIR favored the companants but
ACCFA pettoned to the SC questonng
WON the CIR has |ursdcton over the case
dependng on WON ACCFA exercsed
governmenta or propretary functons.
The court rued that the mpementaton of
the and reform program of the
government accordng to Repubc Act No.
3844 s most certany a governmenta,
not a propretary, functon. The CIR has no
|ursdcton but nevertheess the coectve
barganng agreements must be enforced.
The ACA s a government offce or agency
engaged n governmenta, not propretary
functons. These functons may not be
strcty what Presdent Wson descrbed as
"consttuent" (as dstngushed from
"mnstrant"),4 such as those reatng to
the mantenance of peace and the
preventon of crme, those reguatng
property and property rghts, those
reatng to the admnstraton of |ustce
and the determnaton of potca dutes of
ctzens, and those reatng to natona
defense and foregn reatons. Under ths
tradtona cassfcaton, such consttuent
functons are exercsed by the State as
attrbutes of soveregnty, and not merey
to promote the wefare, progress and
prosperty of the peope - these etter
functons beng mnstrant he exercse of
whch s optona on the part of the
government.
The growng compextes of modern
socety, however, have rendered ths
tradtona cassfcaton of the functons of
government qute unreastc, not to say
obsoete. The areas whch used to be eft
to prvate enterprse and ntatve and
whch the government was caed upon to
enter optonay, and ony "because t was
better equpped to admnster for the
pubc wefare than s any prvate
ndvdua or group of ndvduas,"5
contnue to ose ther we-defned
boundares and to be absorbed wthn
actvtes that the government must
undertake n ts soveregn capacty f t s
to meet the ncreasng soca chaenges of
the tmes. Here as amost everywhere ese
the tendency s undoubtedy towards a
greater socazaton of economc forces.
Here of course ths deveopment was
envsoned, ndeed adopted as a natona
pocy, by the Consttuton tsef n ts
decaraton of prncpe concernng the
promoton of soca |ustce.
P&E!( P&#I&E
Gov. o/ P*il. Islan+s v. "onte +e
Pie+a+
(1916!
Contrbutons were coected durng the
Spansh Regme for the reef of the
vctms of an earthquake. Part of the
money was never dstrbuted and was
nstead deposted wth the defendant
bank. In an acton for ts recovery ater
fed by the government, the defendant
questoned the competence of the pantff
(PI government), contendng that the sut
coud be nsttuted ony by the ntended
benefcares themseves or by the hers of
the vctms. The ssue of concern here s
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.4
WON the PI has the rght to fe a case n
behaf of ts ctzens. It does n ts capacty
as the guardan or )arens )atr#ae of the
peope.
(OVEEIG!#2
Elements of the State
Co )im C*an v. Val+e, #an )e* (194!
There was no change of soveregnty
durng the perod of |apanese occupaton.
Possess#on of so*ere#gnt+ remaned wth
the Amercans whe the e,er%#se of the
a%ts of so*ere#gnt+ beonged to the
begerent nvaders.
"a0ariola v. &sun0ion
(1992!
In a cv case of the CFI Leyte, |udge
Asuncon rued a partton of ots of one
deceased Francsco Reyes among
Macaroa (soe chd of Francscos frst
wfe) and the chdren from hs second
marrage. A year ater, the |udge bought
one of the ots he setted from a certan
Gaapon. Macaroa charges Asuncon wth
a compant of commttng "acts
unbecomng a |udge." The man ssues are
twofod: the frst s WON he voated
Artce 1491 (5) of the CC; and second s
WON he voated Artce 14 (1) & (5) of the
Code of Commerce.
The prohbton of the artce n the frst
ssue has aready been decded n recent
cases by reasonng of: ". . . for the
prohbton to operate, the sae or
assgnment of the property must take
pace durng the pendency of the tgaton
nvovng the property"
1
Thus, no voaton
of sad provson took pace. As for the
second regardng the voaton of the Code
of Commerce provson:
1
The Drector of Lands vs. Ababa, et a., |1979|;
Rosaro vda. de Lag vs. Court of Appeas, |1978|
Potca Law has been defned as that
branch of pubc aw whch deas wth the
organzaton and operaton of the
governmenta organs of the State and
defne the reatons of the state wth the
nhabtants of ts terrtory (Peope vs.
Perfecto). It may be recaed that potca
aw embraces consttutona aw, aw of
pubc corporatons, admnstratve aw
ncudng the aw on pubc offcers and
eectons. Specfcay, Artce 14 of the
Code of Commerce partakes more of the
nature of an admnstratve aw because t
reguates the conduct of certan pubc
offcers and empoyees wth respect to
engagng n busness; hence, potca n
essence.
Upon the transfer of soveregnty from
Span to the Unted States and ater on
from the Unted States to the Repubc of
the Phppnes, Artce 14 of the Spansh
Code of Commerce must be deemed to
have been abrogated because where
there s change of soveregnty, the
potca aws of the former soveregn,
whether compatbe or not wth those of
the new soveregn, are automatcay
abrogated, uness they are expressy re-
enacted by affrmatve act of the new
soveregn.
Thus, We hed n Roa vs. Coector of
Customs that:
"'By we-setted pubc aw, upon the
cesson of terrtory by one naton to
another, ether foowng a conquest or
otherwse, . . . those aws whch are
potca n ther nature and pertan to the
prerogatves of the former government
mmedatey cease upon the transfer of
soveregnty.'
2

"Whe muncpa aws of the newy
acqured terrtory not n confct wth the
aws of the new soveregn contnue n
2
Opnon, Atty. Gen., |uy 10, 1899
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.
force wthout the express assent or
affrmatve act of the conqueror, the
potca aws do not.
3
Lkewse, n Peope vs. Perfecto, ths Court
stated that: "It s a genera prncpe of the
pubc aw that on acquston of terrtory
the prevous potca reatons of the
ceded regon are totay abrogated."
There appears no enabng or affrmatve
act that contnued the effectvty of the
aforestated provson of the Code of
Commerce after the change of
soveregnty from Span to the Unted
States and then to the Repubc of the
Phppnes. Consequenty, Artce 14 of the
Code of Commerce has no ega and
bndng effect and cannot appy to the
respondent, then |udge of the Court of
Frst Instance, now Assocate |ustce of the
Court of Appeas.
u//1 v. C*ie/ o/ (ta//
(1946!
Ruffy, a provnca commander of the
Phppne Constabuary, nstead of
surrenderng to the |apanese forces,
dsbanded hs company, retreated to the
mountans and ed a guera unt. Leut.
Co. |urado, recognzed by the Unted
States Armed Forces, was sent to repace
Ruffy but was san by the atter and hs
companons. The same peope who ked
the repacng offcer cam that they were
not sub|ect to mtary aw at the tme
when the offense was commtted. -$t the
r$le s$s)en&#ng )ol#t#%al la.s onl+ affe%ts
the %#*#l#an #nha/#tants of the o%%$)#e&
terr#tor+ an& #s not #nten&e& to /#n& the
enem#es #n arms. Thus, members of the
armed forces contnued to be covered by
the Natona Defense Act, the Artces of
War, and other aws reatng to the armed
forces even durng the |apanese
occupaton. By the acceptance of the
3
Haeck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14
pettoners appontments as offcers n the
Phppne Army they became amenabe to
the Artces of War.
Peralta v. Dire0tor o/ Prisons
(194!
Pettoner, a member of the Metropotan
Constabuary, was prosecuted for the
crme of robbery as defned by the
Natona Assemby of the so-caed
Repubc of the Phppnes. He was found
guty and sentenced to serve tme by the
Court of Speca and Excusve Crmna
|ursdcton created n sec. 1 of Ordnance
no. 7 promugated by the Presdent of the
Repubc. The petton for habeas corpus s
based on the ground that the Courts
exstence was vod ab nto because t
was created as a potca nstrumentaty
under the command of the |apanese
Impera Army; that the provsons of sad
ordnance voate hs consttutona rghts;
that the penates provded for are much
more severe than the RPC. SoGen s of
the opnon that the petton shoud be
granted because the Ordnance mentoned
n creatng sad court s "tnged wth
potca compexon", that the procedure
does not afford a far tra and voates
consttutona rght of accused persons
under a egtmate Consttuton. The court
s of the opnon that:
0s to the *al#&#t+ of the %reat#on of the
Co$rt of S)e%#al an& E,%l$s#*e Cr#m#nal
1$r#s&#%t#on /+ 2r&#nan%e No. 7, the ony
factor to be consdered s the authorty of
the egsatve power whch promugated
sad aw or ordnance. It s we estabshed
n Internatona Law that "The crmna
|ursdcton estabshed by the nvader n
the occuped terrtory fnds ts source
nether n the aws of the conquerng or
conquered state, - t s drawn entrey
from the aw marta as defned n the
usages of natons. The authorty thus
derved can be asserted ether through
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.6
speca trbunas, whose authorty and
procedure s defned n the mtary code
of the conquerng state, or through the
ordnary courts and authortes of the
occuped dstrct." (Tayor, Internatona
Pubc Law, p. 598.)
The so-caed Repubc of the Phppnes,
beng a governmenta nstrumentaty of
the begerent occupant, had therefore
the power or was competent to create the
Court of Speca and Excusve Crmna
|ursdcton. No queston may arse as to
whether or not a court s of a potca
compexon, for t s mere governmenta
agency charged wth the duty of appyng
the aw to cases fang wthn ts
|ursdcton. Its |udgments and sentences
may be of a potca compexon or not
dependng upon the nature or character of
the aw so apped. There s no room for
doubt, therefore, as to the vadty of the
creaton of the court n queston.
"he *al#&#t+ of the senten%e rendered by
the Court of Speca and Excusve Crmna
|ursdcton whch mposes fe
mprsonment upon the heren pettoner,
depends upon the competence or power
of the begerent occupant to promugate
Act No. 65 whch punshes the crme of
whch sad pettoner was convcted.
It appears cear that t was wthn the
power and competence of the begerent
occupant to promugate, through the
Natona Assemby of the so-caed
Repubc of the Phppnes, Act No. 65 of
the sad Assemby, whch penazes the
crmes of robbery and other offenses by
mprsonment rangng from the maxmum
perod of the mprsonment prescrbed by
the aws and ordnances promugated by
the Presdent of the so-caed Repubc as
mnmum, to fe mprsonment or death as
maxmum. Athough these crmes are
defned n the Revsed Pena Code, they
were atered and penazed by sad Act No.
65 wth dfferent and heaver penates, as
new crmes and offenses demanded by
mtary necessty, ncdent to a state of
war, and necessary for the contro of the
country by the begerent occupant, the
protecton and safety of the army of
occupaton, ts support and effcency, and
the success of ts operatons.
The ast queston s the ega effect of the
reoccupaton of the Phppnes and
restoraton of the Commonweath
Government; that s, whether or not, by
the prncpe of postmny, the )$n#t#*e
senten%e .h#%h )et#t#oner #s no. ser*#ng
fell thro$gh or %ease& to /e *al#& from
that t#me.
We have aready hed n our recent
decson n the case of Co Km Cham vs.
Vadez Tan Keh and Dzon, supra, that a
|udgment of potca compexon of the
courts durng the |apanese regme, ceased
to be vad upon reoccupaton of the
sands by vrtue of the prncpe or rght of
postmnum. Appyng that doctrne to the
present case, the sentence whch
convcted the pettoner of a crme of a
potca compexon must be consdered
as havng ceased to be vad pso facto
upon the reoccupaton or beraton of the
Phppnes by Genera Dougas MacArthur.
&l0antara v. Dire0tor o/ Prisons
Pettoner was convcted of the crme of
ega dscharge of frearms. The CA
modfed the sentence from arresto mayor
to prson correccona. Pettoner
questons the vadty of the CA on the soe
ground that the court was a creaton of
the so-caed Repubc of the Phppnes
durng the |apanese mtary occupaton. In
Co Km Cham v. Vadez Tan Keh and
Dzon, the court rued that the RP and the
PEC were governments de facto and that
|udca acts were good and vad and
remaned good and vad after the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.7
restoraton of the Commonweath
Government. The CA that exstng durng
|apanese occupaton was the CA after the
restoraton. And even f the CA was a new
court, ts |udgments woud st reman
good and vad provded that they do not
have a potca compexon.
A puntve or pena sentence s sad to be
of a potca compexon when t penazes
ether a new act not defned n the
muncpa aws, or acts aready penazed
by the atter as a crme aganst the
egtmate government, but taken out of
the terrtora aw and penazed as new
offenses commtted aganst the
begerent occupant, ncdent to a state of
war and necessary for the contro of the
occuped terrtory and the protecton of
the army of the occuper. They are acts
penazed for pubc rather than prvate
reasons, acts whch tend, drecty or
ndrecty, to ad or favor the enemy and
are drected aganst the wefare, safety
and securty of the begerent occupant.
As exampes, the crmes aganst natona
securty, such as treason, esponage, etc.,
and aganst pubc order, such as
rebeon, sedton, etc., were crmes
aganst the Commonweath or Unted
States Government under the Revsed
Pena Code, whch were made crmes
aganst the begerent occupant.
(#&#E I""%!I#2
C3&&C#EI4&#IO! O' (%I#
.egosa v. C*airman5 P*il. Vet. &sso0.
(1970!
A veteran, Begosa, sufferng from
permanent dsabty was beng dened
what has been granted hm specfcay by
egsatve enactment (whch certany s
superor to any reguaton that may be
promugated by the Phppne Veterans
Admnstraton). Athough the respondent
reented, the amount reeased was far ess
than what the veteran was egay entted
to. He appeaed. The doctrne of state
mmunty cannot be nvoked by the PVA.
Where tgaton may have adverse
consequences on the pubc treasury,
whether n the dsbursements of funds or
oss of property, the pubc offca beng
tred cannot be hed abe by vrtue of
state mmunty. However, where the sut
aganst such a government offca had to
be nsttuted because of hs faure to
compy wth the duty mposed by statute
appropratng funds for the beneft of the
pantff, then the doctrne of state
mmunty cannot be apped.
epu6li0 v. 'eli0iano
(19'7!
Fecano aegedy owns a parce of and
through hs possesson of nformacon
possesora. But ths same and, by vrtue
of Procamaton No. 90 of Presdent Ramon
Magsaysay, became reserved for
settement purposes. Fecano seeks to
prove that hs ownershp of the and as
evdenced by hs nformacon s vad and
makes a cam to recover sad property.
However, the court rued that the state dd
not gve ts consent to be sued and thus
mmune from the compant. Athough the
procamaton stated that t sha be
"sub|ect to prvate rghts f any there be",
ths cannot be construed as an express
waver of mmunty.
Waver of mmunty, beng a derogaton of
soveregnty, w not be nferred ghty,
but must be construed n str#%t#ss#m# 3$r#s
4
.
4
STRICTISSIMI |URIS. The most strct rght or aw. In
genera, when a person receves an advantage, as
the grant of a cense, he s bound to conform
receves an advantage, as the grant of a cense, he
s bound to conform strcty to the exercse of the
rghts gven hm by t, and n case of a strcty to the
exercse of the rghts gven hm by t, and n case of
a dspute, t w be strcty construed.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.'
Moreover, the Procamaton s not a
egsatve act. The consent of the State to
be sued must emanate from statutory
authorty. Waver of State mmunty can
ony be made by an act of the egsatve
body.
&#IO!&LE 'O I""%!I#2
(an+ers v. Veri+iano
(19''!
Ross and Wyer, gameroom attendards,
are sung Sanders and Moreau (superors
of the attendants) for beous mputatons
commtted by the atter whch eventuay
cost them ther |obs. However, the court
rued that the auded acts were offca
and not persona and that the acts
pettoners are caed to account were
performed n the dscharge of ther offca
dutes.
Gven the offca character of the above-
descrbed etters, we have to concude
that the pettoners were, egay speakng,
beng sued as offcers of the Unted States
government. As they have acted on behaf
of that government, and wthn the scope
of ther authorty, t s that government,
and not the pettoners personay, that s
responsbe for ther acts.
The doctrne of state mmunty s
appcabe not ony to our own
government but aso to foregn states who
are sub|ect to the |ursdcton of our
courts.
The practca |ustfcaton for the doctrne,
as Homes put t, s that "there can be no
ega rght aganst the authorty whch
makes the aw on whch the rght
depends." In the case of foregn states,
the rue s derved from the prncpe of
the soveregn equaty of states whch
wsey admonshes that )ar #n )arem non
ha/et #m)er#$m

and that a contrary


atttude woud "unduy vex the peace of
natons." Our adherence to ths precept s
formay expressed n Artce II, Secton 2,
of our Consttuton, where we reterate
from our prevous charters that the
Phppnes "adopts the generay accepted
prncpes of nternatona aw as part of
the aw of the and."
The acts of pettoners are protected by
the presumpton of good fath, whch has
not been overturned by the prvate
respondents. Mstakes concededy
commtted by such pubc offcers are not
actonabe as ong as t s not shown that
they were motvated by mace or gross
neggence amountng to bad fath.
Exceptons to the doctrne of state
mmunty as enumerated n the case are:
Offcer s sued to compe hm to do an act
requred by aw |such as restranng a
Cabnet member from enforcng a aw
camed to be unconsttutona|.
When the government voated ts own
aws.
When an offcer acted wthout or n excess
of authorty n forcby takng prvate
property wthout payng |ust
compensaton thereof, though the
property was converted for the pubc
good.
%nite+ (tates v. Guinto
(1990!
Three man cases deang wth the
doctrne of state mmunty are
5
A states are soveregn equas and cannot assert
|ursdcton over one another.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.9
consodated n ths case wth the fourth
beng remanded due to a ack of
nformaton.
(1) Respondents fe for a case of
canceaton of a barbershop
concessonare. The State heren can be
sued because barbershop concessonares
are commerca n nature and the state
enterng nto such a propretary contract
mpcty gave ts consent to be sued.
(2) A cook was found guty of pourng
urne n soup and was subsequenty
reeved from duty. He fes a compant
aganst the cub manager who nvokes
state mmunty. The State can be sued
snce restaurant operaton s a commerca
affar, however, t does not necessary
mean that the state s abe.
(3) Lus Bautsta was caught n a buy-bust
operaton; he was then subsequenty
reeved from duty. He now sues wth the
compant of ega dsmssa. The
respondent State cannot be sued because
t performed acts wthn ts offca
capacty.
There s no queston that the Unted
States of Amerca, ke any other state, w
be deemed to have mpedy waved ts
non-suabty f t has entered nto a
contract n ts propretary or prvate
capacty. It s ony when the contract
nvoves ts soveregn or governmenta
capacty that no such waver may be
mped.
Even wthout such affrmaton |n Art. 16,
Sec. 3 of 1987 Consttuton|, we woud st
be bound by the generay accepted
prncpes of nternatona aw under the
doctrne of ncorporaton. Under ths
doctrne, as accepted by the ma|orty of
states, such prncpes are deemed
ncorporated n the aw of every cvzed
state as a condton and consequence of
ts membershp n the socety of natons.
Upon ts admsson to such socety, the
state s automatcay obgated to compy
wth these prncpes n ts reatons wth
other states.
XXX
The doctrne s sometmes dersvey
caed "the roya prerogatve of
dshonesty" because of the prvege t
grants the state to defeat any egtmate
cam aganst t by smpy nvokng ts non-
suabty. That s hardy far, at east n
democratc socetes, for the state s not
an unfeeng tyrant unmoved by the vad
cams of ts ctzens. In fact, the doctrne
s not absoute and does not say the state
may not be sued under any crcumstance.
On the contrary, the rue says that the
state may not be sued wthout ts consent,
whch ceary mports that t may be sued
f t consents.
The consent of the state to be sued may
be manfested expressy or mpedy.
Express consent may be emboded n a
genera aw or a speca aw. Consent s
mped when the state enters nto a
contract or t tsef commences tgaton.
The genera aw wavng the mmunty of
the state from sut s found n Act No.
3083, under whch the Phppne
government "consents and submts to be
sued upon any moneyed cam nvovng
abty arsng from contract, express or
mped, whch coud serve as a bass of
cv acton between prvate partes." In
Merrtt v. Government of the Phppne
Isands, a speca aw was passed to
enabe a person to sue the government for
an aeged tort. When the government
enters nto a contract, t s deemed to
have descended to the eve of the other
contractng party and dvested of ts
soveregn mmunty from sut wth ts
mped consent. Waver s aso mped
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.10
when the government fes a compant,
thus openng tsef to a countercam.
The above rues are sub|ect to
quafcaton. Express consent s effected
ony by the w of the egsature through
the medum of a duy enacted statute. 18
We have hed that not a contracts
entered nto by the government w
operate as a waver of ts non-suabty;
dstncton must be made between ts
soveregn and propretary acts. As for the
fng of a compant by the government,
suabty w resut ony where the
government s camng affrmatve reef
from the defendant.
#*e 3ol1 (ee v. osario
(1994!
The Hoy See, represented by the Papa
Nunco, sod certan parces of and to two
buyers. However, because the pettoners
were unabe to evct the squatters, a
dspute arose as to who hed the
responsbty of cearng the sad parces
of and of squatters. Respondents fed a
compant for the annument of the sae of
the and but the DFA fed a moton to
ntervene camng that t had a ega
nterest n the outcome of the case as
regards the dpomatc mmunty of
pettoner.
The burden of the petton s that
respondent tra court has no |ursdcton
over pettoner, beng a foregn state
en|oyng soveregn mmunty. On the other
hand, prvate respondent nssts that the
doctrne of non-suabty s not anymore
absoute and that pettoner has dvested
tsef of such a coak when, of ts own free
w, t entered nto a commerca
transacton for the sae of a parce of and
ocated n the Phppnes.
Prvate respondents opnon s untenabe.
Asde from the prvege of soveregn
mmunty estabshed by the DFA, the Hoy
See s nonetheess mmune from sut
because the transacton entered nto was
not for proft or for gan. It merey wanted
to dspose off the same because the
squatters vng there made t amost
mpossbe for pettoner to use t for the
purpose of the donaton (constructon of
Papa Nuncos resdence). The fact that
squatters have occuped and are st
occupyng the ot, and that they
stubborny refuse to eave the premses,
has been admtted by prvate respondent
n ts compant.
There are two confctng concepts of
soveregn mmunty, each wdey hed and
frmy estabshed. Accordng to the
cassca or absoute theory, a soveregn
cannot, wthout ts consent, be made a
respondent n the courts of another
soveregn. Accordng to the newer or
restrctve theory, the mmunty of the
soveregn s recognzed ony wth regard
to pubc acts or acts 3$re #m)er## of a
state, but not wth regard to prvate acts
or acts 3$re gest#on#s (Unted States of
Amerca v. Ruz)
In the absence of egsaton defnng what
actvtes and transactons sha be
consdered "commerca" and as
consttutng acts |ure gestons, we have to
come out wth our own gudenes,
tentatve they may be.
Certany, the mere enterng nto a
contract by a foregn state wth a prvate
party cannot be the utmate test. Such an
act can ony be the start of the nqury.
The ogca queston s whether the foregn
state s engaged n the actvty n the
reguar course of busness. If the foregn
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.11
state s not engaged reguary n a
busness or trade, the partcuar act or
transacton must then be tested by ts
nature. If the act s n pursut of a
soveregn actvty, or an ncdent thereof,
then t s an act |ure mper, especay
when t s not undertaken for gan or
proft.
In the case at bench, f pettoner has
bought and sod ands n the ordnary
course of a rea estate busness, surey the
sad transacton can be categorzed as an
act 3$re gest#on#s. However, pettoner has
&en#e& that the a%4$#s#t#on an&
s$/se4$ent &#s)osal of 5ot -0 .ere ma&e
for )rof#t /$t %la#me& that #t a%4$#re& sa#&
)ro)ert+ for the s#te of #ts m#ss#on or the
0)ostol#% N$n%#at$re #n the Ph#l#))#nes.
Prvate respondent faed to dspute sad
cam.
7&IVE O' I""%!I#2
(a1son v. (ingson
(197(!
Sngson fed a money cam aganst the
Hghways Audtor Genera pettonng the
atter to be compeed to pay the baance
due to Sngson. Sayson faed to pay the
correspondng baance to Sngson after
dscoverng that the equpment beng sod
by Sngson was overprced.
To state the facts s to make cear the
sodty of the stand taken by the Repubc.
The ower court was unmndfu of the
fundamenta doctrne of non-suabty. So
t was stressed n the petton of the then
Soctor Genera Makasar. Thus: "It s
apparent that respondent Sngson's cause
of acton s a money cam aganst the
government, for the payment of the
aeged baance of the cost of spare parts
supped by hm to the Bureau of Pubc
Hghways. Assumng momentary the
vadty of such cam, athough as w be
shown hereunder, the cam s vod for the
cause or consderaton s contrary to aw,
moras or pubc pocy, mandamus s not
the remedy to enforce the coecton of
such cam aganst the State..., but an
ordnary acton for specfc performance...
Actuay, the sut dsgused as one for
mandamus to compe the Audtors to
approve the vouchers for payment, s a
sut aganst the State, whch cannot
prosper or be entertaned by the Court
except wth the consent of the State
epu6li0 v. Purisima
(1977!
Yeow Be Freght Lnes brought a sut
aganst the Rce and Corn Admnstraton
for an aeged breach of contract. Rce and
Corn moved to dsmss the sut by usng
the doctrne of state mmunty.
Respondent |udge dsmssed the moton to
dsmss. The SC hed that the courts do
not have |ursdcton to pass upon the
merts of the cams aganst any offce or
entty actng as part of the machnery of
the natona government.
Express waver of mmunty cannot be
made by a mere counse of the
government but must be effected through
a duy-enacted statute. Nether does such
answer come under the mped forms of
consent as earer dscussed.
&miga6le v. Cuen0a
(1972!
The government used a porton of the and
owned by Amgabe for the constructon of
the Mango and Gorordo Avenues wthout
pror negotaton/expropraton. Amgabe
sues Cuenca n hs capacty as
Commssoner of Pubc Hghways seekng
payment for the approprated and. The
court rued n favor of the state by vrtue
of appyng state mmunty. However, the
SC set asde the ower courts decson on
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.12
the bass that "mmunty from sut cannot
serve as an nstrument for penetratng an
n|ustce on a ctzen."
"inisterio v. Cit1 o/ Ce6u
(1971!
Pettoners seek |ust compensaton for a
regstered ot aegng that the
government took physca and matera
possesson of t and used t for the
wdenng of Gorodo Ave. n Cebu Cty. CFI
dsmssed the case on the ground of
mmunty of the state to be sued wthout
ts consent.
The SC hed that: where the government
takes away property from a prvate
andowner for pubc use wthout gong
through the ega process of expropraton
or negotated sae, the aggreved party
may propery mantan a sut aganst the
government wthout thereby voatng the
doctrne of governmenta mmunty from
sut wthout ts consent. The SC there sad:
". . . If the consttutona mandate that the
owner be compensated for property taken
for pubc use were to be respected, as t
shoud, then a sut of ths character shoud
not be summary dsmssed. The doctrne
of governmenta mmunty from sut
cannot serve as an nstrument for
perpetratng an n|ustce on a ctzen. Had
the government foowed the procedure
ndcated by the governng aw at the
tme, a compant woud have been fed
by t, and ony upon payment of the
compensaton fxed by the |udgment, or
after tender to the party entted to such
payment of the amount fxed, may t have
the rght to enter n and upon the and so
condemned, to approprate the same to
the pubc use defned n the |udgment.' If
there were an observance of procedura
reguarty, pettoners woud not be n the
sad pant they are now. It s unthnkabe
then that precsey because there was a
faure to abde by what the aw requres,
the government woud stand to beneft. It
s |ust as mportant, f not more so, that
there be fdety to ega norms on the part
of offcadom f the rue of aw were to be
mantaned. It s not too much to say that
when the government takes any property
for pubc use, whch s condtoned upon
the payment of |ust compensaton, to be
|udcay ascertaned, t makes manfest
that t submts to the |ursdcton of a
court. There s no thought then that the
doctrne of mmunty from sut coud st
be appropratey nvoked."
(antiago v. epu6li0
(197'!
Santago fed an acton n the CFI namng
as defendant the Government of the
Repubc of the Phppnes represented by
the Drector of the Bureau of Pant
Industry (BPI). Hs pea was for the
revocaton of a deed of donaton executed
by hm and hs spouse n 1971, wth the
BPI as the donee. Pettoner aeges that
the donee faed to compy the terms of
the donaton. Pettoner then s ed to
concude that he was exempt from
compance wth such an expct
consttutona command, whch prohbts a
sut aganst the Repubc wthout ts
consent. "he #ss$e s WON the RP gave ts
consent when t accepted the terms of
donaton gven by Santago, thereby
aowng tsef to be sued based on the
hgh dctates of equty and |ustce.
In the case at bar, the Repubc, as donee,
gave ts mped consent to perform the
condtons of the donaton. In such a case
as ths, the court hed that the donor, wth
the Repubc as donee, s entted to go to
court n case of an aeged breach of the
condtons of such donaton. He (the
donor) has the rght to be heard. Under
the crcumstances, the fundamenta
postuate of non-sutabty cannot stand n
the way. The government beng the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.1(
benefcary manfests ts adherence to the
hghest ethca standards, whch can ony
be gnored at the rsk of osng the
confdence of the peope.
Lim v. .rownell
(1960!
Lm s camng ownershp over certan ots
of and that were recamed by the US
government and subsequenty, turned
over to the RP. Lm cams these ands
orgnay beong to hs deceased mother
but were egay possessed by |apanese
troops. The US was abe to take
possesson of sad ands after the war by
vrtue of the Tradng wth the Enemy Act.
The mmunty of the state from sut,
however, cannot be nvoked where the
acton, as n the present case, s nsttuted
by a person who s nether an enemy or
ay of an enemy for the purpose of
estabshng hs rght, tte or nterest n
vested property, and of recoverng hs
ownershp and possesson. Congressona
consent to such sut has expressy been
gven by the Unted States.
%nite+ (tates v. ui,
(19'!
Respondent was abe to wn a bd for a
pro|ect for the repar of the
wharves/shorene of the Subc Bay Area.
Pettoner asked for a quotaton but ater
on dened the respondent the pro|ect
statng that the respondent was not
quafed. The atter fes sut for awardng
the pro|ect to hm and for damages as
we.
The restrctve appcaton of State
mmunty s proper ony when the
proceedngs arse out of commerca
transactons of the foregn soveregn, ts
commerca actvtes or economc affars.
Stated dfferenty, a State may be sad to
have descended to the eve of an
ndvdua and can thus be deemed to
have tacty gven ts consent to be sued
ony when t enters nto busness
contracts. It does not appy where the
contract reates to the exercse of ts
soveregn functons. In ths case the
pro|ects are an ntegra part of the nava
base whch s devoted to the defense of
both the Unted States and the Phppnes,
ndsputaby a functon of the government
of the hghest order; they are not utzed
for nor dedcated to commerca or
busness purposes.
epu6li0 v. Villasor
(197(!
Respondent |udge Vasor s aeged to
have acted n excess of |ursdcton |or|
wth grave abuse of dscreton amountng
to ack of |ursdcton n grantng the
ssuance of an aas wrt of executon
aganst the propertes of the Armed Forces
of the Phppnes, and thus, the Aas Wrt
of Executon and notces of garnshment
ssued pursuant thereto are nu and vod.
What was done by respondent |udge s not
n conformty wth the dctates of the
Consttuton.
It s a fundamenta postuate of
consttutonasm fowng from the |urstc
concept of soveregnty that the state as
we as ts government s mmune from
sut uness t gves ts consent. It s ready
understandabe why t must be so. In the
cassc formuaton of Homes: "A
soveregn s exempt from sut, not
because of any forma concepton or
obsoete theory, but on the ogca and
practca ground that there can be no ega
rght as aganst the authorty that makes
the aw on whch the rght depends."
Socoogca |ursprudence suppes an
answer not dssmar. So t was ndcated
n a recent decson, Provdence
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.14
Washngton Insurance Co. v. Repubc of
the Phppnes, wth ts affrmaton that
"a contnued adherence to the doctrne of
non-suabty s not to be depored for as
aganst the nconvenence that may be
caused prvate partes, the oss of
governmenta effcency and the obstace
to the performance of ts mutfarous
functons are far greater f such a
fundamenta prncpe were abandoned
and the avaabty of |udca remedy
were not thus restrcted. Wth the we
known propensty on the part of our
peope to go to court, at the east
provocaton, the oss of tme and energy
requred to defend aganst aw suts, n the
absence of such a basc prncpe that
consttutes such an effectve obstace,
coud very we be magned."
|ustce Macom: "A rue, whch has never
been serousy questoned, s that money
n the hands of pubc offcers, athough t
may be due government empoyees, s not
abe to the credtors of these empoyees
n the process of garnshment. One reason
s, that the State, by vrtue of ts
soveregnty, may not be sued n ts own
courts except by express authorzaton by
the Legsature, and to sub|ect ts offcers
to garnshment woud be to permt
ndrecty what s prohbted drecty.
Another reason s that moneys sought to
be garnshed, as ong as they reman n
the hands of the dsbursng offcer of the
Government, beong to the atter,
athough the defendant n garnshment
may be entted to a specfc porton
thereof. And st another reason whch
covers both of the foregong s that every
consderaton of pubc pocy forbds t."
(%I#( &G&I!(# GOVE!"E!#
&GE!CIE(
P*il. !ational ailwa1s v. I&C
(199(!
Bawag Bus and an express tran coded
resutng to death and damages. Bawag
sues PNR; but PNR rases the defense that
t was the bus drver who was neggent
and the doctrne of state mmunty
exempts them from sut. IAC rued n favor
of Bawag, hence ths appea.
Athough PNR s a government formed
department, PNR engages n a purey
commerca acton. PNR was created not
to dscharge a governmenta functon but
to operate a transport servce whch s
essentay a busness concern. When the
government enters n a commerca
busness, t abandons ts soveregn
capacty and s to be treated ke any
other prvate corporaton.
!ational Irrigation &+ministration v.
'ontanilla
(1991!
The NIA group was on ts way to a
campste. In a hurry to reach ther
destnaton, they ran over someone and
dd not even stop to check what
happened. It turned out to be the son of
heren respondents who subsequenty
fed sut. NIA avers that they were an
agency of the government and therefore
not abe for the acts of the drver who
was a speca agent. The SC rued,
however, that the NIA s a government
agency wth |urdca personaty that s
separate and dstnct from the
government. Therefore t s not mmune
from sut. Besdes, the NIAs charter
specfcay aows the NIA to sue and be
sued.
(%I#&.ILI#2 V. LI&.ILI#2
"erritt v. Gov. o/ t*e P*il Islan+s
(1916!
Pantff Merrtt on a motorcyce coded
wth an ambuance whch dd not warn of
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.1
ts mpendng approach. As the neggence
whch caused the coson s a tort
commtted by an agent or empoyee of the
Government, the nqury at once arses
whether the Government s egay abe
for the damages resutng therefrom. The
government, by no ess than an Act,
authorzed Merrtt to brng sut n the CFI
Mana n order to fx the responsbty for
the coson between hs motorcyce and
the ambuance of the Genera Hospta.
Dd the government smpy wave ts
mmunty from sut or dd t aso concede
ts abty to the pantff?
Paragraph 5 of artce 1903 of the Cv
Code reads: "The state s abe n ths
sense when t acts through a speca
agent, but not when the damage shoud
have been caused by the offca to whom
propery t pertaned to do the act
performed, n whch case the provsons of
the precedng artce sha be appcabe."
It s, therefore, evdent that the State (the
Government of the Phppne Isands) s
ony abe, accordng to the above quoted
decsons of the Supreme Court of Span,
for the acts of ts agents, offcers and
empoyees when they act as speca
agents wthn the meanng of paragraph 5
of artce 1903, supra, and that the
chauffeur of the ambuance of the Genera
Hospta was not such an agent.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.16
GOVE!"E!# (#%C#%E
&"E!D"E!#( &!D EVI(IO!(
8
Gon,ales v. CO"ELEC
November 9, 1967, Concepcion, C.J.
Facts:
The House of Representatves passed a
b whch aowed for proposas n
Resouton 1 (ncreasng max number of
representatves from 120-180) and
Resouton 3 ( authorzng Senators and
Representatves to be deegates n a
consttutona conventon) to be passed.
Ths was subsequenty approved by the
Presdent as R.A. 4913 whch provded for
amendments to be made sub|ect to the
peopes approva at the genera eectons
of Nov. 1967.
Gonzaes, a taxpayer, fed a cass sut and
prayed that: (1) COMELEC restran from
performng acts that woud resut n the
hodng of the pebscte for ratfcaton;
and (2) decare the Act unconsttutona.
PHILCONSA (Phppne Consttuton
Assocaton), on the other hand, prayed
that the decson n ths case be deferred
unt an dentca case pendng (whch was
expected soon) was decded on. COMELEC
dsmssed the petton whch nstgated the
assocatons fng of a revew by
certorar. SoGen mantans that the SC
has no |ursdcton upon the ground that
the same s "merey potca" as hed n
Ma/anag *s. 5o)e6 V#to.
It was urged by the pettoners that sad
resoutons are nu and vod because:
1. The Members of Congress, whch
approved the proposed amendments, as
we as the resouton cang a conventon
6
No dgests for the frst two sectons of ths chapter:
Separaton of Powers and the Non-Deegaton
Doctrne
to propose amendments, are, at best, &e
fa%to Congressmen;
2. Congress may adopt e#ther one of two
aternatves propose - amendments or
ca a conventon therefore but may not
ava of both - that s to say, propose
amendment an& ca a conventon - at
the same tme;
3. The eecton, n whch proposas for
amendment to the Consttuton sha be
submtted for ratfcaton, must be a
s)e%#al eecton, not a general eecton, n
whch offcers of the natona and oca
governments - such as the eectons
schedued to be hed on November 14,
1967 - w be chosen; and
4. The sprt of the Consttuton demands
that the eecton, n whch proposas for
amendment sha be submtted to the
peope for ratfcaton, must be hed under
such condtons - whch, aegedy, do not
exst - as to gve the peope a reasonabe
opportunty to have a far grasp of the
nature and mpcatons of sad
amendments.
Senator Arturo Toentno ob|ected to the
PHILCONSA petton on the foowng
grounds: a) that the Court has no
|ursdcton ether to grant the reef
sought n the petton, or to pass upon the
egaty of the composton of the House of
Representatves; b) that the petton, f
granted, woud, n effect, render n
operatona the egsatve department;
and c) that "the faure of Congress to
enact a vad reapportonment aw . . .
does not have the ega effect of renderng
ega the House of Representatves
eected thereafter, nor of renderng ts
acts nu and vod."
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the SC has |ursdcton.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.17
Yes. "The |udca department s the ony
consttutona organ whch can be caed
upon to determne the proper aocaton of
powers between the severa departments
and among the ntegra or consttuent
unts thereof." - Dr. |ose P. Laure, 0ngara
*. Ele%toral Comm#ss#on.

The force of the precedent n Ma/anag *s.
5o)e6 V#to decarng the ssue to be
"merey potca" has been weakened by
S$anes *s. Ch#ef 0%%o$ntant of the
Senate, Aveno vs. Cuenco, Taada vs.
Cuenco, and Ma%#as *s. Comm#ss#on on
Ele%t#ons. In the frst, we hed that the
offcers and empoyees of the Senate
Eectora Trbuna are under ts supervson
and contro, not of that of the Senate
Presdent, as camed by the atter; n the
second, ths Court proceeded to determne
the number of Senators necessary for a
4$or$m n the Senate; n the thrd, we
nufed the eecton, by Senators
beongng to the party havng the argest
number of votes n sad chamber,
purportng to act on behaf of the party
havng the second argest number of votes
theren, of two (2) Senators beongng to
the frst party, as members, for the second
party, of the, Senate Eectora Trbuna;
and n the fourth, we decared
unconsttutona an act of Congress
purportng to apporton the representatve
dstrcts for the House of Representatves,
upon the ground that the apportonment
had not been made as may be possbe
accordng to the number of nhabtants of
each provnce. Thus we re|ected the
theory, advanced n these four (4) cases,
that the ssues theren rased were
potca questons the determnaton of
whch s beyond |udca revew.
In short, the ssue whether or not a
Resouton of Congress - actng as a
consttuent assemby - voates the
Consttuton essentay |ustcabe, not
potca, and, hence, sub|ect to |udca
revew, and, to the extent that ths vew
may be nconsstent wth the stand taken
n Ma/anag *s. 5o)e6 V#to, the atter
shoud be deemed modfed accordngy.
The Members of the Court are unanmous
on ths pont.
(2) WON R.A. 4913 s unconsttutona.
No, t s consttutona. Even though t s
urged that the Congress became
unconsttutona because the
Apportonment Act was deemed ega
(act was not made accordng to the
number of nhabtants of the dfferent
provnces of the Phppnes), ths
argument snt tenabe. Faure to make
the apportonment does not dssove
Congress or makes t ega.
On the argument that the actng congress
was unconsttutona because t faed to
apporton tsef wthn three years, ths s
untenabe. The fact that Congress s
under ega obgaton to make sad
apportonment does not |ustfy, however,
the concuson that faure to compy wth
such obgaton rendered Congress ega
or unconsttutona, or that ts Members
have become &e fa%to offcers.
On the argument of the pettoners that
Congress may ony amend or ca a
conventon but not do both, the SC rued
that ths was a queston of wsdom and
not authorty and hence was a potca
queston.
On the choce between a speca eecton
and a genera eecton, a ma|orty of the
SC, but not enough to consttute a
quafed ma|orty needed to decare a aw
unconsttutona, was of the vew that the
sprt of the Consttuton demanded that
"eecton" be read as "speca eecton" n
order that the transcendenta mportance
of a consttona amendment coud
command the undvded attenton of the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.1'
eectorate. The mnorty but prevang
vew, however, sad:
"Ths, certany, s a stuaton to be hoped
for. It s a goa the attanment of whch
shoud be promoted. The dea condtons
are, however, one thng. The queston
whether the Consttuton forbds the
submsson of proposas for amendment to
the peope except under such condtons,
s another thng. Much as the wrter and
those who concur n ths opnon admre
the contrary vew, they fnd themseves
unabe to subscrbe thereto wthout, n
effect, readng nto the Consttuton what
they beeve s not wrtten thereon and
can not fary be deduced from the etter
thereof, snce the sprt of the aw shoud
not be a matter of sheer specuaton. "
On the ssue of nsuffcency of the
pubcty and tme for dscusson afforded
by the mechansm of ratfcaton provded
by the egsature, agan the mnorty but
prevang opnon sad:
"We do not beeve t has been
satsfactory shown that Congress has
exceeded the mts thereof n enactng
Repubc Act No. 4913. Presumaby, t
coud have done somethng better to
enghten the peope on the sub|ect-
matter thereof. But, then, no aw s
perfect. No product of human endeavor s
beyond mprovement. Otherwse, no
egsaton woud be consttutona and
vad."
7
#olentino v. CO"ELEC
!ctober 16, 1971, "arredo, J.
Facts:
7
Despte ths decson of the SC whch ceared the
way for the pebscte, the pebscte nevertheess,
overwhemngy, re|ected Resoutons 1 and 3. -
Mars.
After the Consttona Conventon of 1971
came nto beng and after ts eecton of
deegates, the conventon, on Sept. 28,
1971, approved ts frst forma proposa to
amend the Consttuton by Organc
Resouton No. 1 (Lowerng the Votng Age
to 18 n Artce V). Arturo M. Toentno fed
a petton for prohbton to restran
COMELEC from hodng a pebscte on
November 8 at whch the proposed
amendment coud be ratfed by the
peope.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON ony Congress can ca a
pebscte for ratfcaton of amendments.
The SC chose not to answer the queston
on whether or not the power to ca a
pebscte was excusvey egsatve. "In
the vew the Court takes of the present
case, t does not perceve absoute
necessty to resove that queston, grave
and mportant as t may be Truth to te,
the ack of unanmty or even of a
consensus among the members of the
Court n respect to ths ssue creates the
need for more study and deberaton, and
as tme s of the essence n ths case, for
obvous reasons, November 8, 1971, the
date set by the Conventon for the
pebscte t s cang, beng ngh, We w
refran from makng any pronouncement
or expressng Our vews on ths queston
unt a more approprate case comes to
Us. After a, the bass of ths decson s as
mportant and decsve as any can be."
ARTICLE XV AMENDMENTS
SECTION 1. The Congress n |ont sesson
assembed, by a vote of three-fourths of
a the Members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatves votng
separatey may propose amendments to
ths Consttuton or ca a conventon for
the purpose. Such amendments sha be
vad as part of ths Consttuton when
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.19
approved by a ma|orty of the votes cast
at an eecton at whch the amendments
are submtted to the peope for ther
ratfcaton.
(2) WON Sec. 1 Artce XV s voated by
the act of the Conventon n cang for a
pebscte on the soe amendment
contaned n Organc Resouton No. 1 and
s thus unconsttutona.
Yes. "The Court hods that there s |a
voaton|, and t s the condton and
mtaton that a the amendments to be
proposed by the same Conventon must
be submtted to the peope n a snge
"eecton" or pebscte. It beng
ndsputabe that the amendment now
proposed to be submtted to a pebscte s
ony the frst amendment the Conventon
w propose We hod that the pebscte
beng caed for the purpose of submttng
the same for ratfcaton of the peope on
November 8, 1971 s not authorzed by
Secton 1 of Artce XV of the Consttuton,
hence a acts of the Conventon and the
respondent COMELEC n that drecton are
nu and vod."
Barredo reasoned out hs grammatca
argument by sayng that parta
amendments do not refect a study of the
whoe Consttuton n ts entrety whch s
necessary n order to amend a fragment
or porton of ts parts. Thus, a snge
eecton of these amendments ensures
that a the proposed and accepted
amendments are compatbe wth the
entre Consttuton and not |ust wthn the
provsons scope.
"We are not denyng any rght of the
peope to vote on the proposed
amendment; We are ony hodng that
under Secton 1, Artce XV of the
Consttuton, the same shoud be
submtted to them not separatey from but
together wth a the other amendments to
be proposed by ths present Conventon."
O00ena v. CO"ELEC
#pril $, 19%1, Fernando, C.J.
Facts:
Occena and Gonzaes fed an acton of
prohbton aganst the vadty of three
Batasang Pambansa Resoutons
proposng consttutona amendments,
thereby mpyng the asserton that the
1973 Consttuton s not the fundamenta
aw, regardess of the recent |aveana
rung.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the 1973 Consttuton s the
fundamenta aw of the and.
Yes. It s too ate to deny the appcabty
of the 1973 Consttuton. Ths was aready
decded on by a 6-4 vote n |aveana v.
Executve Secretary. "There s no further
obstace to the new consttuton beng
consdered n force and effect."
(2) WON the Batasang Pambansa has the
power to propose amendments:
Yes t does. The exstence of the power of
the 7nter#m Batasang Pambansa s
ndubtabe. The appcabe provson n
the 1976 Amendments s qute expct.
Insofar as pertnent t reads thus: "The
7nter#m Batasang Pambansa sha have the
same powers and ts Members sha have
the same functons, responsbtes, rghts,
prveges, and dsquafcatons as the
#nter#m Natona Assemby and the reguar
Natona Assemby and the Members
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.20
thereof." One of such powers s precsey
that of proposng amendments.
Pettoners woud argue that the
amendments proposed are so extensve
as to consttute a revson. "At any rate,
whether the Consttuton s merey
amended n part or revsed or totay
changed woud become mmatera the
moment the same s ratfed by the
soveregn peope."
Regardng the ssue of votes necessary to
propose amendments as we as the
standard for proper submsson,
pettoners have not made out a case that
cas for a |udgment n ther favor. The
anguage of the Consttuton suppes the
answer to the above questons. The
7nter#m Batasang Pambansa, sttng as a
consttuent body, can propose
amendments. In that capacty, ony a
ma|orty vote s needed. It woud be an
ndefensbe proposton to assert that the
three-fourth votes requred when t sts as
a egsatve body appes as we when t
has been convened as the agency through
whch amendments coud be proposed.
#ee*an9ee5 $. (Dissenting)-
1. Under the prevang doctrne of
"olent#no *s. Comele% that the proposed
amendments to be vad must come from
the consttutona agency vested wth the
consttuent power to do so, .e. n the
Interm Natona Assemby provded n the
Transtory Artce XVII whch woud then
have to be convened and not from the
executve power as vested n the
Presdent (Prme Mnster) from whom
such consttuent power has been wthhed.
2. As restated by me n the 1977 case of
8#&algo, under the controng doctrne of
"olent#no, the October 1976 consttutona
amendments whch created the Interm
Batasang Pambansa n eu of the Interm
Natona Assemby were nvad snce as
rued by the Court theren, consttutona
provsons on amendments "deang wth
the procedure or manner of amendng the
fundamenta aw are bndng upon the
Conventon and the other departments of
the government (and) are no ess bndng
upon the peope" and "the very Idea of
deparcng from the fundamenta aw s
anachronstc n the ream of
consttutonasm and repugnant to the
essence of the rue of aw." The proposed
amendments at bar havng been adopted
by the Interm Batasang Pambansa as the
frut of the nvad October, 1976
amendments must necessary suffer from
the same congenta nfrmty.
3. Prescndng from the foregong and
assumng the vadty of the proposed
amendments, I reterate my stand n
San#&a& that the doctrne of far and
proper submsson frs enuncated by a
smpe ma|orty of sx |ustces (of an
eeven member Court pror to the 1973
Consttuton whch ncreased the offca
composton of the Court to ffteen) n
9on6ales *s. Comele% and subsequenty
offcay adopted by the requred
consttutona two-thrds ma|orty vote of
the Court (of eght votes, then) n
"olent#no s fuy appcabe n the case at
bar. The three resoutons proposng
compex, compcated and radca
amendments of our very structure of
government were consdered and
approved by the Interm Batasang
Pambansa sttng as a consttuent
assemby on February 27, 1981. It set the
date of the pebscte for thrty-nne days
ater on Apr 7, 1981 whch s totay
nadequate and far short of the nnety-day
perod fxed by the Consttuton for
submtta to the peope to "suffcenty
nform them of the amendments to be
voted upon, to conscentousy deberate
thereon and to express ther w n a
genune manner."
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.21
4. "The mnmum requrements that must
be met n order that there can be a proper
submsson to the peope of a proposed
consttutona amendment" as stated by
retred |ustce Conrado V. Sanchez n hs
separate opnon n 9on6ales bears
repeatng as foows: "... we take the vew
that the words 'submtted to the peope
for ther ratfcaton,' f construed n the
ght of the nature of the Consttuton - a
fundamenta charter that s egsaton
drect from the peope, an expresson of
ther soveregn w - s that t can ony be
amended by the peope expressng
themseves accordng to the procedure
ordaned by the Consttuton. Therefore,
amendments must be fary ad before the
peope for ther bessng or spurnng. The
peope are not to be mere rubber stamps.
They are not to vote bndy. They must be
afforded ampe opportunty to mu over
the orgna provsons, compare them wth
the proposed amendments, and try to
reach a concuson as the dctates of ther
conscence suggest, free from the ncubus
of extraneous or possby nsdous
nfuences. We beeve the word
'submtted' can ony mean that the
government, wthn ts maxmum
capabtes, shoud stran every short to
nform every ctzen of the provsons to be
amended, and the proposed amendments
and the meanng, nature and effects
thereof. ... What the Consttuton n effect
drects s that the government, n
submttng an amendment for ratfcaton,
shoud put every nstrumentaty or
agency wthn ts structura framework to
enghten the peope, educate them wth
respect to ther act of ratfcaton or
re|ecton. For, as we have earer stated,
one thng s submsson and another s
ratfcaton. There must be far submsson,
ntegent consent or re|ecton. If wth a
these safeguards the peope st approve
the amendments no matter how
pre|udca t s to them, then so be t. For
the peope decree ther own fate."
|ustce Sanchez theren ended the passage
wth an apt ctaton that "... The great men
who buded the structure of our state n
ths respect had the menta vson of a
good Consttuton voced by |udge Cooey,
who has sad 'A good Consttuton shoud
be beyond the reach of temporary
exctement and popuar caprce or
passon. It s needed for stabty and
steadness; t must yed to the thought of
the peope; not to the whm of the peope,
or the thought evoved n exctement, or
hot bood, but the sober second thought,
whch aone f the government s to be
safe, can be aowed effcacy ... Changes
n government are to be feard uness
beneft s certan.' As Montagn says: 'A
great mutaton shake and dsorder a state.
Good does not necessary succeed ev;
another ev may succeed and a worse."'
&lmario v. &l6a
1an$ar+ 2, 19'4, 9$t#erre6, 1r., 1.
Facts:
The Fpno eectorate w go to the pos
to approve or re|ect amendments to the
Consttuton proposed by resoutons of
the Batasang Pambansa. Pettoners seek
to deay the date of ratfcaton/re|ecton n
order to gve ampe tme to study the
ramfcatons of the two questons stated
n Oueston No. 3 and No. 4 .
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5
Page No.22
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON Ouestons No. 3 and No. 4 have
been propery submtted to the peope.
Yes. The Consttuton provdes, under Sec.
2, Art. 16, a perod of three months for an
nformaton campagn regardng the
ntended amendments. The suffcency of
the perod durng whch amendments are
submtted to the peope before they vote
to ether affrm or re|ect depends on the
compexty and ntrcacy of the questons
presented. The pettoners have faed to
show that the addton of the one word
"grant" to Secton 11, Artce XIV or that
the addton of two paragraphs ncudng
one on urban and reform to Secton 12 of
Artce XIV resut n amendments of such
nature that when the peope go to the
pos on |anuary 27, 1984 they cannot
arrve at an ntegent |udgment on ther
acceptabty or non-acceptabty.
More mportant, however, s that the
necessty, expedency, and wsdom of the
proposed amendments are beyond the
power of the courts to ad|udcate.
Precsey, whether or not "grant" of pubc
and and "urban and reform" are unwse
or mprovdent or whether or not the
proposed amendments are unnecessary s
a matter whch ony the peope can
decde. The questons are presented for
ther determnaton. Assumng that a
member or some members of ths Court
may fnd undesrabe any addtona mode
of dsposng of pubc and or an urban
and reform program, the remedy s to
vote "NO" n the pebscte but not to
substtute hs or ther averson to the
proposed amendments by denyng to the
mons of voters an opportunty to
express ther own kes or dskes. The
ssue before us has nothng to do wth the
wsdom of the proposed amendments,
ther desrabty, or the danger of the
power beng abused. The ssue s whether
or not the voters are aware of the wsdom,
the desrabty, or the dangers of abuse.
The pettoners have faed to make out a
case that the average voter does not know
the meanng of "grant" of pubc and or of
"urban and reform."
#ee*an9ee5 $. (Dissenting)-
The doctrne of far and proper submsson
to the peope of proposed consttutona
amendments as enuncated by the Court
n Toentno vs. Comeec (41 SCRA 702,
729) mandates that "n order that a
pebscte for the ratfcaton of an
amendment to the Consttuton may be
vady hed, t must provde the voter not
ony suffcent tme, but ampe bass for an
ntegent apprasa of the nature of the
amendment per se as we as ts reaton
to the other parts of the Consttuton wth
whch t has to form a harmonous whoe."
There must be far submsson and
ntegent consent or re|ecton.
As the ate |ustce Conrado V. Sanchez
stressed n hs separate opnon n the
earer case of Gonzaes vs. Comeec,
concurred n by the ate Chef |ustce Fred
Ruz Castro and |ustce Caxto Zadvar,
(21 SCRA 774, 817), the peope must be
"suffcenty nformed of the amendments
to be voted upon, to conscentousy
deberate thereon, to express ther w n
a genune manner."
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2(
'%!D&"E!#&L PI!CIPLE(
&!D
(#&#E POLICIE(
Lim v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
;
2002, :e 5eon, 1r. 1
Two years after the VFA was approved n 1999, the terrorst attacks
9/11 prompted Amerca to decare an nternatona terrorst
campagn. Pres. GMA pedged the countrys support to the
endeavor.
On |anuary 2002, members of the USAF (Unted States Armed
Forces) arrved n Mndanao to, aong wth the AFP, take part n the
"Bakatan 02-1" exercses. The next month, the Senate, after
conductng a hearng on the mtary exercse, approved the Draft
Terms of Reference upon presentaton by then VP Gungona.
Pettoners Lm and Ersando fed ths petton for certorar and
prohbton attackng the consttutonaty of the |ont exercse. They
fed sut as ctzens, awyers and taxpayers. Two party-st
ntervenors, SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGAGAWA, aver that
some of ther members are resdents of Zamboanga and Suu and
thus are drecty affected by operatons conducted n Mndanao.
They argue (a) that the Abu-Sayyaf bandts do not consttute an
externa armed force and thus, the Phppnes s not sub|ect to
armed externa attack contempated n the MDT (mutua defense
treaty) of 1951 to warrant US mtary assstance. They aso cam
that the VFA sgned n 1999 does not authorze US soders to
engage n combat operatons n Phppne terrtory, not even to fre
back f fred upon.
8
A ot of dssentng opnons. Too azy. W get back to them when I have tme.
Issues/Held/atio:
(1) WON pettoners have ega standng.
No. They cannot fe sut as taxpayers because the mtary exercse
does not nvove Congress taxng or spendng powers. Beng
awyers does not nvest them wth personaty to ntate the case
and they have faed to demonstrate the requste of sufferng
proxmate n|ury. Issues rased premature and based on a fear of
future voatons of the Terms of Reference.
(2) WON the "Bakatan" exercses voate the Consttuton.
No. Pettoners cam that t voates the Renuncaton Cause of the
Consttuton (The Phppnes renounces war as an nstrument of
natona pocy) but nether the MDT nor the VFA aow foregn
troops to engage n an offensve war on Phppne terrtory. The
VFA permts the USAF to engage, on an mpermanent bass, n
"actvtes". The word was used to gve eeway n negotaton by
both partes. In ths manner, the US may so|ourn n the Phppnes
for purposes other than mtary. Combat-reated actvtes, as
opposed to combat, are authorzed by the MDT and the VFA.
Athough nternatona aws are adhered to, as expressed by the
Indoctrnaton Cause, t does not mpy prmacy of nternatona aw
over natona aw. The Consttuton espouses a vew that has
marked antpathy towards foregn mtary presence n the country.
The Court, f t sees that the treaty runs counter to Congress or
goes aganst the fundamenta aw, can nufy such an agreement.
But n the case at bar, the queston s WON Amercan troops are
engaged n combat aongsde Fpno soders under the guse of
aeged tranng and exercse. The Court cannot answer ths
queston because t acks suffcent nformaton. Newspapers or
eectronc reports per se cannot be consdered apt support for
pettoners aegatons. Facts must be estabshed accordng to the
rues of evdence. WON Pres. GMA s engaged n doubespeak
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.24
nvoves a queston of fact. the queston s thus not ft for a speca
cv acton for certorar.
Petton s thereby dsmssed.
Las0o5 et. al. v. %!'!E
;e/. 2(, 199, <$#ason, 1.
Facts:
Lasco, et. a were dsmssed from the Unted Natons Revovng
Fund for Natura Resources Exporaton (UNRFNRE), whch s a
speca fund and subsdary organ of the Unted Natons. The
UNRFNRE s nvoved n a |ont pro|ect of the Phppne Government
and the Unted Natons for exporaton work n Dnagat Isand. They
fed sut wth the Labor Arbter for ega dsmssa and damages.
Respondent UNRFNRE fed a moton to dsmss camng the Labor
Arbter had no |ursdcton because the respondent en|oyed
dpomatc mmunty (ctng the 1946 Conventon on the Prveges
and Immuntes of the Unted Natons).
9

Labor Arbter subsequenty dsmssed the cam made by the
pettoner. Wth ther moton for reconsderaton dened, they
proceeded to appea wth NLRC whch affrmed the Labor Arbters
decson. Wthout seekng a reconsderaton of the resouton, they
fed an nstant petton for certorar n the SC.
Pettoners argued that the acts of mnng exporaton and
expotaton are outsde the offca functons of an nternatona
agency protected by dpomatc mmunty. Even assumng that
9
In support thereof, prvate respondent attached a etter from the Department of
Foregn Affars dated August 26, 1991, whch acknowedged ts mmunty from sut.
The etter confrmed that prvate respondent, beng a speca fund admnstered by
the Unted Natons, was covered by the 1946 Conventon on the Prveges and
Immuntes of the Unted Natons of whch the Phppne Government was an orgna
sgnatory (Roo, p. 21).
prvate respondent was entted to dpomatc mmunty, pettoners
nssted that prvate respondent waved t when t engaged n
exporaton work and entered nto a contract of empoyment wth
pettoners.
Pettoners, kewse, nvoked the consttutona mandate that the
State sha afford fu protecton to abor and promote fu
empoyment and equaty of empoyment opportuntes for a (1987
Consttuton, Art. XIII, Sec. 3).
The Offce of the Soctor Genera s of the vew that prvate
respondent s covered by the mante of dpomatc mmunty.
Prvate respondent s a specfed agency of the Unted Natons.
Under Artce 105 of the Charter of the Unted Natons.
10
10
"1. The Organzaton sha en|oy n the terrtory of ts Members such prveges
and mmuntes as are necessary for the fufment of ts purposes.
"2. Representatves of the Members of the Unted Natons and offcas of the
Organzaton sha smary en|oy such prveges and mmuntes as are necessary
for the ndependent exercse of ther functons n connecton wth the Organzaton."
Coroary to the cted artce s the Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of
the Specazed Agences of the Unted Natons, to whch the Phppnes was a
sgnatory (Vo. 1, Phppne Treaty Seres, p. 621.) We quote Sectons 4 and 5 of
Artce III thereof:
"Sec. 4. The specazed agences, ther property and assets, wherever ocated
and by whomsoever hed, sha en|oy mmunty from every form of ega process
except nsofar as n any partcuar case they have expressy waved ther mmunty.
It s, however, understood that no waver of mmunty sha extend to any measure
of executon mphass supped).
"Sec. 5. The premses of the specazed agences sha be nvoabe. The property
and assets of the specazed agences, wherever ocated and by whomsoever hed,
sha be mmune from search, requston, confscaton, expropraton and any other
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2
Issues/Held/ation:
WON the respondent s mmune by vrtue of ts dpomatc status.
As a matter of state pocy as expressed n the Consttuton, the
Phppne Government adopts the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw (1987 Consttuton, Art. II, Sec. 2). Beng a
member of the Unted Natons and a party to the Conventon on the
Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed Agences of the Unted
Natons, the Phppne Government adheres to the doctrne of
mmunty granted to the Unted Natons and ts specazed
agences. Both treates have the force and effect of aw.
Our courts can ony assume |ursdcton over prvate respondent f t
expressy waved ts mmunty, whch s not so n the case at bench
(Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed
Agences of the Unted Natons, Art. III, Sec. 4).
Prvate respondent s not engaged n a commerca venture n the
Phppnes. Its presence here s by vrtue of a |ont pro|ect entered
nto by the Phppne Government and Unted Natons for mnera
exporaton n Dnagat Isand. Its msson s not to expot our
natura resources and gan pecunary thereby but to hep mprove
the quaty of fe of the peope, ncudng that of pettoners.
Ths s not to say that pettoners have no recourse. Secton 31 of
the Conventon on the Prveges and Immuntes of the Specazed
Agences of the Unted Natons states that "each specazed
agency sha make a provson for approprate modes of settement
of: (a) dsputes arsng out of contracts or other dsputes of prvate
character to whch the specazed agency s a party."
"e<o// v. Dire0tor O/ Prisons
form of nterference, whether by executve, admnstratve, |udca or egsatve
acton".
191 (1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
a 2
nd
pettton for habeas corpus by Bors Me|off (a Russan who
was brought to the country from Shangha as a secret operatve by
the |apanese)
Facts:
Me|off was arrested as a |apanese spy upon Ph beraton by the
US Counter Integence Corps; he was handed to the
Commonweath for dsposton accordng to Commonweath Act No.
682. The Peopes Court ater reeased hm.
The Deportaton Board found that he had no trave documents and
was thus an ega aen.
The Board of Commssoners of Immgraton decared that he
entered the country egay n 1944 and was ordered deported
mmedatey
Has been n detenton ever snce (faed attempts to deport hm)
whe authortes try to make new trave arrangements
The Court hed that temporary detenton s a necessary step n the
process of expuson of undesrabe aens and sad detenton for a
reasonabe ength of tme s a Government rght
No perod was fxed wthn whch mmgraton
authortes woud carry out the deportaton
"Reasonabe tme" depends on the
crcumstances
Issue/Held/
WON Me|off shoud be dscharged from custody
Wrt w ssue commandng pettoners reease w/ terms: sha be
paced under surveance; w put up a bond as surety
atio:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.26
Non-enemy Foregn natonas aganst whom no charge has been
made other than the expry of ther permsson to stay may not be
ndefntey kept n detenton
Protecton aganst deprvaton of berty wthout due process s not
mted to Fpnos (extends to everyone except enemy aens)
11
Art 2, Sec. 3 - the Phs adopts the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw as part of the aw of the Naton
Phs was part of UN Genera Assemby that approved Unversa
Decaraton of Human Rghts.
Sad Decaraton outned:
A human bengs are born free and equa n rghts
Everyone s entted to the freedoms set forth n ths
Decaraton w/o makng any dstnctons
Everyone has the rght to an effectve remedy by competent
trbunas for acts voatng fundamenta rghts granted to
hm by the Const or aw
No one s&all be sub'ect to arbitrar( arrest, detention
or e)ile
Phppne aw on mmgraton was coped from US aw, thus the
reasonng n Stanszewsk v. Watkns appes (wrt of habeas corpus
was sustaned. Pettoner was reeased w/ condton to nform
mmgraton offcas of hs whereabouts every month unt he can
be propery deported)
Further, pettoner has no pendng charges aganst hm and the
prospects of brngng any aganst hm are sm and remote.
)uro+a v. $alan+oni
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
11
Note: Pettoners entry n to the Phs was not unawfu as was brought n by a de
facto begerent |ap govt (decrees were aw)
Nature:
Petton to decare EO No. 68
12
nvad/ petton to prohbt
proceedng wth the case
Facts:
Kuroda was formery a Lt. Genera of the |apanese Army and
Commandng Genera of the |apanese forces n the Phs. he s now
charged before a mtary commsson convened by the Chef of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Phppnes wth havng faed to
dscharge hs dutes
13
Kuroda now pettons SC to estabsh the egaty of EO No. 68
because (a) t voates oca aws and consttuton and (b) because
the Phs. s not a sgnatory of the Hague Conventon on Rues and
reguatons coverng Land Warfare
Issues/Held/atio:
(1) WON EO No. 68 s vad
Yes. SC says t s vad and consttutona
Art. 2, Sec. 3 of Const - Phs. renounces war as an nstrument of
natona pocy and adopts the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw as part of the naton
The Hague Conventon and Geneva Conventons form part of and
are whoy based on the generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw.
12
EO No. 68 - estabshed a Natona War Crmes Offce prescrbng rue and
reguaton governng the tra of accused war crmnas.
13
ettng those n hs command to commt atroctes and other hgh crmes aganst
cvans and prsoners n voaton of the aws and customs of war
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.27
Snce both US and |apan sgned them, ther prncpes form part of
our aw even f Phs. was not a sgnatory
Phs. was under the soveregnty of the US at the tme the crmes
were commtted so we are equay bound to uphod the prncpe
Rghts and obgatons were not erased by assumpton of
soveregnty
Internatona |ursprudence estabshed that a persons who have
been guty of pannng or stagng a war, commttng atrocous
crmes and offenses, etc are to be hed accountabe
14
(2) WON respondents Hussey and Port can partcpate n
prosecutng pettoners case
Yes. It s not voatve of Const because the Mtary Commsson s
a speca mtary trbuna governed by a speca aw and not by
ROC whch govern cv courts. Nothng n EO. 68 whch says that
partcpatng awyers have to be quafed n the Phs. Common n
mtary trbunas that counses are usuay mtary persona
Sprt of comty esp. snce US s a party n nterest
E2 No. 6' #s *al#&. M#l#tar+ %omm#ss#on %an )ro%ee&.
)oo9oorit0*9in v. (oli0itor General
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
14
EO No. 68 s n conformty wth ths
Nature:
Appea from a decson of ower court denyng petton for
naturazaton of Eremes Kookoortchkn
Facts:
Kookoo apped for ctzenshp under Commonweath Act 473 as
amended by Act 535
Estabshed at the hearng that he was a natve born Russan and
grew up n Russa under the czars. When Boshevks took over, he
fed the country and found hs way to Mana n 1923
Permanenty estabshed resdence n Camarnes Sur on May 1925
Remaned a resdent except from 1942-1945
because he became an underground guera
offcer. After the beraton, he went back to
Camarnes
Has resded n Phs. for about 25 years
Marred to a Fpna wth whom he has a son
Works as a shop superntendent wth about 80 Pnoys under hm.
Gets ncome
Can speak Engsh and Bco daect. Intermnges wth Pnoys. Has
good mora character and beeves n the Ph Consttuton
Appcant coud have been chummy wth the |apanese but nstead,
chose to fght n guera movement
Athough a Russan by brth, he dscams aegance to the present
Communst govt of Russa. He s thus STATELESS and a REFUGEE of
ths country
Issues/Held/atio:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2'
(1) WON decaraton of ntenton to become a Fpno ctzen s
nvad and nsuffcent as a bass for the petton for naturazaton
Sec. 5 of Revsed Naturazaton Law - No decaraton sha be vad
unt entry for permanent resdence has been estabshed and a
certfcate showng the date, pace and manner of arrva has been
ssued
. Ony a reconsttuted decaraton was
presented as the records of the Bureau of
|ustce were destroyed durng the batte for
the beraton of Mana
. Even f reconsttuted, decaraton s st vad
coz proven by other competent evdence
(2) WON Kookoo estabshed a ega resdence n the Phs and WON
he can speak and wrte n Ph. Languages
Testmones on the record show that he was a ega resdent for a
contnuous perod of not ess than 10years as requred by Sec. 2 of
Commonweath Act No. 473
Lower court found that he coud speak and wrte Engsh and Bco.
Besdes, no specfc standard has been set on the use of the
prncpa Ph. Languages
(3) WON Kookoo s reay stateess and WON he s dsquafed from
ctzenshp
Lower court s uphed n pronouncng Kookoo stateess.
Appeees testmony s uncontradcted and t s a we known fact
that modern dctatorshps have scattered stateess refugees a
over the word.
Kookoo owes and fees no aegance to Russa
0))eale& &e%#s#on #s 0;;7>ME:.
1
15
|acke: Kookoo s Pnoy!
2amas*ita v. (t1er
(1a%=#e Es)en#lla!
Nature:
Petton for habeas corpus and prohbton aganst Lt. Gen. Styer
(Commandng Genera of the US Army Forces)
Facts:
Yamashta was the commandng genera of the 14
th
army group of
the |apanese army n the Phs and s now charged before the
Amercan mtary commsson for commttng henous acts aganst
Amercans and Pnoys
Was orgnay cassfed as prsoner of war but was ater changed to
war crmna
Yamashta now wants to be changed back to prsoner of war and
that the mtary commsson be prohbted from further tryng hm
Issues/Held/atio:
WON Yamashta may seek wrt of habeas corpus
Nope. Petton DENIED.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.29
Untenabe. He doesnt seek dscharge from confnement, |ust
restoraton to od status as POW
. Degree of confnement s a matter of mtary
measure, beyond |ursdcton of cv court
. Mtary Commsson has been vady
consttuted and has |ursdcton over
pettoner (coz Yamashta fe nto the hands
of the US army)
Under Par. 356 of the Rues of the Land Warfare, a Mtary
Commsson for the tra and punshment of war crmnas must be
desgnated by the begerent (the begerents representatve n
ths case s Styer)
Accordng to the Reguatons Governng the Tra of War Crmnas
n the Pacfc, the tra of persons, unts and organzatons accused
as war crmnas w be the Mtary Commssons to be convened
by or under the authorty of the Commander n Chef, US Army
Forces.
Artces of War Nos. 12 and 15 recognzed the mtary Commsson
apponted by mtary command as an approprate trbuna for the
tra and punshment of offenses aganst the aw of the war not
ordnary tred by court marta.
16
Further, t s aeged that Span (|apans protectng power) as not
gven due notce before tra was begun aganst pettoner, contrary
to provson of Geneva conventon.
17
16
Yamashta s charged wth permttng atroctes ke rape of young grs, massacre
of noncombatants, destructon of property - offenses descrbed n Par. 347 of the
Rues of Land Warfare
17
Nothng n Conventon sayng that notce s a prerequste to the |ursdcton of
mtary commssons apponted by vctorous begerent. Span has aso severed
dpomatc reaton wth |apan
I.P v. 4amora
0$g$st 1, 2000, ?a)$nan, 1.
Facts:
IBP aeged that Erap, n orderng the mtary depoyed n Mana,
commtted grave abuse of dscreton because: (a) no emergency
exsted, and thus no mtary depoyment was warranted; and (b)
through Letters of Instructon formuated by the head of the
natona poce, the |ont exercse of Task Force Tuungan (as
vsbty patros) conducted by the marnes and the PNP was a
voaton of cvan supremacy because the task of aw enforcement
was cvan n nature.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the IBP has standng.
No. They faed to present a specfc and substanta nterest n the
resouton of the case. "Uphodng the rue of aw and the
consttuton" s not suffcent to cothe t wth standng. Ths s too
genera an nterest whch s shared by other groups and the whoe
ctzenry.
(2) WON the Presdents decson s sub|ect to |udca revew.
Yes. When the Presdent cas out the mtary to prevent or
suppress awess voence, the Court cannot queston the wsdom or
substtute ts own. However, t can st conduct an examnaton on
whether such a decson was exercsed wthn permssbe
consttutona mts or whether or not t was exercsed consttutng
grave abuse of dscreton.
In eu of such a decson made by the Presdent, t s ncumbent for
the pettoners to show that the decson was wthout factua bass.
No evdence of such nature was adduced.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(0
(3) WON grave abuse of dscreton was commtted n cang out the
mtary when no emergency exsted.
In the words of the ate |ustce Irene Cortes n Marcos v. Mangapus:
"More partcuary, ths case cas for the exercse of the Presdents
powers as protector of the peace. |Rosster, The Amercan
Presdency|. The power of the Presdent to keep the peace s not
mted merey to exercsng the commander-n-chef powers n
tmes of emergency or to eadng the State aganst externa and
nterna threats to ts exstence. The Presdent s not ony cothed
wth extraordnary powers n tmes of emergency, but s aso tasked
wth attendng to the day-to-day probems of mantanng peace
and order and ensurng domestc tranquty n tmes when no
foregn foe appears on the horzon. Wde dscreton, wthn the
bounds of aw, n fufng presdenta dutes n tmes of peace s
not n any way dmnshed by the reatve want of an emergency
specfed n the commander-n-chef provson. For n makng the
Presdent commander-n-chef the enumeraton of powers that
foow cannot be sad to excude the Presdents exercsng as
Commander-n-Chef powers short of the cang of the armed
forces, or suspendng the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus or
decarng marta aw, n order to keep the peace, and mantan
pubc order and securty."
(4) WON n depoyng the marnes, the Presdent voated the
cvan supremacy cause.
IBP contends that wth the sad agreement, the cvan task of aw
enforcement s mtarzed and s thus n voaton of Sec. 3, Artce II
of the Consttuton.
Court rues that there s no breach. The |ont exercse merey
consttutes a permssbe use of mtary assets for cvan aw
enforcement; mtary partcpaton n the conduct of |ont vsbty
patros s appropratey crcumscrbed as evdenced by the LOI.
Furthermore, eadershp s vested n the PNP, a cvan nsttuton,
and ther assgned roe specfcay gves them the responsbty of
drectng and managng the depoyment of the marnes.
There s no ncurson of the mtary because the marnes werent
ncorporated or ensted as members of the PNP - the marnes, n
effect, merey provded assstance n these vsbty patros; hence,
such depoyment does not destroy the cvan character of the PNP.
As evdenced by the ong hstory of mtary and cvan agences
workng n tandem wth each other, the |ont vsbty patros
nstead of showng the aeged derogaton of cvan supremacy,
shows mutua support and cooperaton n the depoyment of the
marnes.
Puno5 (eparate-
He contends that the executve branchs decson to coud ts
actvtes under the potca queston doctrne w not suffce.
"en+o,a5 Dissenting5 Con0urring-
There beng no actua controversy manfest yet, the case shoud
not be heard, but he concurs wth the dsmssa of the petton
because of the ack of standng.
Pimentel v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
Facts:
The Rome Statute was sgned by the Phppnes through the DFA.
Its provsons, however, requred that t be sub|ect to ratfcaton,
acceptance and approva of the sgnatory states. Pmente, as
senator, fes a petton for mandamus camng that the ratfcaton
of a treaty (under domestc and nternatona aw) s a functon of
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(1
the Senate, hence, the Executve Dept. has a duty to transmt the
sgned statute to the Senate for ratfcaton.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON the ExecSec and DFA have a mnstera duty to transmt to
the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute.
No. As chef archtect of foregn pocy, Presdent s the countrys
mouthpece wth respect to nternatona affars. In the ream of
treaty makng, Presdent has the soe authorty to negotate wth
other states; ratfcaton s under hs/her authorty. The
Consttuton, however, provdes a mtaton to such power to ratfy
by vestng n the Senate, the power to concur wth the Presdents
decson. It does not the agency deegated to ratfy but the agency
to concur or not wth sad decson. The duty beng n the provnce
of the Presdents offca dutes, the court cannot compe the
Executve branch by means of mandamus because t s beyond ts
|ursdcton.
.a1an v. E:e0utive (e0retar1
2%to/er 10, 2000, -$ena, 1.
Facts:
The VFA, after beng ratfed and concurred wth, was put nto effect
on |une 1, 1999. Pettoners contend that such an agreement s n
voaton of Artce XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Consttuton. Respondents
cam that the appcabe provson s Artce VII Sec 21. snce the
VFA s not a basng arrangement but an agreement whch nvoves
temporary vsts engaged n |ont mtary exercses.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON pettoners have standng.
No. As concerned ctzens, taxpayers, and egsators, they fa to
show that they have sustaned or n danger of sustanng any drect
n|ury as a resut of the enforcement of the VFA. As taxpayers, the
VFA doesnt nvove the exercse by Congress n taxng/spendng
powers.
(2) WON the appcabe provson s that stated by the pettoners or
that stated by respondents.
When the respondent says that temporary vsts doesnt make t a
basng arrangement and thus nvadates the appcabty of Artce
XIII Sec. 25, the Court consders ths untenabe snce the
Consttuton does not make a dstncton between transent and
permanent bases. When the respondent avers that sad Artce
shoudnt be controng because no bases are nvoved but merey
troops and factes, the Court fnds t rreevant because the
provsons prohbton nvoves ether one of the ndependent
stuatons.
"It s our consdered vew that both consttutona provsons, far
from contradctng each other, actuay share some common
ground. These consttutona provsons both embody phrases n the
negatve and thus, are deemed prohbtory n mandate and
character. In partcuar, Secton 21 opens wth the cause "No
treaty x x x," and Secton 25 contans the phrase "sha not be
aowed." Addtonay, n both nstances, the concurrence of the
Senate s ndspensabe to render the treaty or nternatona
agreement vad and effectve."
"The fundamenta aw s crystane that the concurrence of the
Senate s mandatory to compy wth the strct consttutona
requrements" regardess of what provson s deemed appcabe.
The ony thng to consder now s whether a the requrements of
Artce XVIII Sec. 25 have been comped wth:
(a) t must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duy concurred
n by the Senate and, when so requred by congress, ratfed by a
ma|orty of the votes cast by the peope n a natona referendum;
and (c) recognzed as a treaty by the other contractng state.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(2
Pettoners say that there must be concurrence by the US Senate as
we as umnated by (c). Respondents cam that the ony thng
necessary s US recognton of the treaty whch was gven when the
US Ambassador stated the VFA was bndng.
The Court says : "To requre the other contractng state, the Unted
States of Amerca n ths case, to submt the VFA to the Unted
States Senate for concurrence pursuant to ts Consttuton, s to
accord strct meanng to the phrase."
"We-entrenched s the prncpe that the words used n the
Consttuton are to be gven ther ordnary meanng except where
technca terms are empoyed, n whch case the sgnfcance thus
attached to them prevas. Its anguage shoud be understood n the
sense they have n common use."
(ilva v. C&
Facts:
Marred busnessman Sva cohabted wth an unmarred actress
Gonzaes wthout beneft of a marrage. Athough they had two
chdren, they eventuay parted ways. Gonzaes refused to aow
Sva to be wth the chdren on weekends. Sva fed a petton for
custoda rghts before the RTC. Petton was opposed by the
mother of the chdren on the ground that Sva was a womanzer
and a gamber and such behavor woud have detrmenta effects
on the chdren. The RTC granted vstaton rghts whch Gonzaes
st contended despte her marryng a Dutch natona and
emgratng to Hoand wth the chdren. The CA rued n favor of
Gonzaes because t saw that the rotaton of custody woud not be
conducve to the wefare of the chdren.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON vstatons rght shoud be granted.
Yes. The Consttuton doesnt specfcay mandate the "natura and
prmary rghts of parents" to those who have egtmate
reatonshps wth ther chdren. And such vstatons, contrary to
the CAs rung, woud not affect the chdren to such an extent that
t woud be detrmenta to ther upbrngng.
3ernan+e, v. Court o/ &ppeals
Facts:
Marred for 11 years, wfe, former teacher of the husband n
coege, fes petton for annument on the ground of psychoogca
ncapacty for faure to support the famy and contrbute to the
management of the househod. She aeges that he spent most of
hs tme drnkng wth hs frends and that because of hs
extramarta reatons, he nfected her wth an STD - testament to
whch was confnement of both partes n a hospta for treatment.
RTC dsmssed the petton sayng: "The Court can underscore the
fact that the crcumstances mentoned by the pettoner n support
of her cam that respondent was "psychoogcay ncapactated" to
marry her are among the grounds cted by the aw as vad reasons
for the grant of ega separaton (Artce 55 of the Famy Code) -
not as grounds for a decaraton of nuty of marrages or
annument thereof." CA affrmed the decson of the RTC ctng
Santos v. CA: "It s cear n the above aw and |ursprudence that
the psychoogca ncapacty of a spouse, as a ground for
decaraton of nuty of marrage, must exst at the tme of the
ceebraton of marrage. More so, chronc sexua nfdety,
abandonment, gambng and use of prohbted drugs are not
grounds per se, of psychoogca ncapacty of a spouse."
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON the nstant case wth the crcumstances presented can serve
as a ground for psychoogca ncapacty.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.((
No. In the nstant case, other than her sef-servng decaratons,
pettoner faed to estabsh the fact that at the tme they were
marred, prvate respondent was sufferng from a psychoogca
defect whch n fact deprved hm of the abty to assume the
essenta dutes of marrage and ts concomtant responsbtes.
As the Court of Appeas ponted out, no evdence was presented to
show that prvate respondent was not cognzant of the basc
marta obgatons.
P#=# v. !LC
Facts:
A womans (Grace de Guzman) empoyment was termnated by
PT&T because of aeged conceament of cv status and
defacaton of company funds. De Guzman argues that the rea
reason she was fred was because she contracted the marred
durng empoyment whch s aganst company pocy. She admts,
however, that when she apped to work she ndcated she was
snge when, n fact, she was aready marred. She was remnded by
correspondence of the companys pocy of not acceptng marred
women as empoyees. She subscrbed to the defense that she
wasnt aware of such a pocy and thus, had no ntent to hde the
fact that she was aready marred. The abor arbter decded that
she was dscrmnated aganst because of havng contracted
marrage whe empoyed wth the company. PT&T appeaed to the
NLRC but the atter uphed the decson of the abor arbter
modfyng the decson by sayng the womans dshonest nature
warrants a 3-month suspenson from work.
Issues/ Held/atio:
WON PT&Ts pocy of not acceptng or consderng as dsquafed
from work any woman worker who contracts a marrage, s
dscrmnatory and thus contrary to the Consttuton?
Yes. Athough PT&T asserts that t dsmssed Grace because of her
dshonesty; records, not to menton the etter remndng her of her
companys pocy, say otherwse; provng that she was termnated
because of her cv status. Furthermore, t was the pocy tsef
whch was the cause of Graces secretve conduct (he who s the
cause of the cause s the cause of the ev caused.) PT&Ts
aegatons of msappropraton s nsncere and sef-servng.
C"#C v. &l0ala5 (e0. DE!
1$ne 1(, 1997, Men&o6a, 1.
Facts:
CMTCs tmber concesson was approved by Marcos after t was
prevousy canceed; however, sad concesson, operatng on TLA
no. 106, was under another concesson (TLA no. 360) operated by
FLDC - after ssuance by Mnstry of Natona Resources. TLA no.
360 was gven prmacy over the TLA no. 106 aegedy because of
Marcos sster who was behnd FLDC. Two years ater, however, on
|une 1986, Mnstry head suspended TLA no. 360 and canceed the
cense of FLDC (because n spte of prevous suspenson order,
oggng st contnued). CMTC, earnng of the canceaton, sought
to revadate TLA no. 106 by wrtng a etter to the sad government
agency.
DENR decared TLA no. 106 as no onger havng force and effect,
the petton beng barred because of atches: CMTC dd not
mmedatey fe an opposton when FLDC was awarded the sad
concesson and because t had wated for two years before fng
such a petton. In an appea to the Offce of the Presdent and after
ts second moton for reconsderaton, CMTC cams that t had
wrtten a etter dated on the day to oppose FLDCs grant of TLA.
The Offce of the Presdent, however, agan dened the petton on
the bass of a "new pocy of consderaton on forest conservaton
and protecton."
CMTC appeas to the SC sayng that there were no atches and that
the new pubc consderaton averred to by the Offce of the
Presdent dened the CMTC due process. There beng no tota og
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(4
ban n the country (Congress st needng to make an
announcement regardng the ssue), any notce to ths effect "must
be stated n good form, not mped"; and that n any case, any new
pocy consderaton shoud be prospectve n appcaton and
cannot affect pettoners vested rghts n ts TLA no. 106.
*ain Issue/ Held/atio:
WON the new pocy of forest conservaton and protecton coud
affect the prevous TLAs mentoned.
As evdenced by reports, t woud seem that CMTC was one of those
whose TLAs were termnated n 1983, a year before ts concesson
was awarded to FLDC. Snce pettoner faed to protest the grant of
concesson wthn a "reasonabe tme", acton s barred by atches.
"because executve evauaton of tmber censes and ther
consequent canceaton n the process of formuatng poces wth
regard to the utzaton of tmber ands s a prerogatve of the
executve department and n the absence of evdence showng
grave abuse of dscreton courts w not nterfere wth the exercse
of that dscreton."
Pubc respondents heren, upon whose shouders rests the task of
mpementng the pocy to deveop and conserve the country's
natura resources, have ndcated an ongong department
evauaton of a tmber cense agreements entered nto, and
permts or censes ssued, under the prevous dspensaton. . . .
The ongong admnstratve reassessment s apparenty n response
to the renewed and growng goba concern over the despoaton of
forest ands and the utter dsregard of ther cruca roe n
sustanng a baanced ecoogca system. The egtmacy of such
concern can hardy be dsputed, most especay n ths country. . . .
Thus, whe the admnstraton grappes wth the compex and
mutfarous probems caused by unbrded expotaton of these
resources, the |udcary w stand cear. . . . More so where, as n
the present case, the nterests of a prvate oggng company are
ptted aganst that of the pubc at arge on the pressng pubc
pocy ssue of forest conservaton. . . . Tmber censes, permts and
cense agreements are the prncpa nstruments by whch the
State reguates the utzaton and dsposton of forest resources to
the end that pubc wefare s promoted. And t can hardy be
gansad that they merey evdence a prvege granted by the State
to quafed enttes, and do not vest n the atter a permanent or
rrevocabe rght to the partcuar concesson area and the forest
products theren. They may be vady amended, modfed, repaced
or rescnded by the Chef Executve when natona nterests so
requre. Thus, they are not deemed contracts wthn the purvew of
the due process of aw cause.
Guingona v. Carague
0)r#l 22, 1991, 9an%a+%o, 1.
Facts:
The 1990 budget conssted of P98.4B n automatc appropraton
(86.8 gong to debt servce) and P155.3 from the Genera
Appropratons Act or a tota of P233.5B; ony P27B was aotted for
DECS. Pettoners, as members of the Senate, queston the
consttutonaty of the automatc appropraton for debt servce n
the sad budget as provded for by Presdenta Decrees 81, 117,
and 1967.
Pettoners aege that the aotted budget runs contrary to Sec.
5(5), Art. XIV of the Consttuton. And as provded by Art. 7 of the
Cv Code, when statutes run contrary to the Consttuton, t sha
be vod.
They further contend that the Presdenta Decrees are no onger
operatve snce they became f$n%t$s of#%#o after Presdent Marcos
was ousted. Wth a new congress repacng the one man-
egsature, new egsaton regardng appropraton shoud be
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(
passed. Current appropraton, operatng on no aws therefore,
woud be unenforceabe.
Moreover, they content that assumng arguendo that the sad
decrees dd not expre wth the ouster of Marcos, after adopton of
the 1987 Consttuton, sad decrees were nconsstent wth Sec. 24,
Artce VI of the Consttuton whch stated that:
Sec. 24. A appropraton, revenue or tarff bs, bs authorzng
ncrease of the pubc debt, bs of oca appcaton, and prvate
bs sha orgnate excusvey n the House of Representatves, but
the Senate may propose or concur wth amendments.
whereby bs have to be approved by the Presdent, 10 then a aw
must be passed by Congress to authorze sad automatc
appropraton. Further, pettoners state sad decrees voate
Secton 29(1) of Artce VI of the Consttuton whch provdes as
foows
Sec. 29(1). No money sha be pad out of the Treasury except n
pursuance of an appropraton made by aw.
They assert that there must be defnteness, certanty and
exactness n an appropraton, 11 otherwse t s an undue
deegaton of egsatve power to the Presdent who determnes n
advance the amount approprated for the debt servce.
SoGen argues, on the other hand, that automatc appropraton
provdes fexbty: ". . . Frst, for exampe, t enabes the
Government to take advantage of a favorabe turn of market
condtons by redeemng hgh nterest securtes and borrowng at
ower rates, or to shft from short-term to ong-term nstruments, or
to enter nto arrangements that coud ghten our outstandng debt
burden debt-to-equty, debt-to-asset, debt-to-debt or other such
schemes. Second, the automatc appropraton obvates the serous
dffcutes n debt servcng arsng from any devaton from what
has been prevousy programmed. The annua debt servce
estmates, whch are usuay made one year n advance, are based
on a mathematca set or matrx or, n ayman's parance, `basket'
of foregn exchange and nterest rate assumpton's whch may
sgnfcanty dffer from actua rates not even n proporton to
changes on the bass of the assumptons. Absent an automatc
appropraton cause, the Phppne Government has to awat and
depend upon Congressona acton, whch by the tme ths comes,
may no onger be responsve to the ntended condtons whch n
the meantme may have aready drastcay changed. In the
meantme, aso, deayed payments and arrearages may have
supervened, ony to worsen our debt servce-to-tota expendture
rato n the budget due to penates and/or demand for mmedate-
payment even before due dates.
Ceary, the cam that payment of the oans and ndebtedness s
condtoned upon the contnuance of the person of Presdent
Marcos and hs egsatve power goes aganst the ntent and
purpose of the aw. The purpose s foreseen to subsst wth or
wthout the person of Marcos."
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON appropraton of P86.8B for debt servce as compared to
ts appropraton of P27.7B for educaton n voaton of Sec. 5(5),
Artce XIV of the Consttuton.
The State sha assgn the hghest budgetary prorty to educaton
and ensure that teachng w attract and retan ts rghtfu share of
the best avaabe taents through adequate remuneraton and
other means of |ob satsfacton and fufment.
The Court dsagrees that Congress hands are hamstrung by the
provson provded. There are other mperatves of natona nterest
that t must attend to; the amount aotted to educaton, 27.8B, s
the hghest n a department budgets thereby compyng wth the
mandate of havng the hghest prorty as stated above. The
enormous natona debt, ncurred by the prevous admnstraton,
however, st needs to be pad. Not ony for the sake of honor but
because the natona economy s tsef at stake. Thus, f Congress
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(6
aotted more for debt servce such an appropraton cannot be
consdered by ths Court as unconsttutona.
(2) WON the Presdenta Decrees are st operatve, and f they
are, do they voate Sec. 29 (1), Artce VI of the Consttutona.
Yes, they are st operatve. The transtory provson provded n
Sec. 3, Artce XVIII of the Consttuton recognzes that:
A exstng aws, decrees, executve orders, procamatons, etters
of nstructons and other executve ssuances not nconsstent wth
the Consttuton sha reman operatve unt amended, repeaed or
revoked.
Ths transtory provson of the Consttuton has precsey been
adopted by ts framers to preserve the soca order so that
egsaton by the then Presdent Marcos may be recognzed. Such
aws are to reman n force and effect uness they are nconsstent
wth the Consttuton or are otherwse amended, repeaed or
revoked.
We-known s the rue that repea or amendment by mpcaton s
frowned upon. Equay fundamenta s the prncpe that
constructon of the Consttuton and aw s generay apped
prospectvey and not retrospectvey uness t s so ceary stated.
(3) WON there was undue deegaton of egsatve power by
automatc appropraton.
No. The egsatve ntenton n R.A. No. 4860, as amended, Secton
31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 s that the amount needed
shoud be automatcay set asde n order to enabe the Repubc of
the Phppnes to pay the prncpa, nterest, taxes and other
norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or ndebtedness
ncurred as guaranteed by t when they sha become due wthout
the need to enact a separate aw appropratng funds therefore as
the need arses. The purpose of these aws s to enabe the
government to make prompt payment and/or advances for a oans
to protect and mantan the credt standng of the country.
Athough the sub|ect presdenta decrees do not state specfc
amounts to be pad, necesstated by the very nature of the probem
beng, addressed, the amounts nevertheess are made certan by
the egsatve parameters provded n the decrees. The Executve s
not of unmted dscreton as to the amounts to be dsbursed for
debt servcng. The mandate s to pay ony the prncpa, nterest,
taxes and other norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or
ndebtedness, or on the bonds, debentures or securty or other
evdences of ndebtedness sod n nternatona markets ncurred by
vrtue of the aw, as and when they sha become due. No
uncertanty arses n executve mpementaton as the mt w be
the exact amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury.
Cru,5 Dissenting-
He sees that an essenta requrement for vad appropraton s that
the sum authorzed for reease shoud be determnate or
determnabe. The Presdenta Decrees do not satsfy ths
requrement. As to the ponencas reference to "egsatve
parameters provded by aw", Cruz says no such reguatory
boundares exst.
Pa+illa5 Dissenting-
He agrees wth Cruz but furthers the argument by sayng that Sec.
29(1)Artce VI mpes that a aw enacted by Congress (and
approved by the Presdent) appropratng a partcuar sum or sums
must be made before payment from the Treasury can be made.
Laws shoud be construed n ght of current aws and not those
made by a one-man egsatve branch.
Besdes, these decrees ssued by Presdent Marcos reatve to debt
servce were taored for the perods covered by sad decrees.
Today t s Congress that shoud determne and approve the proper
appropratons for debt servcng, as ths s a matter of pocy that,
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(7
n my opnon, pertans to the egsatve department, as the pocy-
determnng body of the Government.
Paras, :#ssent#ng@ Any aw that undermnes our economy and
therefore our securty s per se unconsttutona.
#ana+a v. &ngara
Ma+ 2, 1997, Pangan#/an, 1.
Facts:
The Phppnes, by ratfcaton of the Presdent and concurrence of
the Senate became a member of the WTO. Pettoners argue that
the etter, sprt and ntent of the Consttuton mandatng
"economc natonasm" are voated by the "party provsons" and
"natona treatment" causes scattered n the agreement, annexes
and other parts of the treaty. These aegedy pace foregn
natonas on equa footng as Fpnos n contraventon of the
Consttutons Fpno-frst pocy. Man provsons whch are
supposedy voated by the WTO agreement are the foowng:
(1) Art II, Sec. 19 - Sef-reant, ndependent economy.
(2) Art. XII Sec. 10 - Capta owned by Fpnos; grants, prveges,
concessons for natona economy gves preference to quafed
Fpnos.
(3) Art. XII Sec. 12 - Preferenta use of Fpno abor, matera and
goods.
These provsons are aegedy desecrated n the areas of
nvestment measures, trade seected aspects of IPR, and n the
Genera Agreement on Trade n Servces.
The SoGen, on the other hand, argues (a) that the charter
provsons are not sef-executng and are mere genera poces; (b)
that the provsons shoudnt be read n soaton but n con|uncton
wth Art. XII Sec. 1 and 13, whch when read propery as a whoe,
ensures that the WTO agreement doesnt voate the Consttuton;
and (c) that WTO contans suffcent provsons to protect
deveopng countres ke the Phppnes from the harshness of
trade berazaton.
By prayng for the nufcaton of the Phppne ratfcaton of the
WTO Agreement, pettoners are nvokng ths Court's
consttutonay mposed duty "to determne whether or not there
has been grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of
|ursdcton" on the part of the Senate n gvng ts concurrence
theren va Senate Resouton No. 97.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the petton presents a |ustcabe controversy?
In seekng to nufy an act of the Phppne Senate on the ground
that t contravenes the Consttuton, the petton no doubt rases a
|ustcabe controversy. Where an acton of the egsatve branch s
serousy aeged to have nfrnged the Consttuton, t becomes not
ony the rght but n fact the duty of the |udcary to sette the
dspute. "The queston thus posed s |udca rather than potca.
The duty (to ad|udcate) remans to assure that the supremacy of
the Consttuton s uphed."
(2) WON the WTO agreement and ts three annexes contravene the
respectve provsons n the Consttuton.
:e%larat#on of Pr#n%#)les Not Self-E,e%$t#ng
By ts very tte, Artce II of the Consttuton s a "decaraton of
prncpes and state poces." The counterpart of ths artce n the
1935 Consttuton 21 s caed the "basc potca creed of the
naton" by Dean Vcente Snco. These prncpes n Artce II are not
ntended to be sef-executng prncpes ready for enforcement
through the courts. They are used by the |udcary as ads or as
gudes n the exercse of ts power of |udca revew, and by the
egsature n ts enactment of aws. As hed n the eadng case of
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.('
?#los/a+an, 7n%or)orate& *s. Morato, the prncpes and state
poces enumerated n Artce II and some sectons of Artce XII are
not "sef-executng provsons, the dsregard of whch can gve rse
to a cause of acton n the courts. They do not embody |udcay
enforceabe consttutona rghts but gudenes for egsaton."
E%onom#% Nat#onal#sm Sho$l& -e >ea& .#th 2ther Const#t$t#onal
Man&ates to atta#n -alan%e& :e*elo)ment of
E%onom+
As ponted out by the Soctor Genera, Sec. 1 ays down the basc
goas of natona economc deveopment, as foows: (1) A more
equtabe dstrbuton of opportuntes, ncome and weath; (2) A
sustaned ncrease n the amount of goods and servces provded
by the naton for the beneft of the peope; and (3) An expandng
productvty as the key to rasng the quaty of fe for a especay
the underprveged.
Wth these goas n context, the Consttuton then ordans the deas
of economc natonasm (1) by expressng preference n favor of
quafed Fpnos "n the grant of rghts, prveges and concessons
coverng the natona economy and patrmony" and n the use of
"Fpno abor, domestc materas and ocay-produced goods"; (2)
by mandatng the State to "adopt measures that hep make them
compettve; and (3) by requrng the State to "deveop a sef-reant
and ndependent natona economy effectvey controed by
Fpnos." In smar anguage, the Consttuton takes nto account
the reates of the outsde word as t requres the pursut of "a
trade pocy that serves the genera wefare and utzes a forms
and arrangements of exchange on the bass of equaty and
recprocty"; and speaks of ndustres "whch are compettve n
both domestc and foregn markets" as we as of the protecton of
"Fpno enterprses aganst unfar foregn competton and trade
practces."
It s true that n the recent case of Man#la Pr#n%e 8otel *s.
9o*ernment Ser*#%e 7ns$ran%e S+stem, et al., ths Court hed that
"Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Consttuton s a
mandatory, postve command whch s compete n tsef and whch
needs no further gudenes or mpementng aws or rues for ts
enforcement. From ts very words the provson does not requre
any egsaton to put t n operaton. It s per se |udcay
enforceabe." However, as the consttutona provson tsef states,
t s enforceabe ony n regard to "the grants of rghts, prveges
and concessons coverng natona economy and patrmony" and
not to every aspect of trade and commerce. It refers to exceptons
rather than the rue. The ssue here s not whether ths paragraph
of Sec. 10 of Art. XII s sef-executng or not. Rather, the ssue s
whether, as a rue, there are enough baancng provsons n the
Consttuton to aow the Senate to ratfy the Phppne concurrence
n the WTO Agreement. And we hod that there are.
A tod, whe the Consttuton ndeed mandates a bas n favor of
Fpno goods, servces, abor and enterprses, at the same tme, t
recognzes the need for busness exchange wth the rest of the
word on the bases of equaty and recprocty and mts protecton
of Fpno enterprses ony aganst foregn competton and trade
practces that are unfar. In other words, the Consttuton dd not
ntend to pursue an soatonst pocy. It dd not shut out foregn
nvestments, goods and servces n the deveopment of the
Phppne economy. Whe the Consttuton does not encourage the
unmted entry of foregn goods, servces and nvestments nto the
country, t does not prohbt them.
A"2 >e%ogn#6es Nee& to Prote%t Aea= E%onom#es
Upon the other hand, respondents mantan that the WTO tsef has
some but-n advantages to protect weak and deveopng
economes, whch comprse the vast ma|orty of ts members.
Unke n the UN where ma|or states have permanent seats and
veto powers n the Securty Counc, n the WTO, decsons are
made on the bass of soveregn equaty, wth each member's vote
equa n weght to that of any other. There s no WTO equvaent of
the UN Securty Counc.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(9
Hence, poor countres can protect ther common nterests more
effectvey through the WTO than through one-on-one negotatons
wth deveoped countres. Wthn the WTO, deveopng countres
can form powerfu bocs to push ther economc agenda more
decsvey than outsde the Organzaton. Ths s not merey a
matter of practca aances but a negotatng strategy rooted n
aw. Thus, the basc prncpes underyng the WTO Agreement
recognze the need of deveopng countres ke the Phppnes to
"share n the growth n nternatona trade commensurate wth the
needs of ther economc deveopment."
Const#t$t#on :oes Not >$le 2$t ;ore#gn Com)et#t#on
Furthermore, the consttutona pocy of a "sef-reant and
ndependent natona economy" does not necessary rue out the
entry of foregn nvestments, goods and servces. It contempates
nether "economc secuson" nor "mendcancy n the nternatona
communty." As expaned by Consttutona Commssoner
Bernardo Vegas, sponsor of ths consttutona pocy:
"Economc sef reance s a prmary ob|ectve of a deveopng
country that s keeny aware of overdependence on externa
assstance for even ts most basc needs. It does not mean autarky
or economc secuson; rather, t means avodng mendcancy n the
nternatona communty. Independence refers to the freedom from
undue foregn contro of the natona economy, especay n such
strategc ndustres as n the deveopment of natura resources and
pubc uttes."
The WTO reance on "most favored naton," "natona treatment,"
and "trade wthout dscrmnaton" cannot be struck down as
unconsttutona as n fact they are rues of equaty and recprocty
that appy to a WTO members. Asde from envsonng a trade
pocy based on "equaty and recprocty," the fundamenta aw
encourages ndustres that are "compettve n both domestc and
foregn markets," thereby demonstratng a cear pocy aganst a
shetered domestc trade envronment, but one n favor of the
gradua deveopment of robust ndustres that can compete wth
the best n the foregn markets. Indeed, Fpno managers and
Fpno enterprses have shown capabty and tenacty to compete
nternatonay. And gven a free trade envronment, Fpno
entrepreneurs and managers n Hongkong have demonstrated the
Fpno capacty to grow and to prosper aganst the best offered
under a pocy of assez fare.
Const#t$t#on ;a*ors Cons$mers, Not 7n&$str#es or Enter)r#ses
The Consttuton has not reay shown any unbaanced bas n favor
of any busness or enterprse, nor does t contan any specfc
pronouncement that Fpno companes shoud be pampered wth a
tota proscrpton of foregn competton.
Oposa v. 'a0toran
Facts:
Pettoners, mnors represented by ther parents, fed a compant
n the RTC; t was a taxpayers cass sut representng themseves,
the countess muttudes, and future generatons of those who are
entted to the benefts of the countrys vrgn tropca forests.
The pantffs compant was specfed as foows: that a baanced
and heathfu ecoogy n the Phppnes s evdenced by 54% forest
cover and 46% everythng ese.
Twenty fve years ago, tropca vrgn forests amounted to 53% of
our and area but n 1987, satete mages showed that ony four
percent of the and was covered by forests. Recent surveys, n the
meantme, show that ony 2.8% of the countrys and area s
composed of tropca vrgn ranforests.
Pubc records revea that at the present rate of deforestaton, the
Phppne Isands w be bereft of natona resources after the end
of the decade, f not earer. Pantffs assert ther consttutona
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.40
rght to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy and cam that they are
entted to protecton of ths rght by the State n ts capacty as
)arens )atr#ae.
The compant was fed aganst Factoran, then head of the DENR; t
woud order the DENR to cance a exstng tmber censng
agreements (TLAs) n the country, and cease and desst from
acceptng, processng, renewng, and approvng TLAs. The tra
court dsmssed the compant and the |udge stated that the reef
sought for (canceaton of TLAs) cannot be done because t woud
not aow due process. The amended petton to the SC repeated ts
earer rght to a sound envronment, and added that (a) TLAs were
not contracts and even f they were consdered protected by the
non-mparment cause, the State may st revoke such agreements
when pubc nterest demands t; and (b) n grantng more TLAs to
cover more areas of and than what s avaabe s an act
consttutng grave abuse of dscreton, and s therefore sub|ect to
|udca scrutny.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON pettoners have standng.
The pettoners, mnors assert that they represent ther generaton
as we as generatons yet unborn. We fnd no dffcuty n rung
that they can, for themseves, for others of ther generaton and for
the succeedng generatons, fe a cass sut. Ther personaty to
sue n behaf of the succeedng generatons can ony be based on
the concept of ntergeneratona responsbty nsofar as the rght
to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy s concerned. Such a rght, as
herenafter expounded, consders the "rhythm and harmony of
nature." Nature means the created word n ts entrety. Such
rhythm and harmony ndspensaby ncude, nter aa, the |udcous
dsposton, utzaton, management, renewa and conservaton of
the country's forest, mnera, and, waters, fsheres, wdfe, off-
shore areas and other natura resources to the end that ther
exporaton, deveopment and utzaton be equtaby accessbe to
the present as we as future generatons. Needess to say, every
generaton has a responsbty to the next to preserve that rhythm
and harmony for the fu en|oyment of a baanced and heathfu
ecoogy. Put a tte dfferenty, the mnors' asserton of ther rght
to a sound envronment consttutes, at the same tme, the
performance of ther obgaton to ensure the protecton of that
rght for the generatons to come.
(2) Is there a specfc rght voated that woud serve a the
pettoners cause of acton?
Yes. Sec. 16, Artce II of the Consttuton provdes the rght. A
cause of acton s therefore present but as far as canceaton of
TLAs s concerned, there s a need to mpead the guarantees of
the same for they are ndspensabe partes.
(3) Are the TLAs contracts? Are they protected by the non-
mparment cause?
No. Even f a aw s passed mandatng canceaton/modfcaton of
the TLAs, the same cannot be stgmatzed as a voaton of non-
mparment cause because t s wthn the States exercse of poce
power to protect ts ecoogy.
'eli0iano5 Con0urring-
Athough the pettoners are n fact entted to a baanced and
heathfu ecoogy as stressed by the Consttutona rght, one
cannot cassfy such a rght as "specfc" wthout dong excessve
voence to the anguage. The mpcatons of makng the Sectons
n Artce II sef-executory are not the sub|ect of ths case.
Pettoners shoud seek a specfc ega rght. It s hs understandng
that the Courts decson mpes that wthn the coecton of
statutes, there s a specfc rght whch the pettoners can use.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.41
C*ave, v. P*il. Estates &ut*orit1
1;
Facts:
PEA, as authorzed by ts charter created by Marcos, was mandated
to recam and, deveop, mprove, etc. se, and ease these
recamed ands. Durng the tme of Cory, more and was
transferred to PEA under ts name. Transfer Certfcate of Ttes of
the then recamed Freedom Isands were gven to PEA durng ths
tme. Durng Ramos tenure as Presdent, PEA, entered nto a |ont
venture agreement (|VA) wth AMARI, a prvate corporaton wthout
pubc bddng. The |VA ntended to deveop the recamed Freedom
Isands and recam an addtona 250 hectares surroundng sad
sands. In 1996, Senate Presdent Maceda, n a prveged speech,
caed the |VA "the grandmother of a scams." An nvestgaton
ensued wth the report concudng the foowng:
(1) The ands beng sod to AMARI were ands of the pubc doman
whch the government has not yet cassfed as aenabe, and
therefore the PEA has no authorty to se yet.
(2) Transfer Certfcate of Ttes of the Freedom Isands are then
vod; and the
(3) |VA entered nto s ega.
In 1997, a Lega Task Force was formed by the Presdent to study
the |VA; but contrary to the Senate nvestgaton that decred the
|VA, the task force uphed ts egaty. Ths prompted Chavez, n
1998, to fe sut as a taxpayer, contendng the foowng:
Pettoner contends the government stands to ose bons of pesos
n the sae by PEA of the recamed ands to AMARI. Pettoner
18
As you gather from the ast few deporabe dgests (and ths ast one) . Ive run
out of |uce. Fee free to fx/update/mock them at your convenence. - Mars.
prays that PEA pubcy dscose the terms of any renegotaton of
the |VA, nvokng Secton 28, Artce II, and Secton 7, Artce III, of
the 1987 Consttuton on the rght of the peope to nformaton on
matters of pubc concern. Pettoner assas the sae to AMARI of
ands of the pubc doman as a batant voaton of Secton 3,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton prohbtng the sae of aenabe
ands of the pubc doman to prvate corporatons. Fnay,
pettoner asserts that he seeks to en|on the oss of bons of
pesos n propertes of the State that are of pubc domnon.
The Amended |VA, however, pushed through after beng sgned by
PEA and AMARI, wth the approva of then Presdent Estrada. After
such a maneuver, Chavez prayed that the renegotated contract be
decared nu and vod based on consttutona and statutory
grounds.
Issues/ Held/atio:
(1) WON the case s academc and moot after subsequent events.
Respondents - Yes; satsfed pettoners prayer for dscosure of
renegotatons; moot, because aready sgned.
Pettoners - counters that PEA and AMARI cannot avod the
consttutona ssue by smpy fast-trackng the sgnng and
approva of the Amended |VA before the Court coud act on the
ssue. Presdenta approva does not resove the consttutona
ssue or remove t from the ambt of |udca revew.
Court - PEA and AMARI have st to mpement the Amended |VA.
The prayer to en|on the sgnng of the Amended |VA on
consttutona grounds necessary ncudes preventng ts
mpementaton f n the meantme PEA and AMARI have sgned one
n voaton of the Consttuton. Pettoners prncpa bass n
assang the renegotaton of the |VA s ts voaton of Secton 3,
Artce XII of the Consttuton, whch prohbts the government from
aenatng ands of the pubc doman to prvate corporatons. If the
Amended |VA ndeed voates the Consttuton, t s the duty of the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.42
Court to en|on ts mpementaton, and f aready mpemented, to
annu the effects of such unconsttutona contract.
Aso, the nstant petton s a case of frst mpresson. A prevous
decsons of the Court nvovng Secton 3, Artce XII of the 1987
Consttuton, or ts counterpart provson n the 1973 Consttuton,
covered agrcutura ands sod to prvate corporatons whch
acqured the ands from prvate partes. The transferors of the
prvate corporatons camed or coud cam the rght to |udca
confrmaton of ther mperfect ttes under Tte II of
Commonweath Act. 141 ("CA No. 141" for brevty). In the nstant
case, AMARI seeks to acqure from PEA, a pubc corporaton,
recamed ands and submerged areas for non-agrcutura purposes
by purchase under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Tte III of CA
No. 141. Certan undertakngs by AMARI under the Amended |VA
consttute the consderaton for the purchase. Nether AMARI nor
PEA can cam |udca confrmaton of ther ttes because the ands
covered by the Amended |VA are newy recamed or st to be
recamed. |udca confrmaton of mperfect tte requres open,
contnuous, excusve and notorous occupaton of agrcutura ands
of the pubc doman for at east thrty years snce |une 12, 1945 or
earer. Besdes, the deadne for fng appcatons for |udca
confrmaton of mperfect tte expred on December 31, 1987.
Lasty, there s a need to resove mmedatey the consttutona
ssue rased n ths petton because of the possbe transfer at any
tme by PEA to AMARI of tte and ownershp to portons of the
recamed ands. Under the Amended |VA, PEA s obgated to
transfer to AMARI the atters seventy percent proportonate share
n the recamed areas as the recamaton progresses. The
Amended |VA even aows AMARI to mortgage at any tme the
entre recamed area to rase fnancng for the recamaton pro|ect.
(2) WON the petton shoud be dsmssed because |udca
herarchy wasnt respected.
PEA and AMARI cam pettoner gnored the |udca herarchy by
seekng reef drecty from the Court. The prncpe of herarchy of
courts appes generay to cases nvovng factua questons. As t
s not a trer of facts, the Court cannot entertan cases nvovng
factua ssues. The nstant case, however, rases consttutona
ssues of transcendenta mportance to the pubc. The Court can
resove ths case wthout determnng any factua ssue reated to
the case. Aso, the nstant case s a petton for mandamus whch
fas under the orgna |ursdcton of the Court under Secton 5,
Artce VIII of the Consttuton. We resove to exercse prmary
|ursdcton over the nstant case.
(3) WON the petton shoud be dsmssed because of non-
exhauston of admnstratve remedes.
Respondent - they ddnt ask us for the nformaton before
proceedng to Court to ssue a mandamus; ths s n voaton of the
rue of mandamus. Tanada v. Tuvera s dfferent from the current
stuaton because there, the ExecDept had an affrmatve statutory
duty to pubsh the Presdent Decrees and thus, the mandamus was
warranted. In the nstant case, PEA has no affrmatve duty to
dscose such nformaton.
Court - The orgna |VA sought to dspose to AMARI pubc ands
hed by PEA, a government corporaton. Under Secton 79 of the
Government Audtng Code, the dsposton of government ands to
prvate partes requres pubc bddng. PEA was under a postve
ega duty to dscose to the pubc the terms and condtons for the
sae of ts ands. The aw obgated PEA to make ths pubc
dscosure even wthout demand from pettoner or from anyone.
PEA faed to make ths pubc dscosure because the orgna |VA,
ke the Amended |VA, was the resut of a negotated contract, not
of a pubc bddng. Consderng that PEA had an affrmatve
statutory duty to make the pubc dscosure, and was even n
breach of ths ega duty, pettoner had the rght to seek drect
|udca nterventon.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.4(
Moreover, and ths aone s determnatve of ths ssue, the prncpe
of exhauston of admnstratve remedes does not appy when the
ssue nvoved s a purey ega or consttutona queston. The
prncpa ssue n the nstant case s the capacty of AMARI to
acqure ands hed by PEA n vew of the consttutona ban
prohbtng the aenaton of ands of the pubc doman to prvate
corporatons. We rue that the prncpe of exhauston of
admnstratve remedes does not appy n the nstant case.
(4) Do pettoners have standng?
PEA argues that pettoner has no standng to nsttute mandamus
proceedngs to enforce hs consttutona rght to nformaton
wthout a showng that PEA refused to perform an affrmatve duty
mposed on PEA by the Consttuton. PEA aso cams that
pettoner has not shown that he w suffer any concrete n|ury
because of the sgnng or mpementaton of the Amended |VA.
Thus, there s no actua controversy requrng the exercse of the
power of |udca revew.
The pettoner has standng to brng ths taxpayers sut because
the petton seeks to compe PEA to compy wth ts consttutona
dutes. There are two consttutona ssues nvoved here. Frst s
the rght of ctzens to nformaton on matters of pubc concern.
Second s the appcaton of a consttutona provson ntended to
nsure the equtabe dstrbuton of aenabe ands of the pubc
doman among Fpno ctzens. The thrust of the frst ssue s to
compe PEA to dscose pubcy nformaton on the sae of
government ands worth bons of pesos, nformaton whch the
Consttuton and statutory aw mandate PEA to dscose. The thrust
of the second ssue s to prevent PEA from aenatng hundreds of
hectares of aenabe ands of the pubc doman n voaton of the
Consttuton, compeng PEA to compy wth a consttutona duty to
the naton.
Moreover, the petton rases matters of transcendenta mportance
to the pubc. In Chavez v. PCGG,|28| the Court uphed the rght of
a ctzen to brng a taxpayers sut on matters of transcendenta
mportance to the pubc, thus -
"Besdes, pettoner emphaszes, the matter of recoverng the -
gotten weath of the Marcoses s an ssue of transcendenta
mportance to the pubc. He asserts that ordnary taxpayers have
a rght to ntate and prosecute actons questonng the vadty of
acts or orders of government agences or nstrumentates, f the
ssues rased are of paramount pubc nterest, and f they
mmedatey affect the soca, economc and mora we beng of
the peope.
Moreover, the mere fact that he s a ctzen satsfes the
requrement of persona nterest, when the proceedng nvoves the
asserton of a pubc rght, such as n ths case. He nvokes severa
decsons of ths Court whch have set asde the procedura matter
of ocus stand, when the sub|ect of the case nvoved pubc
nterest.
Further, n Abano v. Reyes, we sad that whe expendture of
pubc funds may not have been nvoved under the questoned
contract for the deveopment, management and operaton of the
Mana Internatona Contaner Termna, pubc nterest |was|
defntey nvoved consderng the mportant roe |of the sub|ect
contract| . . . n the economc deveopment of the country and the
magntude of the fnanca consderaton nvoved. We concuded
that, as a consequence, the dscosure provson n the Consttuton
woud consttute suffcent authorty for uphodng the pettoner's
standng.
Smary, the nstant petton s anchored on the rght of the peope
to nformaton and access to offca records, documents and papers
- a rght guaranteed under Secton 7, Artce III of the 1987
Consttuton. Pettoner, a former soctor genera, s a Fpno
ctzen. Because of the satsfacton of the two basc requstes ad
down by decsona aw to sustan pettoner's ega standng, .e. (1)
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.44
the enforcement of a pubc rght (2) espoused by a Fpno ctzen,
we rue that the petton at bar shoud be aowed."
(5) Whether the consttutona rght to nformaton ncudes offca
nformaton on on-gong negotatons before a fna agreement.
Secton 7, Artce III of the Consttuton expans the peopes rght
to nformaton on matters of pubc concern n ths manner:
Sec. 7. The rght of the peope to nformaton on matters of pubc
concern sha be recognzed. Access to offca records, and to
documents, and papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons, or
decsons, as we as to government research data used as bass for
pocy deveopment, sha be afforded the ctzen, sub|ect to such
mtatons as may be provded by aw."
The State pocy of fu transparency n a transactons nvovng
pubc nterest renforces the peopes rght to nformaton on
matters of pubc concern. Ths State pocy s expressed n
Secton 28, Artce II of the Consttuton, thus:
Sec. 28. Sub|ect to reasonabe condtons prescrbed by aw, the
State adopts and mpements a pocy of fu pubc dscosure of a
ts transactons nvovng pubc nterest."
These twn provsons of the Consttuton seek to promote
transparency n pocy-makng and n the operatons of the
government, as we as provde the peope suffcent nformaton to
exercse effectvey other consttutona rghts. These twn
provsons are essenta to the exercse of freedom of expresson.
If the government does not dscose ts offca acts, transactons
and decsons to ctzens, whatever ctzens say, even f expressed
wthout any restrant, w be specuatve and amount to nothng.
These twn provsons are aso essenta to hod pubc offcas "at
a tmes x x x accountabe to the peope,"|29| for uness ctzens
have the proper nformaton, they cannot hod pubc offcas
accountabe for anythng. Armed wth the rght nformaton,
ctzens can partcpate n pubc dscussons eadng to the
formuaton of government poces and ther effectve
mpementaton. An nformed ctzenry s essenta to the exstence
and proper functonng of any democracy. As expaned by the
Court n Vamonte v. Bemonte, |r.
"An essenta eement of these freedoms s to keep open a
contnung daogue or process of communcaton between the
government and the peope. It s n the nterest of the State that
the channes for free potca dscusson be mantaned to the end
that the government may perceve and be responsve to the
peopes w. Yet, ths open daogue can be effectve ony to the
extent that the ctzenry s nformed and thus abe to formuate ts
w ntegenty. Ony when the partcpants n the dscusson are
aware of the ssues and have access to nformaton reatng thereto
can such bear frut."
PEA asserts, ctng Chavez v. PCGG,|31| that n cases of on-gong
negotatons the rght to nformaton s mted to "defnte
propostons of the government." PEA mantans the rght does not
ncude access to "ntra-agency or nter-agency recommendatons
or communcatons durng the stage when common assertons are
st n the process of beng formuated or are n the exporatory
stage."
Aso, AMARI contends that pettoner cannot nvoke the rght at the
pre-decsona stage or before the cosng of the transacton.
AMARI argues there must frst be a consummated contract before
pettoner can nvoke the rght. Requrng government offcas to
revea ther deberatons at the pre-decsona stage w degrade
the quaty of decson-makng n government agences.
Government offcas w hestate to express ther rea sentments
durng deberatons f there s mmedate pubc dssemnaton of
ther dscussons, puttng them under a knds of pressure before
they decde.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.4
We must frst dstngush between nformaton the aw on pubc
bddng requres PEA to dscose pubcy, and nformaton the
consttutona rght to nformaton requres PEA to reease to the
pubc. Before the consummaton of the contract, PEA must, on ts
own and wthout demand from anyone, dscose to the pubc
matters reatng to the dsposton of ts property. These ncude
the sze, ocaton, technca descrpton and nature of the property
beng dsposed of, the terms and condtons of the dsposton, the
partes quafed to bd, the mnmum prce and smar nformaton.
PEA must prepare a these data and dscose them to the pubc at
the start of the dsposton process, ong before the consummaton
of the contract, because the Government Audtng Code requres
pubc bddng. If PEA fas to make ths dscosure, any ctzen can
demand from PEA ths nformaton at any tme durng the bddng
process.
Informaton, however, on on-gong evauaton or revew of bds or
proposas beng undertaken by the bddng or revew commttee s
not mmedatey accessbe under the rght to nformaton. Whe
the evauaton or revew s st on-gong, there are no "offca acts,
transactons, or decsons" on the bds or proposas. However, once
the commttee makes ts offca recommendaton, there arses a
"defnte proposton" on the part of the government. From ths
moment, the pubcs rght to nformaton attaches, and any ctzen
can access a the non-propretary nformaton eadng to such
defnte proposton. In Chavez v. PCGG, the Court rued as foows:
"Consderng the ntent of the framers of the Consttuton, we
beeve that t s ncumbent upon the PCGG and ts offcers, as we
as other government representatves, to dscose suffcent pubc
nformaton on any proposed settement they have decded to take
up wth the ostensbe owners and hoders of -gotten weath.
Such nformaton, though, must pertan to defnte propostons of
the government, not necessary to ntra-agency or nter-agency
recommendatons or communcatons durng the stage when
common assertons are st n the process of beng formuated or
are n the "exporatory" stage. There s need, of course, to observe
the same restrctons on dscosure of nformaton n genera, as
dscussed earer - such as on matters nvovng natona securty,
dpomatc or foregn reatons, ntegence and other cassfed
nformaton."
Contrary to AMARIs contenton, the commssoners of the 1986
Consttutona Commsson understood that the rght to nformaton
"contempates ncuson of negotatons eadng to the
consummaton of the transacton." Certany, a consummated
contract s not a requrement for the exercse of the rght to
nformaton. Otherwse, the peope can never exercse the rght f
no contract s consummated, and f one s consummated, t may be
too ate for the pubc to expose ts defects.
Requrng a consummated contract w keep the pubc n the dark
unt the contract, whch may be grossy dsadvantageous to the
government or even ega, becomes a fat accomp. Ths negates
the State pocy of fu transparency on matters of pubc concern, a
stuaton whch the framers of the Consttuton coud not have
ntended. Such a requrement w prevent the ctzenry from
partcpatng n the pubc dscusson of any proposed contract,
effectvey truncatng a basc rght enshrned n the B of Rghts.
We can aow nether an emascuaton of a consttutona rght, nor
a retreat by the State of ts avowed "pocy of fu dscosure of a
ts transactons nvovng pubc nterest."
The rght covers three categores of nformaton whch are "matters
of pubc concern," namey: (1) offca records; (2) documents and
papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons and decsons; and
(3) government research data used n formuatng poces. The
frst category refers to any document that s part of the pubc
records n the custody of government agences or offcas. The
second category refers to documents and papers recordng,
evdencng, estabshng, confrmng, supportng, |ustfyng or
expanng offca acts, transactons or decsons of government
agences or offcas. The thrd category refers to research data,
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.46
whether raw, coated or processed, owned by the government and
used n formuatng government poces.
The nformaton that pettoner may access on the renegotaton of
the |VA ncudes evauaton reports, recommendatons, ega and
expert opnons, mnutes of meetngs, terms of reference and other
documents attached to such reports or mnutes, a reatng to the
|VA. However, the rght to nformaton does not compe PEA to
prepare sts, abstracts, summares and the ke reatng to the
renegotaton of the |VA. The rght ony affords access to records,
documents and papers, whch means the opportunty to nspect
and copy them. One who exercses the rght must copy the
records, documents and papers at hs expense. The exercse of the
rght s aso sub|ect to reasonabe reguatons to protect the
ntegrty of the pubc records and to mnmze dsrupton to
government operatons, ke rues specfyng when and how to
conduct the nspecton and copyng.
The rght to nformaton, however, does not extend to matters
recognzed as prveged nformaton under the separaton of
powers. The rght does not aso appy to nformaton on mtary and
dpomatc secrets, nformaton affectng natona securty, and
nformaton on nvestgatons of crmes by aw enforcement
agences before the prosecuton of the accused, whch courts have
ong recognzed as confdenta. The rght may aso be sub|ect to
other mtatons that Congress may mpose by aw.
There s no cam by PEA that the nformaton demanded by
pettoner s prveged nformaton rooted n the separaton of
powers. The nformaton does not cover Presdenta conversatons,
correspondences, or dscussons durng cosed-door Cabnet
meetngs whch, ke nterna deberatons of the Supreme Court
and other coegate courts, or executve sessons of ether house of
Congress, are recognzed as confdenta. Ths knd of nformaton
cannot be pred open by a co-equa branch of government. A frank
exchange of exporatory deas and assessments, free from the
gare of pubcty and pressure by nterested partes, s essenta to
protect the ndependence of decson-makng of those tasked to
exercse Presdenta, Legsatve and |udca power. Ths s not the
stuaton n the nstant case.
We rue, therefore, that the consttutona rght to nformaton
ncudes offca nformaton on on-gong negotatons before a fna
contract. The nformaton, however, must consttute defnte
propostons by the government and shoud not cover recognzed
exceptons ke prveged nformaton, mtary and dpomatc
secrets and smar matters affectng natona securty and pubc
order. Congress has aso prescrbed other mtatons on the rght to
nformaton n severa egsatons.
(6) Whether stpuatons n the Amended |VA for the transfer to
AMARI of ands, recamed or to be recamed, voate the
Consttuton.
We can now summarze our concusons as foows:
1. The 157.84 hectares of recamed ands comprsng the Freedom
Isands, now covered by certfcates of tte n the name of PEA, are
aenabe ands of the pubc doman. PEA may ease these ands to
prvate corporatons but may not se or transfer ownershp of these
ands to prvate corporatons. PEA may ony se these ands to
Phppne ctzens, sub|ect to the ownershp mtatons n the 1987
Consttuton and exstng aws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Mana Bay reman
naenabe natura resources of the pubc doman unt cassfed as
aenabe or dsposabe ands open to dsposton and decared no
onger needed for pubc servce. The government can make such
cassfcaton and decaraton ony after PEA has recamed these
submerged areas. Ony then can these ands quafy as agrcutura
ands of the pubc doman, whch are the ony natura resources
the government can aenate. In ther present state, the 592.15
hectares of submerged areas are naenabe and outsde the
commerce of man.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.47
3. Snce the Amended |VA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a prvate
corporaton, ownershp of 77.34 hectares|110| of the Freedom
Isands, such transfer s vod for beng contrary to Secton 3, Artce
XII of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts prvate corporatons
from acqurng any knd of aenabe and of the pubc doman.
4. Snce the Amended |VA aso seeks to transfer to AMARI
ownershp of 290.156 hectares|111| of st submerged areas of
Mana Bay, such transfer s vod for beng contrary to Secton 2,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts the aenaton of
natura resources other than agrcutura ands of the pubc
doman. PEA may recam these submerged areas. Thereafter, the
government can cassfy the recamed ands as aenabe or
dsposabe, and further decare them no onger needed for pubc
servce. St, the transfer of such recamed aenabe ands of the
pubc doman to AMARI w be vod n vew of Secton 3, Artce XII
of the 1987 Consttuton whch prohbts prvate corporatons from
acqurng any knd of aenabe and of the pubc doman.
Ceary, the Amended |VA voates garngy Sectons 2 and 3,
Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton. Under Artce 1409|112| of the
Cv Code, contracts whose "ob|ect or purpose s contrary to aw,"
or whose "ob|ect s outsde the commerce of men," are "nexstent
and vod from the begnnng." The Court must perform ts duty to
defend and uphod the Consttuton, and therefore decares the
Amended |VA nu and vod ab nto.
Seventh ssue: whether the Court s the proper forum to rase the
ssue of whether the Amended |VA s grossy dsadvantageous to
the government.
Consderng that the Amended |VA s nu and vod ab nto, there s
no necessty to rue on ths ast ssue. Besdes, the Court s not a
trer of facts, and ths ast ssue nvoves a determnaton of factua
matters.
WHEREFORE, the petton s GRANTED. The Pubc Estates
Authorty and Amar Coasta Bay Deveopment Corporaton are
PERMANENTLY EN|OINED from mpementng the Amended |ont
Venture Agreement whch s hereby decared NULL and VOID ab
nto.
1. Caderon vs. Carae
G.R. No. 91636 Apr 23, 1992
Controversy s focused anew on Sec. 16, Art. VII of the 1987
Consttuton whch provdes:
Sec. 16. The Presdent sha nomnate and, wth the consent of the
Commsson on Appontments, appont the heads of the executve
departments, ambassadors, other pubc mnsters and consus, or
offcers of the armed forces from the rank of coone or nava
captan, and other offcers whose appontments are vested n hm
n ths Consttuton. He sha aso appont a other offcers of the
Government whose appontments are not otherwse provded for by
aw, and those whom he may be authorzed by aw to appont. The
Congress may, by aw, vest the appontment of other offcers ower
n rank n the Presdent aone, n the courts, or n the heads of
departments, agences, commssons, or boards.
The Presdent sha have the power to make appontments durng
the recess of the Congress, whether vountary or compusory, but
such appontments sha be effectve ony unt dsapprova by the
Commsson on Appontments or unt the next ad|ournment of the
Congress.
x x x
From the three (3) cases above-mentoned (Sarmento III vs. Mson,
Mary Concepcon Bautsta v. Saonga and Teresta Ountos Dees, et
a. v. The Commsson on Consttutona Commssons, et a.,), these
doctrnes are deducbe:
1. Confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments s requred
ony for presdenta appontees mentoned n the frst sentence of
Secton 16, Artce VII, ncudng, those offcers whose appontments
are expressy vested by the Consttuton tsef n the presdent (ke
sectora representatves to Congress and members of the
consttutona commssons of Audt, Cv Servce and Eecton).
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.4'
2. Confrmaton s not requred when the Presdent apponts other
government offcers whose appontments are not otherwse
provded for by aw or those offcers whom he may be authorzed
by aw to appont (ke the Charman and Members of the
Commsson on Human Rghts). Aso, as observed n Mson, when
Congress creates nferor offces but omts to provde for
appontment thereto, or provdes n an unconsttutona manner for
such appontments, the offcers are consdered as among those
whose appontments are not otherwse provded for by aw.
Sometme n March 1989, RA 6715 (Herrera-Veoso Law), amendng
the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved. It provdes n Secton 13
thereof as foows:
xxx xxx xxx
The Charman, the Dvson Presdng Commssoners and other
Commssoners sha a be apponted by the Presdent, sub|ect to
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments. Appontments to
any vacancy sha come from the nomnees of the sector whch
nomnated the predecessor. The Executve Labor Arbters and
Labor Arbters sha aso be apponted by the Presdent, upon
recommendaton of the Secretary of Labor and Empoyment, and
sha be sub|ect to the Cv Servce Law, rues and reguatons.
Pursuant to sad aw (RA 6715), Presdent Aquno apponted the
Charman and Commssoners of the NLRC representng the pubc,
workers and empoyers sectors.
Ths petton for prohbton questons the consttutonaty and
egaty of the permanent appontments extended by the Presdent
of the Phppnes to the respondents Charman and Members of the
Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC), wthout submttng
the same to the Commsson on Appontments for confrmaton
pursuant to Art. 215 of the Labor Code as amended by sad RA
6715.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Congress may, by aw, requre
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments of appontments
extended by the presdent to government offcers addtona to
those expressy mentoned n the frst sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII
of the Consttuton whose appontments requre confrmaton by the
Commsson on Appontments.
HELD: No.
Indubtaby, the NLRC Charman and Commssoners fa wthn the
second sentence of Secton 16, Artce VII of the Consttuton, more
specfcay under the "thrd groups" of appontees referred to n
Mson, .e. those whom the Presdent may be authorzed by aw to
appont. Undenaby, the Charman and Members of the NLRC are
not among the offcers mentoned n the frst sentence of Secton
16, Artce VII whose appontments requres confrmaton by the
Commsson on Appontments. To the extent that RA 6715 requres
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments of the
appontments of respondents Charman and Members of the
Natona Labor Reatons Commsson, t s unconsttutona
because:
1) t amends by egsaton, the frst sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of
the Consttuton by addng thereto appontments requrng
confrmaton by the Commsson on Appontments; and
2) t amends by egsaton the second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII
of the Consttuton, by mposng the confrmaton of the
Commsson on Appontments on appontments whch are
otherwse entrusted ony wth the Presdent.
Decdng on what aws to pass s a egsatve prerogatve.
Determnng ther consttutonaty s a |udca functon. The Court
respects the audabe ntenton of the egsature. Regretfuy,
however, the consttutona nfrmty of Sec. 13 of RA 6715
amendng Art. 215 of the Labor Code, nsofar as t requres
confrmaton of the Commsson on Appontments over
appontments of the Charman and Member of the Natona Labor
Reatons Commsson (NLRC) s, as we see t, beyond redempton f
we are to render featy to the mandate of the Consttuton n Sec.
16, Art. VII thereof.
Supreme Court decsons appyng or nterpretng the Consttuton
sha form part of the ega system of the Phppnes. No doctrne or
prncpe of aw ad down by the Court n a decson rendered en
banc or n dvson may be modfed or reversed except by the
Court sttng en banc.
. . . The nterpretaton upon a aw by ths Court consttutes, n a
way, a part of the aw as of the date that aw was orgnay passed,
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.49
snce ths Court's constructon merey estabshes the
contemporaneous egsatve ntent that the aw thus construed
ntends to effectuate. The setted rue supported by numerous
authortes s a restatement of the ega maxm "egs nterpretado
egs vm obtnent" w the nterpretaton paced upon the wrtten
aw by a competent court has the force of aw.
ISSUE 2: Can egsaton expand a consttutona provson after the
Supreme Court has nterpreted t?
In Endenca and |ugo vs. Davd, the Court hed:
We have aready sad that the Legsature under our form of
government s assgned the task and the power to make and enact
aws, but not to nterpret them. Ths s more true wth regard to the
nterpretaton of the basc aw, the Consttuton, whch s not wthn
the sphere of the Legsatve department. If the Legsature may
decare what a aw means, or what a specfc porton of the
Consttuton means, especay after the courts have n actua case
ascertaned ts meanng by nterpretaton and apped t n a
decson, ths woud surey cause confuson and nstabty n |udca
processes and court decsons. Under such a system, a fna court
determnaton of a case based on a |udca nterpretaton of the aw
or of the Consttuton may be undermned or even annued by a
subsequent and dfferent nterpretaton of the aw or of the
Consttuton by the Legsatve department that woud be nether
wse nor desrabe, beng ceary voatve of the fundamenta
prncpes of our consttutona system of government, partcuary
those governng the separaton of powers. (Emphass supped)
Congress, of course, must nterpret the Consttuton, must estmate
the scope of ts consttutona powers when t sets out to enact
egsaton and t must take nto account the reevant consttutona
prohbtons.
. . . The Consttuton dd not change wth pubc opnon.
It s not ony the same words, but the same n meanng . . . and as
ong as t t speaks not ony n the same words, but wth the same
meanng and ntent wth whch t spoke when t came from the
hands of ts framers, and was voted and adopted by the peope . . .
The functon of the Court n passng upon an act of Congress s to
"ay the artce of the Consttuton whch s nvoked besde the
statute whch s chaenged and to decde whether the atter
squares wth the former" and to "announce ts consdered |udgment
upon the queston."
WHEREFORE, the petton s DISMISSED. Art. 215 of the Labor Code
as amended by RA 6715 nsofar as t requres the confrmaton of
the Commsson on Appontments of appontments of the Charman
and Members of the Natona Labor Reatons Commsson (NLRC) s
hereby decared unconsttutona and of no ega force and effect.
2. Lambno, et a. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174153, 25 October
2006) - Dgest
On 15 February 2006, the group of Rau Lambno and Erco
Aumentado ("Lambno Group") commenced gatherng sgnatures
for an ntatve petton to change the 1987 Consttuton. On 25
August 2006, the Lambno Group fed a petton wth the
Commsson on Eectons (COMELEC) to hod a pebscte that w
ratfy ther ntatve petton under Secton 5(b) and (c) and Secton
7 of Repubc Act No. 6735 or the Intatve and Referendum Act.
The proposed changes under the petton w shft the present
Bcamera-Presdenta system to a Uncamera-Paramentary form
of government.
The Lambno Group cams that: (a) ther petton had the support of
6,327,952 ndvduas consttutng at east 12% of a regstered
voters, wth each egsatve dstrct represented by at east 3% of
ts regstered voters; and (b) COMELEC eecton regstrars had
verfed the sgnatures of the 6.3 mon ndvduas.
The COMELEC, however, dened due course to the petton for ack
of an enabng aw governng ntatve pettons to amend the
Consttuton, pursuant to the Supreme CourtCs rung n
Santago vs. Commsson on Eectons. The Lambno Group eevated
the matter to the Supreme Court, whch aso threw out the petton.
1. The ntatve petton does not compy wth Secton 2, Artce XVII
of the Consttuton on drect proposa by the peope
Secton 2, Artce XVII of the Consttuton s the governng provson
that aows a peopeCs ntatve to propose amendments to the
Consttuton. Whe ths provson does not expressy state that the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.0
petton must set forth the fu text of the proposed amendments,
the deberatons of the framers of our Consttuton ceary show
that: (a) the framers ntended to adopt the reevant Amercan
|ursprudence on peopeCs ntatve; and (b) n partcuar, the
peope must frst see the fu text of the proposed amendments
before they sgn, and that the peope must sgn on a petton
contanng such fu text.
The essence of amendments "drecty proposed by the peope
through ntatve upon a petton" s that the entre proposa on ts
face s a petton by the peope. Ths means two essenta eements
must be present.
Frst, the peope must author and thus sgn the entre proposa. No
agent or representatve can sgn on ther behaf.
Second, as an ntatve upon a petton, the proposa must be
emboded n a petton.
These essenta eements are present ony f the fu text of the
proposed amendments s frst shown to the peope who express
ther assent by sgnng such compete proposa n a petton. The
fu text of the proposed amendments may be ether wrtten on the
face of the petton, or attached to t. If so attached, the petton
must state the fact of such attachment. Ths s an assurance that
every one of the severa mons of sgnatores to the petton had
seen the fu text of the proposed amendments before - not after -
sgnng.
Moreover, "an ntatve sgner must be nformed at the tme of
sgnng of the nature and effect of that whch s proposed" and
faure to do so s "deceptve and mseadng" whch renders the
ntatve vod.
In the case of the Lambno Groups petton, theres not a snge
word, phrase, or sentence of text of the proposed changes n the
sgnature sheet. Nether does the sgnature sheet state that the
text of the proposed changes s attached to t. The sgnature sheet
merey asks a queston whether the peope approve a shft from the
Bcamera-Presdenta to the Uncamera- Paramentary system of
government. The sgnature sheet does not show to the peope the
draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sgn the
sgnature sheet. Ths omsson s fata.
An ntatve that gathers sgnatures from the peope wthout frst
showng to the peope the fu text of the proposed amendments s
most key a decepton, and can operate as a ggantc fraud on the
peope. Thats why the Consttuton requres that an ntatve must
be "drecty proposed by the peope x x x n a petton" - meanng
that the peope must sgn on a petton that contans the fu text of
the proposed amendments. On so vta an ssue as amendng the
natons fundamenta aw, the wrtng of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hdden from the peope under a genera or
speca power of attorney to unnamed, faceess, and uneected
ndvduas.
2. The ntatve voates Secton 2, Artce XVII of the Consttuton
dsaowng revson through ntatves
Artce XVII of the Consttuton speaks of three modes of amendng
the Consttuton. The frst mode s through Congress upon three-
fourths vote of a ts Members. The second mode s through a
consttutona conventon. The thrd mode s through a peopes
ntatve.
Secton 1 of Artce XVII, referrng to the frst and second modes,
appes to "any amendment to, or revson of, ths Consttuton." In
contrast, Secton 2 of Artce XVII, referrng to the thrd mode,
appes ony to "amendments to ths Consttuton." Ths dstncton
was ntentona as shown by the deberatons of the Consttutona
Commsson. A peopes ntatve to change the Consttuton appes
ony to an amendment of the Consttuton and not to ts revson. In
contrast, Congress or a consttutona conventon can propose both
amendments and revsons to the Consttuton.
Does the Lambno Groups ntatve consttute an amendment or
revson of the Consttuton? Yes. By any ega test and under any
|ursdcton, a shft from a Bcamera-Presdenta to a Uncamera-
Paramentary system, nvovng the aboton of the Offce of the
Presdent and the aboton of one chamber of Congress, s beyond
doubt a revson, not a mere amendment.
Courts have ong recognzed the dstncton between an
amendment and a revson of a consttuton. Revson broady
mpes a change that aters a basc prncpe n the consttuton,
ke aterng the prncpe of separaton of powers or the system of
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1
checks-and-baances. There s aso revson f the change aters the
substanta entrety of the consttuton, as when the change affects
substanta provsons of the consttuton. On the other hand,
amendment broady refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deetes wthout aterng the basc prncpe nvoved. Revson
generay affects severa provsons of the consttuton, whe
amendment generay affects ony the specfc provson beng
amended.
Where the proposed change appes ony to a specfc provson of
the Consttuton wthout affectng any other secton or artce, the
change may generay be consdered an amendment and not a
revson. For exampe, a change reducng the votng age from 18
years to 15 years s an amendment and not a revson. Smary, a
change reducng Fpno ownershp of mass meda companes from
100% to 60% s an amendment and not a revson. Aso, a change
requrng a coege degree as an addtona quafcaton for eecton
to the Presdency s an amendment and not a revson.
The changes n these exampes do not enta any modfcaton of
sectons or artces of the Consttuton other than the specfc
provson beng amended. These changes do not aso affect the
structure of government or the system of checks-and-baances
among or wthn the three branches.
However, there can be no fxed rue on whether a change s an
amendment or a revson. A change n a snge word of one
sentence of the Consttuton may be a revson and not an
amendment. For exampe, the substtuton of the word "repubcan"
wth "monarchc" or "theocratc" n Secton 1, Artce II of the
Consttuton radcay overhaus the entre structure of government
and the fundamenta deoogca bass of the Consttuton. Thus,
each specfc change w have to be examned case-by-case,
dependng on how t affects other provsons, as we as how t
affects the structure of government, the carefuy crafted system of
checks-and-baances, and the underyng deoogca bass of the
exstng Consttuton.
Snce a revson of a consttuton affects basc prncpes, or severa
provsons of a consttuton, a deberatve body wth recorded
proceedngs s best suted to undertake a revson. A revson
requres harmonzng not ony severa provsons, but aso the
atered prncpes wth those that reman unatered. Thus,
consttutons normay authorze deberatve bodes ke consttuent
assembes or consttutona conventons to undertake revsons. On
the other hand, consttutons aow peopes ntatves, whch do
not have fxed and dentfabe deberatve bodes or recorded
proceedngs, to undertake ony amendments and not revsons.
In Caforna where the ntatve cause aows amendments but not
revsons to the consttuton |ust ke n our Consttuton, courts
have deveoped a two-part test: the quanttatve test and the
quatatve test. The quanttatve test asks whether the proposed
change s so extensve n ts provsons as to change drecty the
substanta entrety of the consttuton by the deeton or ateraton
of numerous exstng provsons. The court examnes ony the
number of provsons affected and does not consder the degree of
the change.
The quatatve test nqures nto the quatatve effects of the
proposed change n the consttuton. The man nqury s whether
the change w Coaccompsh such far reachng changes n the
nature of our basc governmenta pan as to amount to a
revson.C Whether there s an ateraton n the structure of
government s a proper sub|ect of nqury. Thus, Coa change n
the nature of |the| basc governmenta panC ncudes
Cochange n ts fundamenta framework or the fundamenta
powers of ts Branches.C A change n the nature of the basc
governmenta pan aso ncudes changes that Co|eopardze the
tradtona form of government and the system of check and
baances.C
Under both the quanttatve and quatatve tests, the Lambno
GroupCs ntatve s a revson and not merey an amendment.
Ouanttatvey, the Lambno GroupCs proposed changes
overhau two artces - Artce VI on the Legsature and Artce VII
on the Executve - affectng a tota of 105 provsons n the entre
Consttuton. Ouatatvey, the proposed changes ater substantay
the basc pan of government, from presdenta to paramentary,
and from a bcamera to a uncamera egsature.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.2
A change n the structure of government s a revson of the
Consttuton, as when the three great co-equa branches of
government n the present Consttuton are reduced nto two. Ths
aters the separaton of powers n the Consttuton. A shft from the
present Bcamera-Presdenta system to a Uncamera-
Paramentary system s a revson of the Consttuton. Mergng the
egsatve and executve branches s a radca change n the
structure of government. The aboton aone of the Offce of the
Presdent as the ocus of Executve Power aters the separaton of
powers and thus consttutes a revson of the Consttuton.
Lkewse, the aboton aone of one chamber of Congress aters the
system of checks-and-baances wthn the egsature and
consttutes a revson of the Consttuton.
The Lambno Group theorzes that the dfference between
CoamendmentC and CorevsonC s ony one of procedure,
not of substance. The Lambno Group posts that when a
deberatve body drafts and proposes changes to the Consttuton,
substantve changes are caed CorevsonsC because members
of the deberatve body work fu-tme on the changes. The same
substantve changes, when proposed through an ntatve, are
caed CoamendmentsC because the changes are made by
ordnary peope who do not make an Cooccupaton, professon, or
vocatonC o ut of such endeavor. The SC, however, rued that the
express ntent of the framers and the pan anguage of the
Consttuton contradct the Lambno GroupCs theory. Where the
ntent of the framers and the anguage of the Consttuton are cear
and pany stated, courts do not devate from such categorca
ntent and anguage.
3. A revst of Santago vs. COMELEC s not necessary
The petton faed to compy wth the basc requrements of Secton
2, Artce XVII of the Consttuton on the conduct and scope of a
peopeCs ntatve to amend the Consttuton. There s,
therefore, no need to revst ths CourtCs rung n Santago
decarng RA 6735 Concompete, nadequate or wantng n
essenta terms and condtonsC to cover the system of ntatve
to amend the Consttuton. An affrmaton or reversa of Santago
w not change the outcome of the present petton. ItCs setted
that courts w not pass upon the consttutonaty of a statute f the
case can be resoved on some other grounds.
Even assumng that RA 6735 s vad, ths w not change the resut
here because the present petton voates Secton 2, Artce XVII of
the Consttuton, whch provson must frst be comped wth even
before compyng wth RA 6735. Worse, the petton voates the
foowng provsons of RA 6735:
a. Secton 5(b), requrng that the peope must sgn the petton as
sgnatores. The 6.3 mon sgnatores dd not sgn the petton or
the amended petton fed wth the COMELEC. Ony Attys. Lambno,
Donato and Agra sgned the petton and amended petton.
b. Secton 10(a), provdng that no petton embracng more than
one sub|ect sha be submtted to the eectorate. The proposed
Secton 4(4) of the Transtory Provsons, mandatng the nterm
Parament to propose further amendments or revsons to the
Consttuton, s a sub|ect matter totay unreated to the shft n the
form of government.
Source: http://|p-aw.com/bog/ambno-vs-comeec-gr-174153-25-
october-2006-dgest/
3. Sandad vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 90878 |anuary 29, 1990
PABLITO V. SANIDAD vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
On October 23, 1989, Repubc Act No. 6766, entted "AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA
AUTONOMOUS REGION" was enacted nto aw. The Commsson on
Eectons, promugated Resouton No. 2167, to govern the conduct
of the pebscte on the sad Organc Act for the Cordera
Autonomous Regon.
In a petton dated November 20, 1989, heren pettoner Pabto V.
Sandad, who cams to be a newspaper coumnst of the
"OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weeky
newspaper crcuated n the Cty of Baguo and the Corderas,
assaed the consttutonaty of Secton 19 of Comeec Resouton
No. 2167, whch provdes:
Secton 19. Prohbton on coumnsts, commentators or
announcers. w Durng the pebscte campagn perod, on the day
before and on the pebscte day, no mass meda coumnst,
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.(
commentator, announcer or personaty sha use hs coumn or
rado or teevson tme to campagn for or aganst the pebscte
ssues.
ISSUE: Whether Secton 19 of Comeec Resouton No. 2167 s
unconsttutona on the ground that t voates the consttutona
guarantees of the freedom of expresson and of the press.
HELD:
It s cear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Consttuton that what was
granted to the Comeec was the power to supervse and reguate
the use and en|oyment of franchses, permts or other grants ssued
for the operaton of transportaton or other pubc uttes, meda of
communcaton or nformaton to the end that equa opportunty,
tme and space, and the rght to repy, ncudng reasonabe, equa
rates therefor, for pubc nformaton campagns and forums among
canddates are ensured. The ev sought to be prevented by ths
provson s the possbty that a franchse hoder may favor or gve
any undue advantage to a canddate n terms of advertsng space
or rado or teevson tme. Ths s aso the reason why a "coumnst,
commentator, announcer or personaty, who s a canddate for any
eectve offce s requred to take a eave of absence from hs work
durng the campagn perod (2nd par. Secton 11(b) R.A. 6646). It
cannot be gansad that a coumnst or commentator who s aso a
canddate woud be more exposed to the voters to the pre|udce of
other canddates uness requred to take a eave of absence.
However, nether Artce IX-C of the Consttuton nor Secton 11 (b),
2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that the Comeec
has aso been granted the rght to supervse and reguate the
exercse by meda practtoners themseves of ther rght to
expresson durng pebscte perods. Meda practtoners exercsng
ther freedom of expresson durng pebscte perods are nether
the franchse hoders nor the canddates. In fact, there are no
canddates nvoved n a pebscte. Therefore, Secton 19 of
Comeec Resouton No. 2167 has no statutory bass.
In the case of Badoy, |r. v. Comeec, L-32546, Oct. 16, 1970, where
the consttutonaty of the prohbton of certan forms of eecton
propaganda was assaed, We rued theren that the prohbton s a
vad exercse of the poce power of the state "to prevent the
perverson and prosttuton of the eectora apparatus and of the
dena of equa protecton of the aws." The ev sought to be
prevented n an eecton whch ed to Our rung n that case does
not obtan n a pebscte. In a pebscte, votes are taken n an area
on some speca potca matter unke n an eecton where votes
are cast n favor of specfc persons for some offce. In other words,
the eectorate s asked to vote for or aganst ssues, not canddates
n a pebscte.
Anent respondent Comeec's argument that Secton 19 of Comeec
Resouton 2167 does not absoutey bar pettoner-coumnst from
expressng hs vews and/or from campagnng for or aganst the
organc act because he may do so through the Comeec space
and/or Comeec rado/teevson tme, the same s not mertorous.
Whe the mtaton does not absoutey bar pettoner's freedom of
expresson, t s st a restrcton on hs choce of the forum where
he may express hs vew. No reason was advanced by respondent
to |ustfy such abrdgement. We hod that ths form of reguaton s
tantamount to a restrcton of pettoner's freedom of expresson for
no |ustfabe reason.
Pebscte ssues are matters of pubc concern and mportance. The
peope's rght to be nformed and to be abe to freey and
ntegenty make a decson woud be better served by access to
an unabrdged dscusson of the ssues, ncudng the forum. The
peope affected by the ssues presented n a pebscte shoud not
be unduy burdened by restrctons on the forum where the rght to
expresson may be exercsed. Comeec spaces and Comeec rado
tme may provde a forum for expresson but they do not guarantee
fu dssemnaton of nformaton to the pubc concerned because
they are mted to ether specfc portons n newspapers or to
specfc rado or teevson tmes.
ACCORDINGLY, the nstant petton s GRANTED. Secton 19 of
Comeec Resouton No. 2167 s decared nu and vod and
unconsttutona. The restranng order heren ssued s hereby
made permanent.
4. Leyson vs. Offce of the Ombudsman
G.R. No. 134990 Apr 27, 2000
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.4
On 11 March 1997 pettoner Manue M. Leyson |r., Executve Vce
Presdent of ITTC, fed wth pubc respondent Offce of the
Ombudsman a grevance case aganst respondent Oscar A.
Torraba. The foowng s a summary of the rreguartes and
corrupt practces aegedy commtted by respondent Torraba: (a)
breach of contract - unatera canceaton of vad and exstng
contract; (b) bad fath - fasfcaton of documents and reports to
stop the operaton of MT Transasa; (c) manpuaton - nfuenced
ther nsurance to dsquafy MT Transasa; (d) unreasonabe dena
of requrement mposed; (e) doube standards and nconsstent n
favor of MT Marag; (f) engaged and entered nto a contract wth
Southwest Martme Corp. whch s not the owner of MT Marag,
where abtes were waved and whose pad-up capta s ony
P250,000.00; and, (g) overprcng n the freght rate causng osses
of mons of pesos to Cocochem.
On 2 |anuary 1998 pettoner charged respondent Trso Antporda,
Charman of UCPB and CIIF O Ms, and respondent Oscar A.
Torraba wth voaton of The Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces Act
aso before the Ombudsman anchored on the aforementoned
aeged rreguartes and corrupt practces. The OMB dsmssed the
compant, based on the fndng that the case nvoved breach of
contract.
ISSUE: Whether the OMB commtted GADLAE| n dsmssng the
compant
HELD: Oumpo v. Tanodbayan nvoved the ssue as to whether
PETROPHIL was a government owned or controed corporaton the
empoyees of whch fe wthn the |ursdctona purvew of the
Tanodbayan for purposes of The Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces
Act. We uphed the |ursdcton of the Tanodbayan on the
ratocnaton that w
Whe t may be that PETROPHIL was not orgnay "created" as a
government-owned or controed corporaton, after t was acqured
by PNOC, whch s a government-owned or controed corporaton,
PETROPHIL became a subsdary of PNOC and thus shed-off ts
prvate status. It s now funded and owned by the government as,
n fact, t was acqured to perform functons reated to government
programs and poces on o, a vta commodty n the economc fe
of the naton. It was acqured not temporary but as a permanent
ad|unct to perform essenta government or government-reated
functons, as the marketng arm of the PNOC to assst the atter n
seng and dstrbutng o and petroeum products to assure and
mantan an adequate and stabe domestc suppy.
But these |ursprudenta rues nvoked by pettoner n support of
hs cam that the CIIF companes are government owned and/or
controed corporatons are ncompete wthout resortng to the
defnton of "government owned or controed corporaton"
contaned n par. (13), Sec. 2, Introductory Provsons of the
Admnstratve Code of 1987, . e., any agency organzed as a stock
or non-stock corporaton vested wth functons reatng to pubc
needs whether governmenta or propretary n nature, and owned
by the Government drecty or through ts nstrumentates ether
whoy, or, where appcabe as n the case of stock corporatons, to
the extent of at east ffty-one (51) percent of ts capta stock. The
defnton mentons three (3) requstes, namey, frst, any agency
organzed as a stock or non-stock corporaton; second, vested wth
functons reatng to pubc needs whether governmenta or
propretary n nature; and, thrd, owned by the Government drecty
or through ts nstrumentates ether whoy, or, where appcabe
as n the case of stock corporatons, to the extent of at east ffty-
one (51) percent of ts capta stock.
In the present case, a three (3) corporatons comprsng the CIIF
companes were organzed as stock corporatons. The UCPB-CIIF
owns 44.10% of the shares of LEGASPI OIL, 91.24% of the shares of
GRANEXPORT, and 92.85% of the shares of UNITED COCONUT. 15
Obvousy, the beow 51% shares of stock n LEGASPI OIL removes
ths frm from the defnton of a government owned or controed
corporaton. Our concern has thus been mted to GRANEXPORT
and UNITED COCONUT as we go back to the second requste.
Unfortunatey, t s n ths regard that pettoner faed to
substantate hs contentons. There s no showng that
GRANEXPORT and/or UNITED COCONUT was vested wth functons
reatng to pubc needs whether governmenta or propretary n
nature unke PETROPHIL n Oumpo. The Court thus concudes that
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.
the CIIF companes are, as found by pubc respondent, prvate
corporatons not wthn the scope of ts |ursdcton.
Wth the foregong concuson, we fnd t unnecessary to resove the
other ssues rased by pettoner.
A bref note on prvate respondents' charge of forum shoppng.
Executve Secretary v. Gordon 16 s nstructve that forum shoppng
conssts of fng mutpe suts nvovng the same partes for the
same cause of acton, ether smutaneousy or successvey, for the
purpose of obtanng a favorabe |udgment. It s ready apparent
that the present charge w not prosper because the cause of
acton heren, . e., voaton of The Ant-Graft and Corrupt Practces
Act, s dfferent from the cause of acton n the case pendng before
the tra court whch s coecton of a sum of money pus damages.
WHEREFORE, the petton s DISMISSED. The Resouton of pubc
respondent Offce of the Ombudsman of 30 |anuary 1998 whch
dsmssed the compant of pettoner Manue M. Leyson |r., as we
as ts Order of 4 |une 1998 denyng hs moton for reconsderaton,
s AFFIRMED. Costs aganst pettoner.1wwph1.nwt
SO ORDERED.
+,-I*IN#I,.
&!G&& V ELEC#O&L CO""I((IO!
&.&)&D& G%O V E"I#&
*,/H!0 #N0 IN/,+,/#/I!N
>OIGI!&L %!DE(#&!DI!G5 LEG&L E&LI("5 &!D #3E
I!#EPE#&#IO! O' #3I( CO!(#I#%#IO!?
ROBERT CLINTON (1987)
>CO!(#I#%#IO!&L E"PIICI("- @%&(I-!E%#&L
PI!CIPLE( &!D CO!(#I#%#IO!&L #%#3(?
TIMOTHY ZICK (2003)
#/ 12II: ,*#3IN4 /H, C!N./I/5/I!N
>"&LOLO(- #3E CI(E( O' #3E EP%.LIC?
TEODORO AGONCILLO (1997)
>'O" "C)I!LE2A( I!(#%C#IO!( #O #3E !E7
CO!(#I#%#IO!- DOC%"E!#( O! #3E P3ILIPPI!E
CO!(#I#%#IO!&L (2(#E"?
VICENTE MENDOZA
(SEE LEGAL HISTORY REVIEWER)
"&.&!&G V LOPE4 VI#O
GO!4&LE( V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; November 9, 1967
#OLE!#I!O V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; October 16, 1971
PL&!&( V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; |anuary 22, 1973
$&VELL&!& V EBEC%#IVE (ECE#&2
; March 31, 1973
(&!ID&D V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; October 12, 1976
"I#& V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
; Apr 4, 1981
L&72E(A LE&G%E 'O & .E##E P3ILIPPI!E( V &@%I!O
EN BANC; May 22, 1986
'&C#(CI((%E(
- Pettoners questoned egtmacy of Aquno government.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.6
- Her govt was sad to be ega snce t was not estabshed
pursuant to 1973 Const.
- Procamaton No. 3- ".Aquno govt s #nstalle& thro$gh &#re%t
e,er%#se of )o.er of the ;#l#)#no )eo)le, n defance of the
provsons of 1973 Const."
- Apr 10- Court aready voted to dsmss.
- Apr 17- Atty. Lozano wthdrew pettons and sad that they woud
pursue t by extra-|udca methods.
3ELD
Pet#t#ons ha*e no mer#t.
(1) Pettoners have no )ersonal#t+ and no %a$se of a%t#on.
(2) Legtmacy of govt s NOT |ustcabe, and s a potca queston
where peope are the ony |udge.
(3) Peope have aready accepted such govt, whch s n effectve
contro of the country, makng t a de |ure govt.
(4) Communty of natons has aso accepted t.
(5) Eeven members of SC have sworn to uphod aw under her
govt.
I! E- (&#%!I!O .E"%DE4
;October 24, 1986
DE LEO! V E(G%E& August 31, 1987
(&!#I&GO V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
DAVIDE; March 19, 1997
'&C#(
Atty. |esus Defn fed to the COMELEC a petton to amend the
Consttuton through a peopes ntatve. In hs petton, he wanted
to amend Sec 4 and 7 of Artce 6, Sec 4 of Artce 7 and Sec 8 of
Artce 10 n order to ft the term mts of a eectve government
offcas. He asks the COMELEC to assst them n gatherng the
suffcent number of sgnatures by settng up sgnature statons a
over the country, as requred by COMELEC Resouton No. 2300.
The COMELEC took cognzance of ther petton and set the case up
for hearng. Senator Rau Roco then fed a moton to dsmss before
the COMELEC, statng that t was not the ntatory petton propery
cognzabe before the COMELEC. Sen. Mram Defensor Santago, on
the other hand, fed a speca cv acton for prohbton, sayng
that RA 6735 s defcent nsofar as the ntatve for amendng the
Consttuton s concerned. She further aeges that what the
pettoners are wng to propose are not amendments, but
revsons. Thereafter, LABAN, DIK and MABINI fed ther motons for
nterventon, argung on the same ponts.
I((%E(
1. WON the court can take acton of ths case despte there beng a
pendng case before the COMELEC
2. WON RA 6735 s an adequate enabng aw for peopes ntatve
3. WON the COMELEC resouton no. 2300 s vad
4. WON the COMELEC acted wthout |ursdcton or n grave abuse
of dscreton n entertanng the Defn petton
3ELD
1. Yes. Comeecs faure to act on rocos moton to dsmss and ts
nsstence to hod on to the petton rendered rpe and vabe the
nstant petton under sec 2 rue 65 of rues of court
- Case may be treated as a speca cv acton for certorar snce
defn ddnt come up wth the mnmum number of sgnatures
- Court may brush asde techncates n cases of transcendenta
mportance.
2. No. The aw s nadequate.
- Frst, n Sec 2 of the Act (Statement and Pocy), t seems that the
word Consttuton was a deayed afterthought. The word
Consttuton was nether germane nor reevant to the sad secton.
It ony proves that t s sent to amendments n the consttuton.
- Second, n the Act does not provde for the contents of a petton
for ntatve on the consttuton.
- Thrd, there s no separate subtte for ntatve for the
Consttuton.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.7
- Therefore, t seems that the man thrust of the act s on ntatve
and referendum of natona and oca aws. It faed to provde for
detas n mpementaton of ntatve on amendments to the
Consttuton.
- Comeec cannot be deegated power, snce the aw s ncompete
as t fas to provdes a suffcent pocy and standard for the
deegated power.
3. No. It ony foows that snce the RA 6735 s ncompete, t does
not have the power to prescrbe rues and reguatons on the
conduct of ntatve on amendments to the Consttuton.
4. Yes. There was nsuffcent number of sgnatures. Aso, comeec
acqures |ursdcton upon fng of the petton. The defn petton
was ony n ts ntatory peadng.
0ecision Petton granted
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P%!O D0on0ur an+ +issentE
RA 6735 s not defectve. The ntent of the framers was to provde
for a aw for ntatve on amendments to the Consttuton. (he cted
the sponsorshp remarks of Roco)
VI#%G
The COMELEC shoud have dsmssed the petton, snce t dd not
have the requred number of sgnatures.
'&!CI(CO D0on0ur an+ +issentE
ookng at the defnton of terms n the sad RA, the aw ceary
ntends to ncude amendments to the Consttuton.
P&!G&!I.&!
RA 6735 s not perfect but taken together wth the Consttuton and
COMELEC Res. No. 2300, t s suffcent to mpement Consttutona
ntatves.
E(OL%#IO!
;

E(#&D& V DE(IE#O
PUNO;
'&C#(
- Nature: Wrt of Premnary In|uncton aganst compants aganst
hm unt hs term s over
- May 11, 1998 - Estrada was eected Presdent; Arroyo was VP;
some 10 mon Fpnos voted for Estrada and both Estrada and
Arroyo were to serve a 6-year term.
- Oct. 4, 2000 - Estrada's "sharp decent from power" began; Chavt
Sngson, Estrada's ong tme frend, pubcy accused Estrada,
Estrada's famy and frends of recevng mons of pesos from
|ueteng ords.
- Oct. 5, 2000- Sen. Teofsto Gungona |r. devered a speech
entted "I ACCUSE" wheren he accused Estrada of recevng 220
mon pesos worth of |ueteng money from Gov. Sngson from
November 1998 t August 200 and obtaned another 70 mon
peson on excse tax st from Gov. Sngson
- The prvege speech was referred by Sen. Dron to the Bue
Rbbon Commttee and the Commttee on |ustce for |ont
nvestgaton
- The House of Reps aso decded to nvestgate the expose of Gov.
Sngson.
- Reps. Heherson Avarez, Ernesto Herrera and Mchae Defensor
spearheaded the move to mpeach Estrada.
- Oct. 11, 2000 - Archbshop |ame Cardna Sn ssued a pastora
statement askng Estrada to step down from the presdency as he
had ost the mora authorty to govern
- Oct. 13, 2000- CBCP aso cred out for Estrada's resgnaton
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'
- Oct. 17, 2000- Former Pres. Aquno |oned the cas for
resgnaton and former Pres. Ramos |oned the chorus as we.
- But before that, on Oct 12, Arroyo aready resgned as DSWD
Secretary and aso asked for Estrada's resgnaton but Estrada
reay hed on to hs offce and refused to resgn. (Accordng to |.
Puno: "The heat s on.")
- November ended wth a "bg-bang" because on November 13,
House Speaker Manue Var transmtted the Artces of
Impeachment (whch was based on the grounds of brbery, graft
and corrupton, betraya of pubc trust and cupabe voaton of the
Consttuton) sgned by 115 representatves to the Senate.
- Nov. 20, 2000- Senate fnay opened the mpeachment tra. 21
senators took ther oath as |udges wth SC Chef |ustce Haro G.
Davde |r, presdng.
- Dec. 7, 2000- The mpeachment tra started.
- Dramatc pont of the December hearngs was the testmony of
Carssa Ocampo, the SVP of Equtabe-PCI BANK. Ocampo testfed
that she was one foot away from Estrada when he affxed the
sgnature "|ose Vearde" on documents nvovng a 500 mon
pesos nvestment account wth ther bank on Feb 4 2000.
- Impeachment tra was ad|ourned n the sprt of Chrstmas and
when |anuary came, more bombshes were expoded.
> Sec. of Fnance Atty. Esprtu testfed that Estrada |onty
owned BW Resources Corporaton wth Mr. Dante Tan who was
facng charges of nsder tradng.
> |an. 16, 2001- wth a vote of 11-10, the Senator |udges rued
aganst openng the 2
nd
enveope whch aegedy contaned
evdence showng that pettoner hed 3.3 bon pesos n a secret
bank account under the name "|ose Vearde."
> In short, ths resuted to what we know as "EDSA II"
- |anuary 19, 2001- wthdrawa of support from the Armed Forces,
PNP and mass resgnatons ensued
- |an 20, 2001- Estrada surrendered. At 12 nn, C| Davde
admnstered the oath to Arroyo as the Presdent of the Phppnes.
> Estrada eft Maacaang and ssued a press statement sayng
that he now eaves Maacaang Paace for the sake of peace and
n order to begn the heang process of our naton.
> He aso wrote a etter sayng that the VP sha be the actng
presdent and sad etter was transmtted to former Speaker
Fuentebea and Sen. Pres. Pmente.
- |an 21, 2001- Arroyo dscharged the powers and dutes of the
Presdency. The SC ssued a resouton, whch confrmed the
authorty gven by the 12 members of the Court then present to the
Chef |ustce to admnster the oath of offce to GMA.
- |an. 24, 2001- Despte the recept of Estrada's etter, House of
Reps. passed House Resouton No. 175 experencng fu support to
GMA's admnstraton and aso HR no. 176
- Feb 7, 2001- Despte recept of Estrada's etter camng nabty,
Senate passed Resouton No. 82 confrmng GMA's nomnaton of
Teofsto Gungona as VP and the Senate's support of the new gov't.
and aso n the same date, Senate passed Res. No. 83 recognzng
that the mpeachment court s f$n%t$s off#%t#o.
- Feb. 8, 2001- Senate passed Res. No. 84 certfyng vacancy n
the Senate.
- Feb 15, 2001- C| Davde and |. Panganban nhbted themseves
from partcpatng n ths case as per Sagusag's moton. They of
course debunked hs charge "that they have compromsed ther
weght on one sde" but nonetheess recused themseves.
I((%E(
1. WON the pettons present a |ustcabe controversy
2. WON the pettoner resgned as presdent
3. WON the pettoner s ony temporary unabe to act as presdent
4. WON the pettoner en|oys mmunty from sut (and assumng he
en|oys mmunty, the extent of the mmunty)
5. WON the prosecuton of pettoner Estrada shoud be en|oned
due to pre|udca pubcty.
3ELD
1. The Court sha consder as |ustcabe the ssue of WON the
change n the presdency was done n the manner prescrbed by
the 1987 Consttuton. (7n th#s )art, the )onente &#fferent#ate&
E:S0 7 from E:S0 77 sa+#ng that E:S0 7 .as a re*ol$t#on, %hange of
)res#&en%+ .as &one e,tra-%onst#t$t#onall+ .hereas E:S0 77 .as
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.9
not a re*ol$t#on, the %hange .as &one to an element of the
go*ernment onl+ an& #t .as &one #ntra-%onst#t$t#onall+ /e%a$se
9M0 s.ore to $)hol& or )rote%t the 19'7 Const#t$t#on. >ea& #t #f $
.ant a /etter $n&erstan&#ng. 0lso, the Co$rt #s #nter)ret#ng #/ II
sec 1, #/ 2II .ec % an& #/ 2II .ec 11 #n th#s %ase so loo= at
those )ro*#s#ons too.!
2. The Court hed that resgnaton sha be determned from the
totaty of pror, contemporaneous and posteror facts and
crcumstanta evdence bearng a matera reevance on the ssue.
(In reaton to ths, see Art. VII, Secton 8)
3. The Court hed that the queston WON t may revew and revse
the decson of both Houses of Congress recognzng GMA as the de
|ure Presdent of the Phppnes s a potca one. (Congress has
la#& Estra&aBs %la#m of #na/#l#t+ to rest /e%a$se of #ts re%ogn#t#on of
9M0 as )res#&ent. "he #ss$e #s a )ol#t#%al 4$est#on an& the Co$rt
%annot re*#e. CongressB &e%#s#on .#tho$t *#olat#ng the )r#n%#)le of
se)arat#on of )o.ers.!
4. The Court hed (sha rue) that the Presdent en|oys mmunty
ony durng hs tenure. (Reasonng n the In Re: Bermudez case that
the ncumbent Presdent s mmune from sut or from beng brought
to court durng hs perod of hs ncumbency and tenure but not
beyond.)
5. The Court sha rue that to warrant a fndng of pre|udca
pubcty, there must be aegaton and proof that the |udges have
been unduy nfuenced by the barrage of pubcty.
0eicison The pettons of |oseph E. Estrada chaengng the
respondent Gora Macapaga- Arroyo as the de |ure 14
th
Presdent
of the Repubc are DISMISSED.
GO!4&LE( V !&V&(&
GONZAGA-REYES; August 14, 2000
'&C#(
- Preparatory Commsson on Consttutona Reform or PCCR was
created by then Presdent |oseph Estrada on Nov 26, 1998 by vrtue
of Executve Order No. 43 n order to "study and recommend
proposed amendments and/or revsons to the 1987 Consttuton,
and the manner of mpementng the same."
> The PCCR was nstructed to compete ts task on or before |une
30, 1999. On Feb 19, 1999, the Presdent ssued Executve Order
No. 70 whch extended the tme frame of the PCCRs work unt
Dec 31 1999.
> The PCCR submtted ts recommendatons to the Presdent on
Dec 20, 1999 and was dssoved by the Presdent on the same
day.
- Ramon Gonzaes, n hs capacty as ctzen and taxpayer, fed a
petton for prohbton and mandamus, assang the
consttutonaty of the creaton of the PCCR on two grounds:
> t s a pubc offce whch ony the egsature can create by way
of aw
> by creatng the PCCR, the Presdent s ntervenng n a process
from whch he s totay excuded by the Consttuton, .e. the
amendment of the fundamenta charter.
- In ths regard, Gonzaes:
> seeks to en|on the PCCR and the presdenta consutants,
advsers and assstants from actng as such
> seeks to en|on Exec Sec Ronado Zamora from enforcng ther
advce and recommendatons
> seeks to en|on the Commsson on Audt from passng n audt
expendtures for the PCCR and the presdenta consutants,
advsers and assstants
> prays for an order compeng respondent Zamora to furnsh
pettoner wth nformaton on certan matters.
I((%E(
1. WON the case has become moot and academc
2. WON pettoner has standng as a ctzen
3. WON pettoner has standng as a taxpayer
4. WON the Presdent has power to create postons (70) n the
Offce of the Presdent and appont presdenta consutants (20),
advsers (22) and assstants (28)
5. WON the Court may ssue a wrt of mandamus orderng Exec Sec
Ronado Zamora to provde pettoner wth names of executve
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.60
offcas hodng mutpe postons n government, copes of ther
appontments, and a st of the recpents of uxury vehces sezed
by the Bureau of Customs and turned over to Maacaang.
3ELD
1. atio An act s consdered moot when t no onger presents a
|ustcabe controversy because the ssues nvoved have become
academc or dead. It s beyond the scope of |udca power to gve
advsory opnon.
!biter The case has aready become moot and academc as the
PCCR has aready ceased to exst. Reef prayed for by Gonzaes
(prohbton) s mpossbe to grant and s an napproprate remedy
as body sought to be en|oned no onger exsts. Any rung
regardng the PCCR woud ony be n the nature of an advsory
opnon.
2. atio A ctzen has standng ony f he can estabsh that he has
suffered some actua or threatened n|ury as a resut of the
aegedy ega conduct of the government; the n|ury s fary
traceabe to the chaenged acton; and the n|ury s key to be
redressed by a favorabe acton.
!biter The nterest of a person assang the consttutonaty of a
statute must be drect and persona. He must be abe to show that
the aw s nvad, but aso that he has sustaned or s n mmedate
danger of sustanng some drect n|ury as a resut of ts
enforcement, and not merey that he suffers thereby n some
ndefnte way.
19
3. atio A taxpayer has standng to rase a consttutona ssue
when t s estabshed that pubc funds have been dsbursed n
aeged contraventon of the aw or the Consttuton, the acton of
whch s propery brought ony when there s an exercse by
Congress of ts taxng or spendng power.
!biter Under Sec 7 of EO No 43 whch created the PCCR, the
amount of P3 mon s "approprated" for ts operatona expenses
"to be sourced from the funds of the Offce of the Presdent." The
appropratons were authorzed by the Presdent, not by Congress.
In fact, there was no appropraton at a snce a))ro)r#at#on has
19
n Kosbayan v Morato ctng Vamonte v Ph Charty Sweepstakes Offce
been defned as nothng more than the egsatve authorzaton
prescrbed by the Consttuton that money may be pad out of the
Treasury. The funds for the PCCR was taken from the funds
ntended for the Offce of the Presdent, n the exercse of the Chef
Executves power to transfer funds pursuant to Sec 25 (5) Art VI of
Consttuton.
4. Appontment s not synonymous wth creaton.
- Pettoner does not have the personaty to rase ths ssue as he
has not proven that he has sustaned or s n danger of sustanng
any n|ury as a resut of the appontment, and he has not aeged
the necessary facts to enabe the Court to determne f he
possesses a taxpayers nterest.
5. As enshrned n Sec 7 of the B of Rghts, "the rght of the
peope to nformaton on matters of pubc concern sha be
recognzed. Access to offca records, and to documents, and
papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons, or decsons, as we
as to government research data used as bass for pocy
deveopment, sha be afforded the ctzen, sub|ect to such
mtatons as may be provded by aw."
- The rght to nformaton s a pubc rght, and the requrement of
persona nterest s satsfed by the mere fact that pettoner s a
ctzen and therefore part of the genera pubc whch possesses the
rght.
- "matters of pubc concern" s a term whch "embrace(s) a broad
spectrum of sub|ects whch the pubc may want to know, ether
because these drecty affect ther ves, or smpy because such
matters naturay arouse the nterest of an ordnary ctzen. In the
fna anayss, t s for the courts to determne n a case to case
bass whether the matter at ssue s of nterest or mportance, as t
reates to or affects the pubc."
0ecision Petton s dsmssed, wth the excepton that respondent
Zamora s ordered to furnsh pettoner wth nformaton requested.
/H, +HI-I++IN,. #. # ./#/,
6#/ I, II, I2, 27
./#/, 0,FIN,0
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.61
COLLEC#O O' I!#E!&L EVE!%E V C&"PO( %ED&
FERNANDO; October 29, 1971
'&C#(
- Coector of Interna Revenue hed Antono Campos Rueda, as
admnstrator of the estate of the ate Estrea Sorano Vda. de
Cerdera, abe for the stun of P 161,974.95 as defcency estate
and nhertance taxes for the transfer of ntangbe persona
propertes n the Phppnes, the deceased, a Spansh natona
havng been a resdent of Tanger, Morocco from 1931 up to the
tme of her death n 1955.
- Ruedas request for exempton was dened on the ground that the
aw of Tanger s not recproca to Secton 122 of the Natona
Interna Revenue Code.
- Rueda requested for the reconsderaton of the decson denyng
the cam for tax exempton. However, respondent dened ths
request on the grounds that there was no recprocty |wth Tanger,
whch was moreover| a mere prncpaty, not a foregn country.
- Court of Tax Appeas rued that the expresson 'foregn country,'
used n the ast provso of Secton 122 of the Natona Interna
Revenue Code, refers to a government of that foregn power whch,
athough not an nternatona person n the sense of nternatona
aw, does not mpose transfer or death taxes upon ntangbe
persona propertes of our ctzens not resdng theren, or whose
aw aows a smar exempton from such taxes. It s, therefore, not
necessary that Tanger shoud have been recognzed by our
Government n order to entte the pettoner to the exempton
benefts of the ast provso of Secton 122 of our Tax Code.
I((%E
Whether or not the requstes of statehood, or at east so much
thereof as may be necessary for the acquston of an nternatona
personaty, must be satsfed for a "foregn country" to fa wthn
the exempton of Secton 122 of the Natona Interna Revenue
Code
3ELD
- (upreme Court a//irme+ Court o/ ta: &ppealAs uling.
- If a foregn country s to be dentfed wth a state, t s requred n
ne wth Pound's formuaton that t be a potcay organzed
soveregn communty ndependent of outsde contro bound by tes
of natonhood, egay supreme wthn ts terrtory, actng through a
government functonng under a regme of aw.
- t s thus a soveregn person wth the peope composng t vewed
as an organzed corporate socety under a government wth the
ega competence to exact obedence to ts commands.
- The stress s on ts beng a naton, ts peope occupyng a defnte
terrtory, potcay organzed, exercsng by means of ts
government ts soveregn w over the ndvduas wthn t and
mantanng ts separate nternatona personaty.
- State s a terrtora socety dvded nto government and sub|ects,
camng wthn ts aotted area a supremacy over a other
nsttutons. Moreover, smary woud pont to the power entrusted
to ts government to mantan wthn ts terrtory the condtons of a
ega order and to enter nto nternatona reatons. Wth the atter
requste satsfed, nternatona aw does not exact ndependence
as a condton of statehood.
- Coector of Interna Revenue v. De Lara: There can be no doubt
that Caforna as a state n the Amercan Unon was ackng n the
aeged requste of nternatona personaty. Nonetheess, t was
hed to be a foregn country wthn the meanng of Secton 122 of
the Natona Interna Revenue Code.
- Ths Court dd commt tsef to the doctrne that even a tny
prncpaty, that of Lechtensten, hardy an nternatona
personaty n the tradtona sense, dd fa under ths exempt
category.
.!2,,I4N/8 #N0 .!2,,I4N I**5NI/8
&# II DECL&&#IO! O' PI!CIPLE( &!D (#&#E POLICIE(
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.62
Sec 1: The Phppnes s a democratc and repubcan state.
Soveregnty resdes n the peope and a government authorty
emanates form them.
&# V (%''&GE
Sec 1: Suffrage may be exercsed by a ctzens of the Phppnes,
not otherwse dsquafed by aw, who are at east 18 years of age,
and who sha have resded n the Phppnes for at east one year
and n the pace wheren they propose to vote, for at east sx
months mmedatey precedng the eecton. No teracy, property,
or other substantve requrement sha be mposed on the exercse
of suffrage
Sec 2: The Congress sha provde a system for securng the
secrecy and sanctty of the baot as we as a system for absentee
votng by quafed Fpnos abroad.
The Congress sha aso desgn a procedure for the dsabed and
terates to vote wthout the assstance of other persons. Unt
then, they sha be aowed to vote under exstng aws and such
rues as the Commsson on Eectons may promugate to protect
secrecy of the baot.
#&!&D& V &!G&&
PANGANIBAN; May 2, 1997
'&C#(
- Petton for Certorar
- DTI secretary Rzano Navarro sgned the Fna Act Embodyng the
Resuts of the Uruguay Round of Mutatera Negotatons. (Fna
Act). By sgnng t, he agreed on behaf of the Phppnes
o To submt the WTO agreement to competent authortes
for ther approva
o Adopt the mnstera decaratons and decsons
(Bascay, the fna act ams to beraze and expand word trade
and strengthen the nterreatonshp between trade and economc
poces affectng growth and deveopment.)
- The presdent then sent to the senate a etter whch submts the
Uruguay Round Fna Act for ther concurrence
- Another etter was sent by the presdent. Ths tme, he submts
the Uruguay Fna Round Act, the Agreement Estabshng the WTO,
the Mnstera Decaratons and Decsons and the Understandng
on Commtments n Fnanca Servces to the Senate for ts
concurrence.
- The Senate adopted Resouton number 97, whch expresses ther
concurrence n the ratfcaton of the presdent of the Agreement
Estabshng the WTO.
- The Presdent sgned the Instrument of Ratfcaton of the
Agreement Estabshng the WTO and the agreements and
assocated ega nstruments of that agreement.
- The fna act sgned by Secretary Navarro, on the other hand,
embodes not ony the WTO agreement but aso the mnstera
decaratons and decsons and the understandng on commtments
n fnanca servces.
- Pettoners assa the consttutonaty of the treaty. They aso
cam that snce the Senate ony concurred wth the WTO
agreement and not on a the contents of the Fna act, they
mpedy re|ected the Fna act.
I((%E(
1. WON the case s |ustcabe.
2. WON the party provsons and natona treatment causes n the
WTO agreement voates Sec. 19 Artce 2, Sec. 10 and 12
Artce 12 of the Consttuton ("economc natonasm" causes).
3. WON the WTO agreement unduy mts, restrcts and mpars
egsatve power of the Congress.
4. WON the WTO agreement ntrudes on the power of the
Supreme Court to promugate rues concernng peadng,
practce and procedures.
5. WON the concurrng of the senate ony n the WTO agreement
and not n the fna act mpes re|ecton of the fna act.
3ELD
- Petition +ismisse+.
1. Yes.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.6(
- The |udcary has the duty and power to strke down grave abuse
of dscreton on the part of any branch or nstrumentaty of
government ncudng Congress
2. No
- #*e +e0laration o/ prin0iples are not inten+e+ to 6e sel/-
e:e0uting5 rat*er5 t*e1 are <ust ai+ an+ gui+es 61 t*e
<u+i0iar1 in <u+i0ial review5 an+ 61 t*e legislature in
ena0ting laws. These broad prncpes need egsatve
enactments to mpement them.
- The economc natonasm provsons shoud be read wth other
consttutona mandates, especay Sec 1 and 13 of Artce 12.
- The WTO protects the weak economes. There are specfc
provsos n the agreement wth respect to tarffs, domestc
subsdes and protecton from unfar competton whch are
ntended to hep deveopng economes.
- The Consttuton does not rue out foregn competton.
Independence refers to the freedom from undue foregn contro of
the natona economy.
- The Consttuton has not reay shown any unbaanced bas n
favor of any busness or enterprse, nor does t contan any specfc
pronouncement that Fpno companes shoud be pampered wth
tota prescrpton of foregn competton.
- Consttutons are desgned to meet not ony the vagares of
contemporary events. They shoud be nterpreted to cover even
future and unknown crcumstances.
3. No
- (overeignt1 is not a6solute 6e0ause it is su6<e0t to
restri0tions an+ voluntaril1 agree+ to 61 t*e P*ilippines.
- The Consttuton dd not envson a hermt type soaton of the
country.
- By ther nherent nature, treates reay mt or restrct the
absouteness of soveregnty
- There are certan restrctons to the Consttuton
- Lmtatons mposed by the very nature of membershp n
the famy of natons.
- Lmtatons mposed by treaty stpuatons
- When the Phppnes |on the UN, t consented to restrct ts
sovergn rghts under the concept of auto-mtaton. (Reagan vs
Commsson of Interna Revenue)
- The underyng concept n the parta surrender of soveregnty s
the recproca commtment of the other contractng states grantng
the same prvege and mmuntes to the Phppnes, ts offcas
and ts ctzens.
4. No.
- The burden of proof s not transferred n cases of patent
nfrngement. It s st on the patent owner to ntroduce evdence of
the exstence of the aeged dentca product.
- The new rue shoud not reay present any probem n changng
the rues of evdence as the present aw on the sub|ect, RA 165
(Patent Law), provdes a smar presumpton n cases of
nfrngement of patent desgn.
- Concuson n the thrd ssue aso appes.
5. No.
- The fna act need not be ratfed. It s not the treaty tsef. Rather,
t s |ust a summary of the proceedngs. The fna act ony requred
that the senate concur wth the WTO agreement, whch they dd.
- The Senate was we-aware of what t was concurrng to as shown
by the members deberatons.
E&G&! V CO""I((IO!E O' I!#E!&L EVE!%E
FERNANDO; December 27, 1969
'&C#(
APPEAL from a decson of the Court of Tax Appeas
Pettoner: Wam Reagan -cvan empoyee of an Amercan
corporaton provdng technca assstance to the Unted States Ar
Force n the Phppnes
Respondent: Commssoner of Interna Revenue
|uy 7, 1959 -Reagan was assgned at the Cark Fed Ar Base
Apr 22, 1960 -He mported a tax-free Cadac wth accessores
vaued at $6,443.83
|uy 11, 1960 -pettoner asked Base Commander for permt to se
the car whch was granted provded that he se t to a member of
the US Armed Forces or a US ctzen empoyed n the Phppne
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.64
mtary bases. On the same date, he sod hs car for $6,600.00 to
We |ohnson, |r. of the US Marne Corps.
- As a resut of the transacton, respondent, after deductng the
anded cost of the car as we as pettoners persona exempton,
fxed hs net taxabe ncome arsng from the sae at P17,912.34
renderng hm abe for P2,979.00 ncome tax. After payng the
sum, pettoner sought a refund camng that he was exempt, but
pendng acton on hs request, he fed the case wth the Court of
Tax Appeas whch dened hs petton.
- Pettoner asserts that he s exempt from payng the ncome tax.
He contends that n ega contempaton the sae was made outsde
Phppne terrtory and therefore beyond ts |ursdcton to tax.
- Pettoner rees on a statement of |ustce Tuason n Co Po v.
Coector of Interna Revenue: "Whe n army bases or nstaatons
wthn the Phppnes those goods were n contempaton of aw on
foregn so." The court resoved ths by pontng out that the
statement was merey obter dctum n that case and therefore,
cannot be nvoked n ths case.
I((%E
WON the Cark Fed Ar Base s Phppne terrtory
3ELD
Yes. .ases un+er lease to t*e &meri0an arme+ /or0es 61
virtue o/ t*e "ilitar1 .ases &greement o/ 1FGH remain part
o/ P*ilippine territor1.
- The Phppnes beng ndependent and soveregn, ts authorty
may be exercsed over ts entre doman. Wthn ts mts, ts
decrees are supreme, ts commands paramount. Lkewse, t has to
be excusve. If t were not thus, there s a dmnuton of ts
soveregnty.
- Con0ept o/ auto-limitation- Any state may, by ts consent,
express or mped, submt to a restrcton of ts soveregn rghts. It
s not precuded from aowng another power to partcpate n the
exercse of |ursdctona rght over certan portons of ts terrtory. If
t does so, t by no means foows that such areas become
mpressed wth an aen character. They retan ther status as
natve so. They are st sub|ect to ts authorty. Its |ursdcton may
be dmnshed, but t does not dsappear. So t s wth the bases
under ease to the Amercan armed forces by vrtue of the mtary
bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foregn
terrtory.
- #*ere/ore5 t*e P*ilippinesA <uris+i0tional rig*ts over t*e
6ases5 0ertainl1 not e:0lu+ing t*e power to ta:5 *ave 6een
preserve+. &s to 0ertain ta: matters5 an appropriate
e:emption was provi+e+ /or.
- $u+gment (H 0on0ur5 I 0on0ur in t*e result5 1 +i+ not ta9e
part)
#*e +e0ision o/ t*e Court o/ #a: &ppeals +en1ing t*e re/un+
o/ PI5FHF.JJ as t*e in0ome ta: pai+ 61 petitioner is
a//irme+.
EP%.LIC V (&!DIG&!.&2&!
CORONA; |uy 15, 2003
'&C#(
- Speca Cv Acton n the Supreme Court. Certorar.
- Dec 17 1991, the Repubc, through the Presdenta Commsson
on Good Government or PCGG, fed a petton for forfeture before
the Sandganbayan, entted >e)$/l#% of the Ph#l#))#nes *s.
;er&#nan& E. - Mar%os, re)resente& /+ h#s EstateChe#rs an& 7mel&a
>. Mar%os, pursuant to RA 1379
20
.
- PCGG was created by vrtue of Executve Order No. 1
ssued on February 28, 1986 by then Presdent Corazon
Aquno, and was charged wth the task of assstng the
Presdent n the "recovery of a -gotten weath
accumuated by former Presdent Ferdnand E. Marcos, hs
mmedate famy, reatves, subordnates and cose
assocates, whether ocated n the Phppnes or abroad,
ncudng the takeover or sequestraton of a busness
enterprses and enttes owned or controed by them durng
s admnstraton, drecty or through nomnees, by takng
undue advantage of ther pubc offce and/or usng ther
powers, authorty, nfuence, connectons or reatonshp."
- In sad case, pettoner Repubc, represented by the Offce of the
Soctor Genera (OSG) sought:
a. the decaraton of the aggregate amount of US$356 mon
(estmated to be US$658 mon ncusve of nterest as of
20
An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any ro!erty "o #ave $een %nla&fully Ac'uire( $y Any u)lic *fficer or +,!loyee an( rovi(ing For the
roce(ure "herefor-
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.6
the tme of decson) deposted n escrow
21
n the Phppne
Natona Bank (PNB), as -gotten weath.
*The ff account groups, usng varous foregn foundatons n
certan Swss banks, prevousy hed the funds:
1. Azo-Verso-Vbur Foundaton accounts
2. Xandy-Wntrop: Chars-Scoar-Vaamo-Spnus-
Avertna-Foundaton accounts
3. Trndad-Rayby-Pamy Foundaton accounts
4. Rosays-Aguamna Foundaton accounts
5. Maer Foundaton accounts
b. the forfeture of US$25 mon and US$5 mon n treasury
notes whch exceeded the Marcos coupes saares, other
awfu ncome as we as ncome from egtmatey acqured
property. These treasury notes are frozen at the Bangko
Sentra ng Ppnas by vrtue of freeze order ssued by
PCGG.
- Oct 18, 1993, respondents Imeda R Marcos, Ma. Imeda M
Manotoc, Irene M Araneta and Ferdnand R Marcos, |r. fed ther
answer.
#*e General &greementC(upplemental &greements
- Before case was set for pre-tra, a Genera Agreement and the
Suppementa Agreements dated Dec 28, 1993 were executed by
the Marcos chdren and then PCGG Charman Magtanggo
Gungundo for a goba settement of the assets of the Marcos
famy
- The Genera Agreement/Suppementa Agreements sought to
dentfy, coate, cause the nventory of and dstrbute a assets
presumed to be owned by the Marcos famy under the condtons
contaned theren.
- It was stated n one of the "whereas causes" the fact that
pettoner Repubc "obtaned a |udgment from the Swss Federa
Trbuna on Dec 21 1990 that the US$356 mon beongs n
prncpe to the Repubc of the Phppnes provded certan
condtons are met.." The decson of the Swss Federa Supreme
Court affrmed the decson of Zurch Dstrct Attorney Peter
21
.oney or a (ee( or other in/tru,ent (e!o/ite( &ith a thir( !er/on for a (elivery to a given !arty u!on the fulfill,ent of /o,e con(ition- 0hile in the 1ee!ing of the
thir( !arty2 the ,oney or in/tru,ent i/ /ai( to )e 3in e/cro&4- 56an(o, #ou/e 0e)/ter7/ 8egal Dictionary2 6an(o, #ou/e2 9e& :or12 1996;
Cosandey grantng ega assstance to Repubc. Cosandey decared
the varous deposts n the name of the foundatons to be of ega
provenance and ordered that they be frozen to awat the fna
verdct n favor of the partes entted to resttuton.
- Sandganbayan conducted hearngs on the moton to approve the
Genera/Suppementa Agreements.
- Oct 18 1996 pettoner fed a moton for summary |udgment
and/or |udgment on the peadngs. Respondents fed ther
opposton.
- Nov 20 1997 Sandganbayan dened pettoners moton for
summary |udgment and/or |udgment on the peadngs on the
ground that the moton to approve the compromse agreement
"(took) precedence over the moton for summary |udgment"
- May 26 1998 Mrs. Marcos fed manfestaton camng she was not
a party to the moton for approva of the Compromse Agreement
and that the owned 90% of the funds wth the remanng 10%
beongng to the Marcos estate.
#*e 'un+ #rans/er
- Aug 10 1995 pettoner Repubc fed wth the Dstrct Attorney n
Zurch, Swtzerand an addtona request for the mmedate
transfer of the deposts to an escrow account n PNB. Ths was
granted.
- Marcoses appeaed, Swss Federa Supreme Court affrmed rung
of Dstrct Attorney of Zurch, and funds were remtted to the
Phppnes n escrow n 1998.
#*e Petition /or (ummar1 $u+gment
- Mar 10 2000 pettoner fed another moton for summary
|udgment "pertanng to the forfeture of the US$356 mon, based
on ff grounds:
a. essenta facts whch warrant the forfeture of the funds are
admtted by respondents n ther peadngs and other
submssons made n the course of the proceedng
b. respondents admsson made durng pre-tra that they do
not have any nterest or ownershp over the funds tenders
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.66
no genune ssue or controversy as to any matera fact n
the present acton
- Mrs. Marcos fed her opposton, whch was ater adopted by co-
respondents Marcos chdren.
- Mar 24 2000 hearng on moton for summary |udgment was
conducted
- Sep 19 2000 Sandganbayan granted pettoners moton for
summary |udgment, statng that there s no ssue of fact whch cas
for the presentaton of evdence, and decared the funds, whch
were deemed unawfuy acqured as -gotten weath, forfeted n
favor of the State.
- Mrs. Marcos fed moton for reconsderaton on Sep 26 2000;
Marcos chdren foowed.
- In |an 31 2002 resouton, Sandganbayan reversed ts Sep 19
2000 decson, statng that "the evdence offered for summary
|udgment of the case dd not prove that the money n the Swss
Banks beonged to the Marcos spouses because no ega proof
exsts n the record as to the ownershp by the Marcoses of the
funds", and thus dened pettoners moton for summary |udgment.
Hence, the present petton.
- Pettoner asserts n the man that the Sandganbayan commtted
grave abuse of dscreton n reversng the decson on the ground
that the orgna copes of the authentcated Swss Federa Supreme
Court decsons and ther "authentcated transatons" have not
been submtted to the Court, when n fact the Sandganbayan
quoted extensvey a porton of the Swss decsons n denyng a
prevous moton dated |uy 29 1999. Pettoner adds that nowhere
n the respondents motons for reconsderaton and suppementa
moton for reconsderaton were the authentcty, accuracy and
admssbty of the Swss decsons ever chaenged.
- Respondents, of course, assert that the petton shoud be dened.
&nal1sis o/ espon+entsA Legitimate In0ome
- the Marcoses reported P16,408,442.00 or US$2,414,484.91 n
tota ncome over a perod of 20 years from 1965 to 1984.
- Ths amount ncudes Ferdnand Marcos saary as Senate
Presdent n 1965, (P15,935) and as Presdent from 1966 to 1985
(1966-1976 at P60,000/year; 1977-1985 at P100,000/year), Imeda
Marcos saary as Mnster of Human Settements from 1976 to
1986 (P75,000/year), ncome from ega practce (P11,109,836),
pus other sources.
- Ferdnand Marcos made t appear that he had an extremey
proftabe ega practce before he became Presdent, and that he
was st recevng payments amost 20 years after
- Computatons estabsh the tota net worth of spouses Ferdnand
and Imeda, for the years 1965 to 1984, n the amount of
US$957,487.75. (assumng ncome from ega practce s vad)
- The fve group accounts have a tota baance of US$356 mon.
I((%E(
1. WON pettoner Repubcs acton for certorar s proper.
2. WON respondents rased any genune ssue of fact whch woud
ether |ustfy or negate summary |udgment.
3. WON pettoner Repubc was abe to prove ts case for forfeture
n accordance wth Sectons 2 and 3 of RA 1379.
3ELD
1. atio Where the case s undenaby ngraned wth mmense
pubc nterest, pubc pocy and deep hstorca repercussons,
certorar s aowed notwthstandng the exstence and avaabty
of the remedy of appea.
!biter Amost two decades have passed snce the government
ntated ts search for and reverson of -gotten weath. The
defntve resouton of such cases on the merts s ong overdue.
2. atio Mere denas, f unaccompaned by any fact whch w be
admssbe n evdence at a hearng, are not suffcent to rase
genune ssues of fact and w not defeat a moton for summary
|udgment
!biter Court hed that respondent Marcoses faed to rase any
genune ssue of fact n ther peadngs. Summary |udgment shoud
take pace as a matter of rght.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.67
- a genune ssue s an ssue of fact whch cas for the presentaton
of evdence, as dstngushed from an ssue whch s fcttous and
contrved, set up n bad fath or patenty ackng n substance.
- Respondents faed to specfcay deny each and every aegaton
contaned n the petton for forfeture n the manner requred by
the rues (Sec 10 Rue 8 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure). Ther
answers ncude "they have no suffcent knowedge" or "they coud
not reca because t happened a ong tme ago" or "the funds were
awfuy acqured" wthout statng the bass of such assertons.
- Oueston: Whether the knd of dena n respondents answer
quafes as the specfc dena caed for by the rues. No. The Court
hods that f an aegaton drecty and specfcay charges a party
wth havng done, performed or commtted a partcuar act whch
the atter dd not n fact do, perform or commt, a categorca and
express dena must be made.
- The aegatons for forfeture on the exstence of the Swss bank
deposts, not havng been specfcay dened by respondents n
ther answer, were deemed admtted pursuant to Sec 11 Rue 8 of
1997 Rues on Cv Procedure.
a. Proprety of Summary |udgment
- Summary |udgment s proper when there s ceary no genune
ssue as to any matera fact n the acton. The Court s |ustfed
n dspensng wth the tra and renderng summary |udgment f
t s demonstrated by affdavts, depostons or admssons that
the ssues are not genune but sham or fcttous.
- moton for summary |udgment s premsed on the
assumpton that the ssues presented need not be tred
ether because these are patenty devod of substance or
that there s no genune ssue as to any pertnent fact.
- It s a procedura devce for the prompt dsposton of
actons n whch the peadngs rase ony a ega ssue, not
a genune ssue as to any matera fact.
b. Whether pettoner Repubc had bound tsef to go to tra
and had egay waved rght t had to move for summary
|udgment.
- Court rues that pettoner coud vady move for summary
|udgment any tme after the respondents answer was fed or,
for that matter, at any subsequent stage of the tgaton. The
fact that pettoner agreed to proceed to tra dd not n any way
prevent t from movng for summary |udgment.
c. Whether by the tme moton for summary |udgment was
fed on Mar 10 2000, estoppe by aches had aready set n
aganst pettoner.
- Doctrne of estoppe or aches does not appy when
government sues as a soveregn or asserts governmenta
rghts. Nor can estoppe vadate an act that contravenes aw or
pubc pocy.
- estoppe by aches s the faure or negect for an
unreasonabe or unexpaned ength of tme to do that
whch, by exercsng due dgence, coud or shoud have
been done earer, warrantng a presumpton that the
person has abandoned hs rght or decned to assert t.
- n nvokng doctrne of estoppe by aches,
respondents must show not ony un|ustfed nacton but
aso that some unfar n|ury to them mght resut uness
the acton s barred.
3. atio The prma face presumpton rased by the aw that a
property s unawfuy acqured when the amount or vaue s
manfesty dsproportonate to the offca saary and other awfu
ncome of the pubc offcer who owns t stands as proved uness
defendant shows, and proves, that these were awfuy acqured
and that there are other egtmate sources of ncome.
!biter burden of proof was on respondents to dspute
presumpton and show by cear and convncng evdence that the
Swss deposts were awfuy acqured and that they had other
egtmate sources of ncome. A presumpton s prma face proof of
the fact presumed, and, uness the fact thus prma face
estabshed by ega presumpton s dsproved, t must stand as
proved.
- the Court not ony took nto consderaton that respondents
themseves made admssons n ther peadngs and testmones,
but that pettoner was abe to present sworn statements of
wtnesses who had persona knowedge of the Marcoses
partcpaton n the ega acquston of funds.
E(OL%#IO!
CORONA; November 18, 2003
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.6'
- SC: Respondents n ther motons for reconsderaton do not rase
any new matters for the Court to resove.
Is summar1 <u+gment in /or/eiture pro0ee+ings a violation
o/ +ue pro0essK
- Respondents: RA 1379 s pena n substance and effect, hence
they are entted to consttutona safeguards en|oyed by accused.
- SC: Due process of aw has two aspects: substantve and
procedura. There must be a compance wth both substantve and
procedura requrements n order that a partcuar act may not be
mpugned as voatve of the due process cause.
- substantve due process refers to ntrnsc vadty of a
aw that nterferes wth the rghts of a person to hs
property
- there s no showng that RA 1379 s unfar,
unreasonabe or un|ust. Respondents were not
deprved of ther property through forfeture for
arbtrary reasons.
- procedura due process means compance wth
procedures or steps, even perods, prescrbed by the
statute, n conformty wth the standard of far pay and
wthout arbtrarness on the part of those who are caed
upon to admnster t.
- forfeture proceedngs are actons #n rem, thus cv n
nature, contrary to respondents contenton that they are
pena n character. The proceedngs under RA 1379 do not
termnate n the mposton of penaty but merey n the
forfeture n favor of the State of propertes egay
acqured.
- Cv suts to recover unawfuy acqured property under
RA 1379 may be proven by preponderance of evdence.
The Government s requred ony to state the known awfu
ncome of respondents for the prma face presumpton of
ega provenance to attach. Pettoner Repubc havng
estabshed ths presumpton, burden of proof shfted to
respondents to show by cear and convncng evdence
that the Swss deposts were awfuy acqured and that
they had other egtmate sources of ncome. Respondents
faed on ths part.
- essence of due process s found n the reasonabe
opportunty to be heard and submt ones evdence n
support of hs defense
- Respondents were repeatedy accorded fu
opportunty to present ther case, defenses and
peadngs. They obstnatey refused to do so and have
tred to confuse the ssues and the Court and to deay
the dsposton of the case
- "the peope and the State are entted to favorabe
|udgment, free from vexatous, caprcous and oppressve
deays, the sautary ob|ectve beng to restore the
ownershp of the Swss deposts to the rghtfu owner -
that s, the Repubc of the Phppnes - n the shortest
possbe tme."
*otions 9or reconsiderations denied :it& 9inalit(.
0!*INI5* #N0 I*+,I5*
C&I!O V I!(%L& GOVE!"E!#
HOLMES; February 23, 1909
'&C#(
- Mateo Carno, an Igorot from the Provnce of Benguet, contests
dsmssa of appcaton of regstraton of ther an0estral lan+
through wrt of error.
- Carnos ancestors mantaned fences for catte, cutvated some
parts, and pastured parts for catte /or more t*an 5J 1ears
6e/ore t*e #reat1 o/ Paris (Apr 11, 1899). Ths and s aso
used for nhertance n accordance to Igorot custom.
- Athough the pantff apped n 1893-1894 and 1896-1897, no
+o0ument o/ title was issue+ by Spansh Crown. In 1901,
pantff aeged ownershp under mortgage aw and the ands were
regstered to hm but t ony estabshed possessory tte.

- +rocedure
- Court -- application of and regstraton ;ranted (March 4,
1904 )
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.69
- CFI of Benguet - appea on behaf of Government of the
Phppnes and US havng taken possesson of property for mtary
and pubc purposes; application dismissed
- Phppne SC - a99irmed decson of CFI Benguet
- Federa SC - :rit o9 error revewng |udgment of Phppne SC
- Respondents argue:
- Gven that
- Span assumed and asserted that they had tte to
a the and n the Phppnes except to permt prvate
ands to be acqured
- No prescrpton aganst the Spansh Crown
- Decree of |une 25, 1880 requred regstraton wthn
a mted tme to make the tte good
- And US succeeded the tte of Span (through Treaty
of Pars)
- Pantffs and not regstered and he had ost a rghts
and a mere trespasser
- Aso, Benguet never brought under cv or
mtary government of the Spansh Crown, so t s not
certan whether regstraton granted was under Spansh
aws
- Pantff argues:
- Argument seems to amount to dena of natve ttes
throughout an mportant Isand of Luzon
I((%E
WON Carno owns the and
3ELD
atio Prescrpton, mentoned n the roya cedua of 1754 states:
"Where such possessors sha not be abe to produce tte deeds, t
sha be suffcent f they sha show that ancent possesson, as a
vad tte by prescrpton."
- Decree of |une 25, 1880 states: possesson for certan tmes sha
be deemed owners; cutvated and 20 years, uncutvated 30
years. Pantffs father was owner of and by the very terms of ths
decree.
- By Organc Act of |uy 1, 1902, a the property and rghts acqured
there by the Unted States are to be admnstered "for the beneft
of the nhabtants thereof."
!biter Wrt of error s the genera method of brngng cases to ths
court (Federa SC), and appea the excepton, confned to equty n
the man.
- Every presumpton s and ought to be aganst the government n a
case ke present.
- The reason for takng over the Phppnes was dfferent
(compared to occupaton of whte race aganst Natve Amercans).
Our frst ob|ect n the nterna admnstraton of the sands s to do
|ustce to the natves not to expot ther country for prvate gan.
- The effect of proof was not to confer tte but smpy to estabsh
t, as aready conferred by the decree, f not by earer aw.
0ecision ,2,.,0
- Appcant shoud be granted what he seeks and shoud not be
deprved of what by the practce and beef of those among whom
he ved, was hs property, through a refned nterpretaton of an
amost forgotten aw of Span.
)IVE!)O V EGI(#E O' DEED( O' "&!IL&
MORAN; November 15, 1947
'&C#(
- Appea from a |udgment of the CFI of Mana
- December, 1941-Krvenko, aen, bought a resdenta ot from the
Magdaena Estate. Inc
- The regstraton of the ot was nterrupted by the war.
- May, 1945-Krvenko sought to accompsh sad regstraton but the
Regster of Deeds of Mana (RDM) dened on the ground that he s
an aen and cannot acqure and n ths |ursdcton.
- Krvenko fed as sut n the CFI of Mana by means of a %ons$lta.
- CFI affrmed RDM's refusa hence ths appea.
< After the brefs have been presented, Krvenko fed a moton to
wthdraw the appea.
- The case was aready voted upon and the ma|orty decson was
beng prepared.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.70
- Rue 52, secton 4 of the Rues of Court: Court's dscreton to grant
a wthdrawa of appea after the brefs have been presented.
- The moton for wthdrawa stated no reason whatsoever and the
Soctor Genera was agreeabe to t.
- Whe the moton was pendng, a new crcuar of the Department
of |ustce (Crcuar No. 128) dated August 12, 1947 was ssued,
nstructng a regster of deeds to accept for regstraton a
transfers of resdenta ots to aens.
- RDM naturay obeyed the crcuar.
I((%E
Jurisdiction:
WON the Court shoud grant the moton wthdrawng an appea wth
the ssuance of the sad crcuar of the DO|
+rimar( Issue:
WON an aen under our Consttuton may acqure resdenta and.
3ELD
The Court dened the moton wthdrawng the appea. Grantng a
wthdrawa of appea s dscretonary upon the Court after the brefs
have been presented.
- It cannot grant appeant's moton wthdrawng hs appea ony
because the consttutona ssue shoud be avoded.
- Aso, the wthdrawa was dened because under the
crcumstances, partcuary (1! the %#r%$lar of the :e)t. of 1$st#%e
#ss$e& .h#le th#s %ase .as )en&#ng /efore the Co$rt an& or&er#ng
all reg#sters of &ee& to a%%e)t for reg#strat#on all transfers of
res#&ent#al lots to al#ens, together .#th the %#r%$mstan%e that (2!
)ro/a/l+ a s#m#lar 4$est#on ma+ ne*er %ome $) aga#n /efore the
Co$rt, the effect of the wthdrawa woud be offensve to the
opnon reached by a ma|orty of the members of the Court after
ong and exhaustve deberatons on the consttutona queston.
- To aow the wthdrawa under such crcumstances s equvaent to
toeratng an offense to the consttuton, offense that may be
permanent.
- The Court hed that NO, aens may not acqure prvate or pubc
agrcutura ands, ncudng resdenta ands. (The votes were: 8-3)
- The case was decded under secton 5 of Artce XIII of the 1935
Consttuton whch s more comprehensve and more absoute n
the sense that t PROHIBITS THE TRANSFER TO ALIENS OF ANY
PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL LAND
WHATEVER ITS ORIGIN MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
- Ths provson coses the ony remanng avenue through whch
agrcutura resources may eak nto aens' hands.
- Ths provson shoud be read n connecton wth secton 1 of
Artce XIII "natura resources, wth the excepton of pubc
agrcutura and, sha not be aenated" and wth respect to pubc
agrcutura ands, ther aenaton s mted to Fpno ctzens.
- Ths provson secures the pocy of natonazaton n Sec. 1 of Art.
XIII.
- It woud be fute to prohbt the aenaton of pubc ands to aens
f, after a, they may be freey so aenated upon ther becomng
prvate agrcutura ands n the hands of the Fpno ctzens.
- atio The Court sha rue that t cannot grant a moton
wthdrawng an appea f such a wthdrawa woud resut to a
permanent offense to the Consttuton.
- The Court sha rue that under the provsons of the Consttuton,
aens are not aowed to acqure the ownershp of urban or
resdenta ands n the Phppnes and as a consequence, a
acqustons made n contraventon of the prohbtons snce the
Consttuton became effectve are nu and vod )er se and a/ #n#t#o.
LEE 3O!G 3O) V D&VID
FERNANDO; December 27, 1972
'&C#(
- Pedro, Smeon, Rosta and Leonco LEE HONG HOK, pettoners
- Anano DAVID, the Hon. Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura
Resources, the Drector of Lands and Court of Appeas
- APPEAL by certorar from a decson of the Court of Appeas.
- Pettoners wanted to decare nu and vod Davds Torrens Tte
(OCT No. 510) because they aeged to own the dsputed lot (226
m
2 2
Lot 2892, whch s a porton of Lot 2863 of the Naga Cadastre)
through accretion.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.71
- |un 18, 1958 - Drector of Lands ssued Davd a saes patent of the
ot
- Aug 26, 1959 - Undersecretary of Agrcutura and Natura
Resources ssued Davd a Msceaneous Saes Patent No. V-1209
- Oct 21, 1959 - Naga Cty Regster of Deeds ssued Davd OCT No.
510

I((%E(
1. WON Lot 2892 came nto beng not by recamaton but by
a00retion, therefore a prvate - not pubc - doman (ths court says
t does not warrant any further consderaton)
2. WON authortatve doctrnes do not precude a party other than
the government to dspute the vadty of a grant (ths court says t
does)
3. WON the ndefeasbe character of a pubc and patent after one
year shoud not be recognzed (ths court says t shoud be).
3ELD
1. 7m)er#$m s the government authorty possessed by the state
whch s appropratey embraced n the concept of soveregnty, and
&om#n#$m s the states capacty to own or acqure property.
Domnum enabes the state to provde for the expotaton and use
of ands and other natura resources, ncudng ther dsposton,
except as mted by the Consttuton. The present Consttuton
adopts the modfed concept of 3$re regal#a, n whch a ands - n
Span and ts earer decrees - were hed by the Crown, and the
present Consttuton hods that t s the state whch possesses
ownershp (Caro v Insuar Government). In Vaenton v Murcano
(1904), a ands hed wthout proper and true deeds of grant be
restored to us (the Spansh state) accordng as they beong to us, n
order that after reservng before a what to us or to our vceroys,
audencas, and governors may seem necessary for pubc squares,
ways, pastures and commons n those paces whch are peoped,
takng nto consderaton not ony ther present condton, but aso
ther future and ther probabe ncrease, and after dstrbutng to
the natves what may be necessary for tage and pasturage,
confrmng n them n what they now have and gvng them more f
necessary, a the rest of sad ands may reman free and
unencumbered for us to dspose of as we may wsh.
In Montano v Insuar Government, unapproprated pubc ands
consttutng the pubc doman the soe power s vested n
Congress.
The and n queston s not prvate property; the Drector of Lands
and the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources have
aways sustaned the pubc character thereof by vrtue of
recamaton (and not by accreton whch the pettoners cam).
Therefore, the ony remedy for the appeants s an acton for
reconveyance on the ground of fraud commtted by respondents.
There was no fraud; everythng was done n the open - notces
were pubshed, sae and awardng of and to Davd were pubc
offca acts of a Government offcer.
#*e +ispute+ lot is a result o/ re0lamation5 t*ere/ore a
pu6li0 lan+.
2. Ony the government, represented by the Drector of Lands, or
the Secretary of Agrcuture and Natura Resources, can brng an
acton to cance a vod certfcate of tte ssued pursuant to a vod
patent. Pantffs are prvate partes and not government offcas,
and therefore cannot nsttute for the nufcaton of Davds
Torrens Tte, snce they are not the regstered owners of the and
and they had not been decared as owners n the cadastra
proceedngs of Naga Cadastre after camng t as ther prvate
property.
Mannang v Consoacon states that "|t|he fact that the grant was
made by the government s undsputed. Whether the grant was n
conformty wth the aw or not s a queston whch the government
may rase, but unt t s rased by the government and set asde,
the defendant (n ths case, the respondents) cannot queston t.
The egaty of the grant s a queston between the grantee and the
government."
Onl1 t*e government 0an Luestion t*e vali+it1 o/ t*e title
w*i0* it gave.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.72
3. Snce the fng of the saes appcaton of Davd and durng a
the proceedngs n connecton wth sad appcaton, up to the
actua ssuance of the saes patent n hs favor, t*e appellants
+i+ not put up an1 opposition or a+verse 0laim t*ereto. Ths
s fata to them because after the regstraton and ssuance of the
certfcate and dupcate certfcate of tte based on a pubc and
patent, the and covered thereby automatcay comes under the
operaton of RA 496 sub|ect to a the safeguards provded theren.
0fter reg#strat#on an& #ss$an%e of the %ert#f#%ate an& &$)l#%ate
%ert#f#%ate of t#tle /ase& on a )$/l#% lan& )atent, the lan& #s
a$tomat#%all+ %o*ere& /+ >0 496 --- # =96 > =% sa+s that an+
4$est#on %on%ern#ng the *al#&#t+ of the %ert#f#%ate of t#tle /ase& on
fra$& sho$l& /e ra#se& .#th#n one +ear from the &ate of the
#ss$an%e of the )atent. "hereafter the %ert#f#%ate of t#tle /ase&
thereon /e%omes #n&efeas#/le.
In Aquno v Drector of Lands (1919), "|t|he proceedngs under
the Land Regstraton Law and under the provsons of Chapter VI of
the Pubc Land Law are the same n that both are aganst the
whoe word, both take the nature of |udca proceedngs, and for
both t*e +e0ree o/ registration issue+ is 0on0lusive an+
/inal.
In Cabacug v Lao, "a hoder of a and acqured under a free patent
s more favoraby stuated than that of an owner of regstered
property. Not ony does a free patent have a force and effect of a
Torrens Tte, but n addton the person to whom t s granted has
kewse n hs favor the rght to repurchase wthn a perod of fve
years."
Davds appcaton was a renewa of hs deceased wfes
appcaton, wheren hs deceased wfe occuped Lot 2892 snce
1938.
#*e +e0ision o/ Court o/ &ppeals o/ $anuar1 M15 1F81 an+ its
resolution o/ "ar0* 1G5 1F8F are a//irme+
GO!4&LE( V "&CO(
FERNANDO; |uy 31, 1975
'&C#(
- Gonzaes assaed the vadty of EO 30 as an mpermssbe
encroachment by the Presdent on the egsatve prerogatve
- EO 30 has the creaton of a trust for the beneft of the Fpno
peope under the name and stye of the Cutura Center of the
Phppnes to awaken our peopes conscousness n the natons
cutura hertage and encourage ts preservaton, promoton and
deveopment
- In the Court of Frst Instance, stress was ad on the funds
admnstered by the Center as comng from donatons and
contrbutons and not a snge centavo rased by taxaton
- Respondents argue EO 30 as: 1) egtmate exercse of executve
power and that 2) ths s suppementary to rather than a dsregard
of RA 4165 creatng the Natona Commsson on Cuture and that
3) pettoner Gonzaes dd not have the requste personaty to
contest as a taxpayer the vadty of EO 30 as the funds hed by the
Cutura Center came from donatons and contrbutons and not one
centavo came from taxaton
- Later, PD 15 was ssued creatng the Cutura Center of the
Phppnes
I((%E(
1. WON pettoner has standng
2. WON EO 30 encroached on the egsatve prerogatve
3. WON the ssue on the vadty of EO 30 became moot and
academc
3ELD
1. The court sha rue that taxpayer has no ega standng to
queston executve acts that do not nvove the use of pubc funds
2.The court sha rue that the Presdent had the power to
admnster a trust created by an agreement wth a foregn country
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.7(
3.EO 30 was superseded by PD 15, hence the sut has assumed a
moot and academc character
!biter
(1)-The funds admnstered by the Presdent of the Phppnes came
from donatons and contrbutons and not by taxaton
-There was that absence of the requste pecunary or monetary
nterest
(2) -As head of State, as Chef Executve, as spokesman n
domestc and foregn affars, n behaf of the estate as )arens
)atr#ae, the Presdent has authorty to mpement for the beneft of
the Fpno peope by creatng the Cutura Center consstng of
prvate ctzens to admnster the prvate contrbutons and
donatons gven not ony by the US government but aso by prvate
persons
-Creaton of rues governng the admnstraton of a trust may be
concurrenty exercsed by the Presdent and Congress
0ecision :7SM7SSE:, No standng and even f there was, st no
encroachment and that t s aready moot and academc
C%4 V (ECO' E!VIO!"E!# &!D !&#%&L E(
PER CURIAM; 6 December 2000
'&C#(
- epu6li0 &0t !o. ;MH1 (Indgenous Peopes Rghts Act of 1997)
- In+igenous peoplesC0ultural 0ommunities (IPCICC)
-Group of peope dentfed by sef-ascrpton and ascrpton by
others, who have contnuousy ved as organzed communty on
communay bounded and defned terrtory;
- &n0estral lan+s (sec.3b IPRA)
- Land occuped by members of the ICC/IP snce tme mmemora,
by themseves or through ther predecessors-n-nterest, under
cams of ndvdua or tradtona group ownershp,... ncudng
resdenta ots, rce terraces or paddes, prvate forests, swdden
farms, and tree ots.
- &n0estral +omains (sec.3a IPRA)
- Areas generay beongng to ICC/IP comprsng ands, nand
waters, coasta areas and natura resources theren, hed under a
cam of ownershp, occuped or possessed by ICC/IP, by themseves
or through ther ancestors, communay or ndvduay snce tme
mmemora contnuousy to the present... ncudng ancestra ands,
forests, pasture, resdenta, agrcutura, and other ands
ndvduay owned, huntng grounds, bura grounds, worshp areas,
bodes of water, mnera and other resources, and ands no onger
occuped excusvey by ICC but to whch they had tradtona
access, partcuary the home ranges of ICC who are st nomadc or
shftng cutvators.
- +rocedure: C%4 an+ E%OP&5 as 0iti,ens an+ ta:pa1ers
(upon the pea that questons rased are of "transcendenta
mportance"), /ile+ /or PO3I.I#IO! (drectng NCIP to cease
from mpementng IPRA and ts IR; DENR Secretary to cease from
mpementng Crcuar 2; DBM Secretary to cease from dsbursng
pubc funds) an+ "&!D&"%( (commandng DENR Secretary to
compy wth hs duty of carryng out the State's consttutona
mandate) assailing 0ertain provisions o/ &;MH1 (IP&) as
%!CO!(#I#%#IO!&L.
I((%E(
The foowng provsons of RA8371 and ts Impementng Rues
were questoned -
(1) Sectons 3a, 3b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 57, 58 amount to an unlaw/ul
+eprivation o/ t*e (tateNs owners*ip over L&!D( O' #3E
P%.LIC DO"&I! (ncudng the mneras and other natura
resources theren) n voaton of the REGALIAN DOCTRINE.
(2) Sectons 3a and 3b violate t*e IG3#( O' PIV&#E
L&!DO7!E(.
(3) Sectons 51, 52, 53, 59, 63, 65, 66 whch defne the powers and
|ursdcton of the NCIP and make customary aw appcabe to the
settement of dsputes nvovng ancestra domans and ands,
violate t*e D%E POCE(( 0lause of the Consttuton.
(4) Rue 7, Part 2, Secton 1 of the NCIP Admn. Order No.1, whch
provdes that "the admnstratve reatonshp of the NCIP to the
Offce of the Presdent s characterzed as a atera but autonomous
reatonshp for purposes of pocy and program coordnaton", s
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.74
nvad as it in/ringes upon t*e Presi+entNs power o/ 0ontrol
over e:e0utive +epartments.
3ELD
There was !O "&$OI#2 VO#E reached as the |ustces were
equay dvded at 7-7. The case was then redeberated upon, but
the votng st remaned the same. Accordngy, t*e petition is
DI("I((ED pursuant to Rue 56, Secton 7 of the Rues of Cv
Procedure.
- Those n favor of dsmssng petton:
|. Kapunan, |. Davde |r., |. Beoso, |. Ousumbng, |. Santago, |.
Puno, |. Mendoza
- Those n favor of grantng petton:
|. Panganban, |. Vtug, |. Meo, |. Pardo, |. Buena, |. Gonzaga-Reyes,
|. De Leon
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!(
P%!O D+ismissE
- Development o/ t*e egalian Do0trine in t*e P*ilippine
Legal (1stem
A. Laws of the Indes: A ands became the excusve patrmony and
domnon of the Spansh Crown.
B. Vaenton vs. Murcano (1904): "Whe the State has aways
recognzed the rght of the occupant to a deed f he proves a
possesson for a suffcent ength of tme, yet t has aways nssted
that he must make that proof before the proper admnstratve
offcers, and obtan from them hs deed, and unt he dd that the
State remaned the absoute owner."
C. Pubc Land Acts (PLA) and the Torrens System: Under the PLA,
"pubc and" referred to all lan&s of the )$/l#% &oma#n .hose t#tle
st#ll rema#ne& #n the go*ernment. The Torrens system requres that
the government ssue an off#%#al %ert#f#%ate of t#tle attestng to the
fact that the person named s the owner of such property
descrbed. The certfcate of tte s ndefeasbe and mprescrptbe.
D. Phppne Consttutons: The Regaan Doctrne was estabshed
1935 Consttuton, and t was reterated n the 1973 and 1987
Const.
-Provsons of IPRA do NOT contravene the Consttuton
(1) &D an+ &L are t*e private propert1 o/ t*e IP an+ +o not
0onstitute part o/ t*e lan+ o/ t*e pu6li0 +omains5 as t*e1
*ave a0Luire+ su0* properties 61 !&#IVE #I#LE (&DC&L) an+
#OE!( #I#LE (&L).
a. Nat#*e t#tle )res$mes that the lan& #s )r#*ate an& .as ne*er
)$/l#%. Carno s the ony case that specfcay and categorcay
recognzes natve tte.
b. For purposes of regstraton under the PLA and the Land
Regstraton Act, the IPRA expressy converts AL nto pubc
agrcutura and whch may be dsposed of by the State. The
necessary mpcaton s that AL s prvate.
(I) #*e rig*t o/ owners*ip an+ possession 61 t*e ICCCIP to
t*eir &D is a -I*I/,0 9orm o9 o:ners&ip an+ +oes not
in0lu+e t*e rig*t to alienate su0* &D.
a. It s prvate because t s not part of the pubc doman. But the
AD s owned n common by the ICC/IP and not by one partcuar
person. Communa rghts to the and are hed not ony by the
present possessors but extends to a generatons of the ICC/IP.
b. Lands may be transferred ony to the members of the same
ICC/IP; n accord wth customary aws; and sub|ect to the rght of
redempton of IP for a perod of 15 years f transferred to a non-
member of IP.
c. The ndgenous concept of ownershp exsts even wthout a paper
tte.
(M) #*e egalian Do0trine *as not 6een violate+ as t*e rig*t
o/ ICCCIP to +evelop lan+s an+ ! wit*in t*e &D +oes not
+eprive t*e (tate o/ owners*ip over t*e !5 an+ o/ 0ontrol
an+ supervision in t*eir +evelopment an+ e:ploitation.
a. Sec.7a mts the rght of ownershp of the IP. But the
Impementng Rues of IPRA ncuded the term "natura resources"
n such rghts of ownershp whch s CONTRARY to Sec.2 Art.12 of
the 1987 Const.
b. The sma-scae utzaton of NR n Sec.7b of the IPRA s aowed
under par.3, Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Const. Managng and
conservng these resources, by ther very nature, necessary re|ect
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.7
utzaton n a arge-scae.
c. The arge-scae utzaton of NR n Sec.57 of IPRA may be
harmonzed wth par.1 and 4, Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Const. The
grant of prorty rghts mpes that there s a superor entty that
owns these resources and who has the power to grant such
preferenta rghts.
(G) IP& is a re0ognition o/ our a0tive parti0ipation in t*e
International In+igenous "ovement.
VI#%G DgrantE
(1) IPRA effectvey wthdraws from the pubc doman the ancestra
domans, as the noton of communty property nvoves matters of
propretary nterest AND aso some forms of sef-governance over
the property.
(2) The decson of the US Court n Carno vs. Insuar Government
cannot overrde the coectve w of the peope expressed n the
Consttuton.
(3) Art.12 sec.5 par.2- "The consttutona am s to get Congress to
ook cosey nto the customary aws and, wth specfcty and by
proper rectas, to hew them to, and make them part of the stream
of aws." There shoud be a baancng of nterests between specfc
need of IP and mperatves of natona nterest.
)&P%!&! D+ismissE
-Premnary ssues-
(1) The petton presents an actua controversy.
(2) Pettoners have the requste standng.
As ctzens, they possess the pubc rght to ensure that the natona
patrmony s not aenated and dmnshed n voaton of the
Consttuton. As taxpayers, they possess the rght to restran
offcas from wastng pubc funds through the enforcement of an
unconsttutona statute.
(3) The petton for prohbton and mandamus s not an mproper
remedy.
(4) Notwthstandng the faure of pettoners to observe the
herarchy of courts, (petton shoud have been fed n the ower
court frst) the Court assumes |ursdcton n vew of the mportance
of the ssues rased.
-Substantve ssues-
(1) #*e provisions re0ogni,ing owners*ip o/ IP over t*e
an0estral lan+s an+ +omains are not un0onstitutional.
a. The Regaan theory does not negate natve tte to ands hed n
prvate ownershp snce tme mmemora.
b. Sec.1 Art.12 of 1935 Consttuton does not state that certan
ands whch are "absoutey necessary for soca wefare and
exstence," sha then be owned by the State.
c. Se%. 0rt.12 e,)resses so*ere#gn #ntent to D)rote%t the r#ghts of
7P to the#r 05.D Framers dd not ntend Congress to decde whether
AD sha be pubc or prvate property, as they have acknowedged
that AD sha be treated as prvate property.
(I) #*e provisions o/ &;MH1 +o not in/ringe upon t*e
(tateNs owners*ip over t*e natural resour0es wit*in t*e
an0estral +omains.
a. Sec.3a merey defnes coverage of AD; #ts )$r)ose #s &ef#n#t#onal
an& not &e%larat#*e of a r#ght or t#tle. It does not pso facto convert
the character of such natura resources as prvate property of the
IP.
b. The concept of natve tte to natura resources, unke natve
tte to and, has NOT been recognzed n the Phppnes.
(M) #*e provisions o/ IP& pertaining to t*e utili,ation o/
natural resour0es are not un0onstitutional.
a. Sec.2(3) Art.12 of the 1935 Const allo.s small-s%ale $t#l#6at#on
of nat$ral reso$r%es /+ #ts %#t#6ens. The State retans fu contro
over such actvtes, through the mposton of requrements and
condtons for the exporaton, deveopment and utzaton of the
NR.
b. En&er se%.7/, r#ghts g#*en to 7P are &$l+ %#r%$ms%r#/e& an& are
l#m#te&:
to manage and conserve NR wthn terrtores;
to beneft and share the profts from aocaton and utzaton
of NR;
to negotate the terms and condtons for exporaton of NR n
the area (refers ony to the premnary actvty of search and
prospectng of mnera resources);
to an nformed and ntegent partcpaton n the formuaton
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.76
and mpementaton of any pro|ect that w affect AD;
to receve |ust and far compensaton for any damages
sustaned by such pro|ects;
to effectve measures by the government to prevent any
nterference wth these rghts
c. Pr#or#t+ r#ghts &o not mean e,%l$s#*e r#ghts. The grant of sad
prorty rghts s not a banket authorty to dsregard pertnent aws
and reguatons.
-Coroary ssues-
(1) IP& +oes not violate t*e Due Pro0ess 0lause.
a. The property rghts referred to n Sec.56 ("Exstng property
regmes shoud be protected") beong to those acqured by
ndvduas, .hether #n&#geno$s or non-#n&#geno$s. Where the aw
does not dstngush, the courts shoud not dstngush.
b. The fact that NCIP sha be composed excusvey of members of
IP does not mean that the NCIP s ncapabe, or w appear to be so
ncapabe, of deverng |ustce to the non-IP.
c. The appcaton of customary aw #s l#m#te& to &#s)$tes
%on%ern#ng )ro)ert+ r#ghts or relat#ons n determnng the
ownershp and extent of the AD, where ALL partes nvoved are
members of IP.
(I) Implementing ules o/ IP& +oes not in/ringe upon t*e
Presi+entNs power o/ 0ontrol over t*e E:e0utive
Department.
Athough NCIP s ndependent to a certan degree, t was )la%e& /+
Congress D$n&er the 2ff#%e of the Pres#&entD and as such, s st
sub|ect to the Presdent's power of contro and supervson under
Sec.17 Art.7 of the Const.
"E!DO4& D+ismissE
(1) It s not a |ustcabe controversy.
|udca power cannot be extended to matters whch do not nvove
actua cases or controverses wthout upsettng baance of power.
(2) Pettoners do not have ega standng.
In Tanada v. Tuvera, when the queston s one of pubc rght and
the ob|ect of mandamus s to procure the enforcement of a pubc
duty, the peope are regarded as the rea party n nterest. But n
ths case, "what pubc rght s there for pettoners to enforce when
the IPRA does not appy to them except n genera and n common
wth other ctzens??"
P&!G&!I.&! DgrantE
- RA8371 s unconsttutona n that-
&. It re0ogni,es an+ grants rig*ts o/ owners*ip over Olan+s
o/ t*e pu6li0 +omain w*i0* are owne+ 61 t*e (tate.O
.. It lessens t*e aut*orit1 o/ t*e (tate to oversee t*e
Oe:ploration5 +evelopment5 an+ utili,ation o/ natural
resour0esO w*i0* s*oul+ un+er 6e t*e /ull 0ontrol an+
supervision o/ t*e (tate.O
(1) A Fpnos, whether ndgenous or not, are sub|ect to the
Consttuton. Because of the State's mpementaton of poces
consdered to be for the common good, all those %on%erne& ha*e to
g#*e $), $n&er %erta#n %on&#t#ons, e*en *este& r#ghts of o.nersh#).
(2) The concept of ownershp of ICC/IP, even f t s a coectve
rght, st perpetuay wthdraws such property from the contro of
the State and from ts en|oyment by other ctzens of the Repubc.
Ownershp of NR s n ALL the Fpno peope.
(3) Sec.3 Art.12 of the Const provdes that Fpno ctzens may
acqure no more than 12 hectares of aenabe pubc and, but
>0'(71 s)ea=s of no area or term l#m#ts to an%estral lan&s an&
&oma#ns. Based on ethnographc surveys, soctor genera
estmates that AD cover 80% of our mnera resources and between
8 and 10 mon of the 30 mon hectares of and n the country.
(4) Sec.2 Art.12 of the Const provdes that the State may drecty
undertake exporaton, deveopment and utzaton of NR or t coud
enter nto co-producton, |ont venture or producton-sharng
agreements wth Fpno ctzens or enttes at east 60% Fpno-
owned (and such agreements sha not exceed 25 years). RA 8371
renqushes ths power n favor of ICC/IP and they may even
exercse such rght wthout any tme mt.
(5) Yes, ICC/IP shoud be gven prorty n the use of ther AD and AL
but the+ sho$l& not /e grante& )er)et$al o.nersh#) an& %ontrol of
the naton's substanta weath to the excuson of other aw-abdng
Fpno ctzens.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.77
.5I/. #4#IN./ /H, ./#/,
&# BVI GE!E&L POVI(IO!(
Sec 3: The State sha not be sued wthout ts consent
(3&%' V CO%# O' &PPE&L(
REGALADO; November 27, 1990
'&C#(
Pettoner Loi+a @. (*au/, a Fpno by orgn and marred to an
Amercan who s a member of the Unted States Ar Force, apped
for the vacant poston of Gudance Counseor, GS 1710-9, n the
Base Educaton Offce at Cark Ar Base, for whch she s emnenty
quafed. She had functoned as a Gudance Counseor at the Cark
Ar Base at the GS 1710-9 eve for approxmatey four years at the
tme she apped for the same poston n 1976. her appcaton was
forwarded to Anthony Pers, who had some reservatons regardng
Shaufs work experence. Pers then requested the Cvan
Personne Offce to ntate mmedate nqury to the Centra
Oversea Rotaton and Recrutng Offce (CORRO). Pers was then
nformed by CORRO that an Edward B. Isakson was seected for the
poston. Isakson was paced on the ros at Cark Ar Base on
|anuary 1977.
By reason of her non-seecton to the poston, Loda Shauf
fed an equa empoyment opportunty compan aganst
respondents for aeged dscrmnaton aganst the former by
reason of her natonaty and sex. Tra court hed n favor of Shauf,
whe Court of Appeas reversed decson.
I((%E(
1. WoN the offcers of the US Armed Forces performng offca
functons n accordance wth the powers vested n them
under the Phppne Amercan Mtary Bases Agreement are
mmune from sut (even w/o consent of the State).
2. WoN the respondents are guty of dscrmnaton aganst
pettoner Shauf.
3. WoN Shauf shoud be awarded compensatory damages.
3ELD
As expressed n Art. XVI, Secton 3 of the 1987 Const, the state
may not be sued wthout ts consent. Ths s a generay accepted
prncpe of Internatona aw under Art II, Secton 2. The case at
hand may be construed as a sut aganst the US, snce the damages
to Shauf w be taken from funds of the US. However, t s aso
appcabe to compants fed aganst offcas of the state for acts
aegedy performed by them n the dscharge of ther dutes.
Unauthorzed acts of government offcas are not acts of the State,
and an acton aganst the offcas by one whose rghts have been
nvaded by such offenses, s not a sut aganst the State covered by
the rue of mmunty. The respondents are beng sued n ther
prvate and persona capacty. #*e rationale /or t*is ruling is
t*at t*e +o0trine o/ state immunit1 0annot 6e use+ as an
instrument /or perpetrating an in<usti0e. & pu6li0 o//i0ial
ma1 6e lia6le in *is personal private 0apa0it1 /or w*atever
+amage *e ma1 *ave 0ause+ 61 *is a0t +one wit* mali0e
an+ in 6a+ /ait*5 or 6e1on+ t*e s0ope o/ *is aut*orit1 or
<uris+i0tion.
0octrine Yes. Regaado s concurred wth by Meenco-Herrera,
Paras, Pada, and Sarmento.
1. The US offcers are NOT IMMUNE from sut even wthout the
consent of the State.
2. Yes the pettoners are guty of dscrmnaton aganst
Shauf. Despte Shaufs quafcatons, Pers dd not even
consder the formers appcaton. Snce the pettoner was
abe to prove the dscrmnaton n the non-consderaton of
her appcaton, the burden shfted to the respondents. The
respondents however answered wth mere denas of the
charges.
3. Shauf need not be awarded compensatory damages. There
was no proof that she reay was to earn $39,662 f she was
empoyed at the tme. Damages w*i0* are merel1
possi6le are spe0ulative. #*ere must 6e an a0tual
proo/ o/ loss.
72LIE V &&!G
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.7'
GUTIERREZ; May 28, 1992
'&C#(
Pettoners Wye and Wams were the assstant admnstratve
offcer and commandng offcer, respectvey, of the US Nava base
n Subc. Respondent Aurora Rarang was an empoyee n the Offce
of the Provost Marsha assgned as the merchandse contro guard.
Wye, as one of hs dutes, supervsed the pubcaton of the "Pan
of the Day" a day pubcaton that featured among others, an
"acton ne nqury". On feb.3,1978, an nqury was pubshed
sayng that confscated goods were beng consumed/ used for
persona beneft by the merchandse contro nspector and that a
certan "Aurng" was, n hersef, a dsgrace to the offce. Rarang,
beng the ony person named Aurng n the sad offce, went to
press an acton for damages aganst Wye and Wams an& the ES
Na*al -ase. (That Rarang was ndeed the Aurng mentoned n the
nqury was proven by the apoogy etter ssued by Wye for the
nadvertent pubcaton.)
She aeged that the artce consttuted fase, n|urous, and
macous defamaton and be tendng to mpeach her honesty,
vrtue and reputaton exposng her to pubc hatred, contempt and
rdcue.
Defendants aeged that (1) defendants acted n performance of
ther offca functons as offcers of the US Navy and are thus
mmune from sut (2) US Nava Base s mmune from sut beng an
nstrumentaty of the US Government and (3) the RTC has no
|ursdcton over the sub|ect matter and the partes nvoved.
Lower court rung: defendants pay damages because acts were not
offca acts of the US government, but persona and tortous acts
(whch are not ncuded n the rue that a soveregn country cant
be sued wthout ts consent). Sut aganst US Nava Base was
dsmssed.
I((%E(
1. WON offcas of the US Nava Base nsde Phppne Terrtory, n
dscharge of ther offca dutes, are mmune from sut.
2. Are US offcers who commt a crme or tortous act whe
dschargng offca functons st covered by the prncpe of state
mmunty from sut?
3ELD
1. Yes, they are mmune.
atio Offcers of the US Navy as nstrumentates of the US
government are mmune from sut (but ony when they are actng/
dschargng ther offca functons. ths s part of the second
ssue)
Art.XVI, sec.3 of 1987 const provdes that state may not be sued
wthout ts consent. But even wthout ths affrmaton, court s st
bound by the doctrne of ncorporaton
22
. The doctrne s appcabe
not ony to suts aganst the state but aso to compants fed
aganst offcas for acts aegedy performed by them n dscharge
of ther offca dutes.
The tradtona rue of mmunty excepts a State from beng sued n
the courts of another State wthout ts consent or waver. Ths rue
s a necessary consequence of the prncpes of ndependence and
equaty of States.
Because the actvtes of states have mutped, t has been
necessary to dstngush them -- between soveregn and
governmenta acts (|ure mper) and prvate, commerca and
propretary acts (|ure gestons). The resut s that State mmunty
now extends ony to acts |ure mper.
There s no queston, therefore, that the pettoners actvey
partcpated n screenng the features and artces n the POD as
part of ther offca functons. Under the rue that U.S. offcas n
the performance of ther offca functons are mmune from sut,
then t shoud foow that the pettoners may not be hed abe for
the questoned pubcaton.
It s to be noted, however, that the pettoners were sued n ther
persona capactes for ther aeged tortous acts n pubshng a
beous artce.
2. No.
22
)r#n%#)les are &eeme& #n%or)orate& #n the la. of e*er+ %#*#l#6e& state as a %on&#t#on an& %onse4$en%e of #ts
mem/ersh#) #n the so%#et+ of nat#ons. E)on #ts a&m#ss#on to s$%h so%#et+, the state #s a$tomat#%all+ o/l#gate& to
%om)l+ .#th these )r#n%#)les #n #ts relat#ons .#th other states
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.79
atio Our aws and, we presume, those of the Unted States do not
aow the commsson of crmes n the name of offca duty. The
genera rue s that pubc offcas can be hed personay
accountabe for acts camed to have been performed n connecton
wth offca dutes where they have acted $ltra *#res or where there
s showng of bad fath. Immunty from sut cannot nsttutonaze
rresponsbty and non-accountabty nor grant a prveged status
not camed by any other offca of the Repubc.
Under Art. 2176 of the cv code, whoever by act or omsson,
causes damage to another, there beng faut or neggence s
obged to pay for the damage done. Such faut or neggence, f
there s no pre-exstng contractua reaton between the partes, s
caed a 4$as#-&el#%t and s governed by the provsons of ths
Chapter.
Indeed the mputaton of theft contaned n the POD dated February
3, 1978 s a defamaton aganst the character and reputaton of the
prvate respondent. Pettoner Wye hmsef admtted that the
Offce of the Provost Marsha expcty recommended the deeton
of the name Aurng f the artce were pubshed. The pettoners,
however, were neggent because under ther drecton they ssued
the pubcaton wthout deetng the name "Aurng." Such act or
omsson s $ltra *#res and cannot be part of offca duty. It was a
tortous act whch rdcued the prvate respondent. The pettoners,
aone, n ther persona capactes are abe for the damages they
caused the prvate respondent.
%!I#ED (#&#E( O' &"EIC& V G%I!#O
CRUZ; February 26, 1990
'&C#(
- Petton for certorar and prohbton wth premnary n|uncton to
revew the decson of the RTC of Angees Cty
- Ths case s a consodaton of four separate cases, a nvovng
state mmunty.
G.. !o. H88JH
- Prvate respondents Vaenca, Tangao and de Par sued offcers
of the U.S. Ar Force n Cark Ar Base n connecton wth the bddng
conducted by them for contracts for barberng servces n the sad
base.
- Respondents sought to compe the Phppne Area Exchange
(PHAX) and ndvdua pettoners to cance the award to defendant
Dzon, to conduct rebddng and to aow respondents by a wrt of
premnary n|uncton to contnue operatng concessons pendng
tgaton.
- Respondent court ssued an order drectng pettoners to mantan
the status quo.
- Petitioners /ile+ motion to +ismiss an+ opposition to t*e
petition /or preliminar1 in<un0tion on t*e groun+ t*at t*e
a0tion was a suit against t*e %nite+ (tates5 w*i0* *as not
waive+ its non-sua6ilit15 an+ t*at as o//i0ialsCemplo1ees o/
t*e %.(. &ir 'or0e5 +e/en+ants were also immune /rom suit.
- Tra Court dened the appcaton for a wrt of premnary
n|uncton as we as the moton to dsmss.
- Petitioners /ile+ /or 0ertiorari an+ pro*i6ition wit*
preliminar1 in<un0tion in t*e (C.
G.. !o. HFGHJ
- Genove fed a compant for damages aganst Lamacha, Besa,
Cartaa and Orascon for hs dsmssa as cook n the U.S. Ar Force
Recreaton Center at |ohn Hay Ar Staton n Baguo Cty. After
nvestgaton, the ff: facts were ascertaned:
- Genove poured urne nto the soup stock used n cookng
vegetabes served to cub customers.
- Lamacha, as cub manager, suspended Genove and
referred the case to the Board of Arbtrators, whch found hm
guty and recommended hs dsmssa.
- De/en+ants5 <oine+ 61 t*e %nite+ (tates o/ &meri0a5
move+ to +ismiss t*e 0omplaint5 alleging t*at Lama0*ia5 as
an o//i0er o/ t*e %.(. &ir 'or0e5 was immune /rom suit5 an+
t*at t*e suit was in e//e0t against t*e %nite+ (tates5 w*i0*
*as not given its 0onsent to 6e sue+.
- Sad moton was dened.
- Petitioners /ile+ /or 0ertiorari an+ pro*i6ition wit*
preliminar1 in<un0tion in t*e (C.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'0
G.. !o. ;JJ1;
- Lus Bautsta, was empoyed as barracks boy n Camp O Donne,
an extenson of Cark Ar Base.
- He was arrested foowng a buy-bust operaton conducted by
ndvdua pettoners Kng, Dye and Bostck, offcers of the Unted
States Ar Force and speca agents of the Unted States Ar Force
Offce of Speca Operatons, for voatng R.A. 6425, or the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
- Bautsta was dsmssed from empoyment.
- He then fed a compant for damages aganst ndvdua
pettoners.
- Petitioners /ile+ a motion to +ismiss t*e 0omplaint on t*e
groun+ t*at t*e +e/en+ants were a0ting in t*eir o//i0ial
0apa0it1 w*en t*e1 +i+ t*e a0ts 0omplaine+ o/ an+ t*at t*e
suit was against t*e %nite+ (tates wit*out its 0onsent.
- Moton was dened by respondent |udge.
- Petitioners /ile+ /or 0ertiorari an+ pro*i6ition wit*
preliminar1 in<un0tion in t*e (C.
G.. !o. ;JI5;
- Prvate respondents fed a compant for damages for n|ures
sustaned as a resut of the acts of heren pettoners.
- Accordng to pantffs (heren respondents), defendants (heren
pettoners) beat them up, handcuffed them and uneashed dogs on
them whch bt them and caused them extensve n|ures.
- Accordng to defendants, the pantffs were arrested for theft and
were btten by the dogs because they were struggng and resstng
arrest.
- #*e %nite+ (tates o/ &meri0a an+ t*e in+ivi+uall1 name+
+e/en+ants move+ to +ismiss t*e 0ase an+ argue+ t*at t*e
suit was in e//e0t a suit against t*e %nite+ (tates w*i0* *as
not given its 0onsent to 6e sue+. #*e +e/en+ants also
0laime+ immunit1 /or a0ts +one 61 t*em in t*e per/orman0e
o/ t*eir o//i0ial /un0tions.
- Tra court dened the moton to dsmss, as we as the moton for
reconsderaton.
- Petitioners /ile+ /or 0ertiorari an+ pro*i6ition wit*
preliminar1 in<un0tion in t*e (C.
I((%E(
1. WON the cases aganst the pettoners were suts aganst the
Unted States, to whch t has not consented
2. WON the ndvdua pettoners may nvoke mmunty from sut by
mere asserton that the acts were done by them n the
performance of ther offca functons as offcers or agents of the
Unted States
3ELD
17 atio If the case nvoves the state enterng nto a contract n
the dscharge of ts commerca, propretary and prvate functon,
then the state w be deemed to have mpedy consented to the
sut.
easonin;
- The rue that a state may not be sued wthout ts consent now
expressed n Artce XVI, Secton 3, of the 1987 Consttuton, s one
of the generay accepted prncpes of nternatona aw.
- A states are soveregn equas and cannot assert |ursdcton over
the other.
- The rue says that a state may not be sued wthout ts consent,
whch ceary mports that t may be sued f t consents.
- Consent may be express or mped.
- Express-emboded n a genera or speca aw
- Imped-when the state enters nto a contract or t commences
tgaton
- However, not a contracts operate as a waver of non-suabty-a
dstncton must be made between contracts entered nto n a
states governmenta and soveregn capacty or prvate, propretary
and commerca capacty
- The atter mpes waver of non-suabty, the former does not.
* If t s not proven that the acts were done by the ndvdua
pettoners n the performance of ther offca functons as offcers
or agents of the Unted States, then they may not nvoke mmunty
form sut.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'1
- The doctrne of state mmunty s aso appcabe to
compants fed aganst offcas of the state for acts aegedy
performed by them n the dscharge of ther dutes.
- #*e /a0t t*at t*e a0ts were +one 61 t*e in+ivi+ual
petitioners in t*e per/orman0e o/ t*eir o//i0ial /un0tions as
o//i0ers or agents o/ t*e %nite+ (tates is a matter o/
evi+en0e5 and charges aganst them may not be dsmssed |ust by
mere asserton. If the ndvdua pettoners are found abe for
persona torts n whch the US tsef s not nvoved, then they aone
must satsfy the |udgment.
I) uling- (0))l#%at#on of rat#o #n the &#fferent %ases!
G.. !o. H88JH
- Barbershops sub|ect of the concessons granted by US are
commerca enterprses operated by prvate persons. The contracts
beng decdedy commerca, pettoners cannot pead any
mmunty.
- Petton s dsmssed.
G.. !o. HFGHJ
- Restaurant servces offered at the |ohn Hay Ar Staton partake of
the nature of a busness enterprse undertaken by the US
government n ts propretary capacty. Pettoners cannot nvoke
the doctrne of state mmunty to |ustfy the dsmssa of the
damage sut aganst them.
- However, notwthstandng these consderatons, compant n the
court beow must st be dsmssed. Athough suabe, the
pettoners are not abe because of the strength of evdence that
they acted propery n termnatng Genove for hs dsgustng
offense.
- Petton s granted, case aganst pettoners s dsmssed.
G.. !o. ;JJ1;
- Indvduay-named pettoners were actng n the exercse of ther
offca functons, and not n ther prvate or unoffca capacty.
- It foows that for dschargng ther dutes as agents of the Unted
States, they cannot be drecty mpeaded for acts mputabe to
ther prncpa, whch has not gven ts consent to be sued.
- Petton s granted, case aganst pettoners s dsmssed.
G.. !o. ;JI5;
- The court hestates to make a concuson because the record s
too meager to ndcate f the ndvdua pettoners were actng n
the dscharge of ther offca functons, or had actuay exceeded
ther authorty.
- Ony after needed nqury n the ower court sha have
determned n what capacty the ndvdua pettoners were actng
w the Court determne f the doctrne of state mmunty s
appcabe.
- Petton s dsmssed and the respondent court s drected to
proceed wth the hearng and decson.
$%("&G P3ILIPPI!E( V. !LC
PUNO; December 15, 1994
'&C#(
- 'loren0io (a0ramento was one of the 74 se%$r#t+ ass#stan%e
s$))ort )ersonnel (SASP) workng at |USMAG Phs.; he had been
wth |USMAG for more than 20yrs (1969-1992); was dsmssed on
Apr 27, 1992
- He fed a compant wth the Dept. of Labor and Empoyment
(March 31, 1992) on the ground that he was egay suspended
and dsmssed; asked for renstatement
- $%("&G fed a Moton to Dsmss nvokng ts immunit1 /rom
suit as an agency of US; aso aeged ack of empoyer-empoyee
rep and t has no |urdca personaty to sue and be sued
- La6or &r6iter Dane Cueto dsmssed compant for want of
|ursdcton
- !LC reversed-|USMAG had ost ts rght not to be sued based
on: 1) estoppe- |USMAG faed to refute the empoyer-empoyee
rep under the contro test and 2) t has waved ts rght to
mmunty from sut when t hred Sacramentos servces.
- !LC reed on 8arr+ 5+ons *s. ES0 ("US Govt waved ts
mmunty from sut by enterng nto a contract of stevedorng
servces, and thus, t submtted tsef to the |ursdcton of oca
courts")
- $%("&G now contends that the NLRC commtted grave abuse
of dscreton n reversng the abor arbters decson, n sayng
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'2
that |USMAG waved ts mmunty from sut, n fndng an
empoyer-empoyee rep between |USMAG and Sacramento, and
n consderng |USMAG estopped from denyng that respondent
s ts empoyee for faure to present proof.
I((%E
Is the |ont Unted States Mtary Assstance Group to the RP
(|USMAG-PHIL) mmune from sut?
3ELD
atio As t stands now, the appcaton of the doctrne of mmunty
from sut has been restrcted to soveregn or governmenta
actvtes. The mante of state mmunty cannot be extended to
commerca, prvate and propretary acts.
easonin;
- When |USMAG took the servces of Sacramento, t was performng
a governmenta functon on behaf of the US pursuant to the
Mtary Assstance Agreement. The sut s, n effect, one aganst the
US and, consderng that the US has not waved or consented to the
sut, the compant cannot prosper.
- Immunty of State from sut s one of the unversay recognzed
prncpes of nternatona aw that the Phs. Recognzes and adopts
as part of the aw of the and. Ths s anchored on the prncpe of
soveregn equaty of states (an equa has no power over an equa).
0iscussion
- 3istori0al .a09groun+ o/ $%("&G
- was created pursuant to the Mtary Assstance Agreement
dated March 21, 1947 between the Phppnes and the US;
prmary task was to advse and assst the Phppnes on ar
force, army and nava matters
- n 1991, US manfested ts preparedness to provde funds to
cover the saares of SASP and securty guards, the rent of
bdgs, and housng, and cost of uttes
- Memoran&$m of 0greement between AFP and |USMAG-Phs
- Saares- for securty guards and SASP
- SASP are empoyees of the AFP; under the tota operatona
contro of the Chef |USMAG-Phs; AFP to assume the
severance/retrement pay abty for a apponted SASP
- It s apparent that when |USMAG took the servces of prvate
respondent, t was performng a governmenta functon on
behaf of the US. Hence, the sut s, n effect, one aganst the US
Government.
- In ths |ursdcton, Immunty of State s a unversay accepted
prncpe. Immunty s understood as the exempton of the state
and ts organs from the |udca |ursdcton of another state.
- A state cannot be sued n the courts of another state, wthout
ts consent or waver. An e:0eption to the doctrne, however,
was recognzed n Santos, et al *s. Santos, et al@ "the state tsef
may be sued, even wthout ts consent, because by enterng
nto a contract, the soveregn state has descended the eve of
the ctzen and ts consent to be sued s mped from the very
act of enterng nto such contract."
- t was n ths ght that the state mmunty ssue n 8arr+ 5+ons
*s. ES0 was decded
- E:0eption evolve+- exstence of contract does not, per se,
mean that soveregn states may, at a tmes, be sued n oca
courts.
- ES *s. >$#6@ "...does not appy where the contract reates to
the exercse of ts soveregn functons"
- ES *s. 8on. >o&r#go, et al@ "pettoners cannot nvoke the
doctrne of state mmunty...the reason s that by enterng
nto the empoyment contract wth Genove n the dscharge
of ts propretary functons, t mpedy dvested tsef of ts
soveregn mmunty from sut."
- SASP are empoyees of the AFP as consstenty contended by
|USMAG, thus t s not estopped from denyng empoyer-
empoyee reatonshp
0ispositive Petton for certor s granted, resouton of NLRC s
reversed and set asde
P!. V CI
FERNANDO; |anuary 31, 1978
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'(
'&C#(
- Pettoner PNB receved a notce of garnshment whch was served
upon ts branch on OC by an authorzed deputy sherff of the court
*** What was sought to be garnshed was the money of the
Peopes Homeste and Housng Corporaton deposted at the
pettoners branch n OC n order to satsfy the decson of the
respondent court
- PNB fed a moton to quash the notce based on 2 grounds:
1. t*e appointment o/ respon+ent Gil6ert Loren,o as
aut*ori,e+ +eput1 s*eri// to serve t*e writ o/ e:e0ution was
0ontrar1 to law
FFF PN- %onten&s that the ser*#%e of not#%e /+ the a$thor#6e&
&e)$t+ sher#ff of th#s %o$rt %ontra*enes Se%. 11 of Common.ealth
0%t No. 10
2(
FFF 7t arg$es that it is t&e s&eri99 o9 ?C and not t&e Cler@ o9
t&is court :&o is its ,)<o99icio .&eri99, that has the a$thor#t+ to
ser*e the not#%e of garn#shment an& that the a%t$al ser*#%e of the
latter off#%er of sa#& not#%e #s therefore not #n or&er
I. t*e /un+s su6<e0t o/ t*e 0*ara0ter >ma1 6e pu6li0 in
0*ara0ter?
- COIR dened PNBs moton to quash a notce of garnshment
I((%E
A2N an or&er of Co$rt of 7n&$str#al >elat#ons (C27>! &en+#ng, for
la%= of mer#t, )et#t#oner PN-Gs mot#on to 4$ash a not#%e of
garn#shment
24
%an /e st#gmat#6e& as a gra*e a/$se of &#s%ret#on.
3ELD
No. Theres no grave abuse of dscreton.
atio
1. RA No. 4201 has aready repeaed Commonweath Act No. 103,
and under ths aw, t s now the Cerk of ths Court that s at the
same tme the Ex-Offco Sherff. Therefore, the Cerk of ths Court
has the authorty to ssue wrts of executon and notces
23
"A wrts and processes ssued by the court sha be served and executed free of charge by provnca sherffs
or by any person authorzed by ths court, n the same manner as wrts and processes of Courts of Frst Instance
24
Garnshment - a ega warnng concernng the attachment of property to satsfy a debt
-- aso the attachment of such property
2. Frst, the tone n assertng ths argument was even rresoute.
And 2
nd
, the Peopes Homeste and Housng Corporaton had a
|urdca exstence enabng t to sue and be sued. The premse that
the funds spoken of are pubc n character may be accepted n the
sense that t was government-owned. However, t does not foow
that they were exempt from garnshment.

((( v C&
MELENCIO-HERRERA; February 21. 1983
'&C#(
- In March 1963, spouses Davd B. Cruz and Socorro Canco Cruz
apped for and were granted a rea estate oan by the SSS wth
ther resdenta ot ocated at Lozada Street, Sto. Rosaro, Pateros,
Rza covered by Transfer Certfcate of Tte No. 2000 of the
Regster of Deeds of Rza ts coatera. Pursuant to ths rea estate
oan sad spouses executed on March 26, 1963 the correspondng
rea estate mortgage orgnay n the amount of P39,500.00 whch
was ater ncreased to P48,000.00 coverng sad property.
- On |uy 9, 1968, defendant SSS fed an appcaton wth the
Provnca Sherff of Rza for the forecosure of the rea estate
mortgage executed by the pantffs on the ground, among others
that the condtons of the mortgage have been broken snce
October 1967 wth the defaut on the part of the mortgagor to pay
n fu the nstaments then due and payabe on the prncpa debt
and the nterest thereon, and a of the monthy nstaments due
and payabe thereafter up to the present date. Notce of the
Sherff's Sae of the mortgaged property was ntay pubshed n
the Sunday Chronce n ts ssue of |uy 14, 1968 announcng the
sae at pubc aucton of the sad mortgaged property. Despte
pantffs etter to defendant demandng the atter to wthdraw
forecosure and dscontnue the pubcaton of the notce of sae of
ther property camng that pantffs were up-to date n the
payment of ther monthy amortzatons, defendant SSS st went
on to pubsh second and thrd pubcatons of forecosure.
- On |uy 24, 1968, the pantff Cruz spouses nsttuted before the
Court of Frst Instance of Rza an acton for damages and
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'4
attorney's fees aganst the SSS and the Provnca Sherff of Rza
aegng, among other thngs, that they had fuy and regousy
pad ther monthy amortzatons and had not defauted n any
payment. Tra Court rendered |udgment aganst defendant SSS.
Court of Appeas affrmed Tra Courts decson. Hence, ths petton
for revew on certorar.
I((%E(
(1) WON the Cruz spouses had, n fact, voated ther rea estate
mortgage contract wth the SSS as woud have warranted the
pubcatons of the notces of as woud have forecosure
(2) WON the SSS s mmune from sut
(3) WON SSS can be hed abe for damages.
3ELD
(1) atio On questons of apprecaton of evdence, factua
fndngs of the ower court are not sub|ect to revew by ths Court.
easonin; The reasonng used precedence to arrve at ths rato.
Appyng the rue, t can be sad therefore, that the fndngs of the
Court of Appeas that the mortgage-debtors have not n fact
voated ther contract because SSS accepted ther nstament
payments athough gven ate w not be dsturbed on appea.
(2) atio An entty performng governmenta functons, by vrtue
of the expct provson of an enabng aw, s deemed to have
waved mmunty from sut, athough t does not thereby concede
ts abty.
easonin; Agan, the eg of reasonng s rato by precedence,
ctng Rayo v. Court of Frst Instance of Buacan, (110 SCRA 457),
whch nvoved the Natona Power Corporaton as an entty
performng governmenta functons. In that case t sad, "It s
suffcent to say that the government has organzed a prvate
corporaton, put money n t and has aowed t to ste and be sued
n any court under ts charter." The enabng aw s R.A. No. 6395.
Appyng ths rue n the present case, the SSS own organc act
specfcay provdes that t can sue and be sued n Court, the
enabng aw beng R.A. 1161 and P.D. 24. Hence, theres a
statutory consent by the SSS to wave rght of mmunty from sut.
(3) atio No mora and/or temperate damages s to be ad|udged
aganst a party whch commenced forecosure proceedngs n vew
of the rreguar payments of the debtor of hs nstaments.
0ecision (1) The rung of the ower courts reman. Whe t s true
that the payments of the monthy nstaments were prevousy not
reguar, t s a fact that as of |une 30, 1968 the appeee, Davd B.
Cruz and Socorro Conco-Cruz were up-to-date and current n the
payment of ther monthy nstaments. Havng accepted the pror
ate payments of the monthy nstaments, the appeant coud no
onger suddeny and wthout pror notce to the mortgagors appy
for the extra-|udca forecosure of the mortgage.
(2) SSS s deemed to have waved ts mmunty from sut.
(3) SSS cannot be hed abe for damages.
2otin; 10 |ustces concur, 1 dssent, 3 took no part.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
"&)&(I& D+issentE
What was commtted n ths case was a tortous act (grossy
neggent borderng on mace or bad fath) of the empoyees of
the SSS n forecosng the mortgage of the wrong mortgage-
debtor
SSS cannot be hed abe for the damages caused by the tortous
acts of ts empoyees n the performance of ther reguar
functons
SSS as a pubc nstrumentaty for soca wefare s mmune from
sut despte ts Charter provson that t can sue and be sued.
SSS exercses purey governmenta functons and cannot be sued
wthout ts consent for the tortous acts of ts personne
CO""I(IO!E O' P%.LIC 3IG37&2( V .%GO(
DE CASTRO; March 31, 1980
'&C#(
- Appea from a decson of the Court of Frst Instance of Cebu
- The facts of the case s as per above except that the
compensaton determned s now the ssue. The vaue of the
property was pegged at P 2.37 per square meter based on the prce
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'
used n the conveyance of severa peces of property n the same
area at about the same tme. However, the court a quo n
determnng due compensaton, consdered the vaue of the pesos
to the doar at the tme the case was beng decded. So nstead of
|ust P14,615.79 the amount awarded became P49,459.34. (the
orgna amount of 14,615.79 dvded by 2 {the exchange rate at
the tme of the takng to be P2.00 to US$1.00} and the product
beng mutped by 6.775). Based on ths amount, the court
determned nterest to be P145,410.44. Tota due from the
government, ncudng attorneys fee of ten percent amounted to
P214,356.75.
- Apparenty, the court a quo, n revsng upward the compensaton,
reed on Artce 1250 of the New Cv Code whch provdes for
payment of an obgaton n an amount dfferent from what has
been agreed on because of the superventon of extra-ordnary
nfaton or defaton.
- The government, through the Soctor Genera, appeaed the
decson contendng that the court a quo erred n appyng ts
method and voated the hgh courts order to make as a bass of
compensaton the prce or the vaue of the and when t was taken.
The Soctor Genera aso took ssue wth the award of ten percent
as attorneys fees as exhorbtant consderng that Amgabe ony
sought P5,000.00.
I((%E(
1. WON the compensaton awarded by the court s proper
2. WON the attorneys fees awarded were exorbtant
3ELD
1) In a revew of the reevant Artce of the New Cv Code, the
Court noted that the provson appes ony f there was a contract
or agreement. Usng the precedent, Veasco vs Mana Eectrc (L-
19390 December 29, 1971), the court expressed the vew that the
takng of prvate property by the government n the exercse of ts
emnent doman does not gve rse to a contractua obgaton.
Snce there s no contract to speak of because the obgaton of the
government sought to be enforced does not orgnate from
contract, then Artce 1250 does not appy. The |ust compensaton
s the vaue of the property at the tme t was taken.
- Amgabe s st entted to nterest on the prce of the and as
there was no moton of reconsderaton from the Soctor
Genera before the decson became fna.
2) The Court noted that Amgabe ony sked for P5,000
attorneys fees and hence the amount requested s reasonabe.
0ispositive |udgment appeaed s reversed as to the bass of
determnng the prce of the and. And the prce of P2.37 per square
meter or tota amount s P14,615.79 pus sx percent per annum
nterest reckoned from the tme the property was taken to the tme
the compensaton s pad.
4!2,N*,N/
%!I#ED (#&#E( V DO
LADD; May 19, 1903
'&C#(
The defendants, Fred Dorr et a., have been convcted upon a
compant chargng them wth the offense of wrtng, pubshng,
and crcuatng a scurrous be aganst the Government of the
Unted States or the Insuar Government of the Phppne Isands.
The compant s based upon secton 8 of Act No. 292 of the
Commsson
25
. The aeged be was pubshed as an edtora n the
ssue of "Mana Freedom" of Apr 6, 1902. Vruent attacks on the
Cv Commsson and ts members, for nstance the appontment of
one Tecson as |ustce of the peace and the brandng of Trndad H.
Pardo de Tavera as a coward and a rasca, were expcty rased
among others. Hence, ths appea.
25
"Every person who sha utter sedtous words or speeches, wrte, pubsh, or crcuate scurrous bes aga#nst
the 9o*ernment of the En#te& States or the 7ns$lar 9o*ernment of the Ph#l#))#ne 7slan&s, or whch tend to dsturb
or obstruct any awfu offcer n executng hs offce, or whch tend to nstgate others to caba or meet together
for unawfu purposes, or whch suggest or ncte rebeous conspraces or rots, or whch tend to str up the
peope aganst the awfu authortes, or to dsturb the peace of the communty, the safety and order of the
Government, or who sha unknowngy concea such ev practces, sha be punshed by a fne not exceedng
two thousand doars or by mprsonment not exceedng two years, or both, n the dscreton of the court."
(7tal#%s m#ne!
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'6
I((%E(
1. What s meant n secton 8 of Act No. 292 by the expresson "the
Insuar 9o*ernment of the Phppnes"?
26

2. Whether the artce consttutes an offense under secton 8 of
Act No. 292?
3ELD
1. atio The term "government" as empoyed n Act No. 292 of
the Unted States Phppne Commsson s used n the abstract
sense of the exstng potca system as dstngushed from the
concrete organsm of the Government - the Houses of Congress
and the Executve.
easonin; There are two admssbe meanngs of the term
"government" provded: a. n a genera and abstract sense, the
exstng aws and nsttutons of the Isands, or b. the aggregate of
the ndvduas by whom the Government of the Isands s, for the
tme beng, admnstered. The frst admssbe defnton s derved
from the act of (the U.S.) Congress on |uy 14, 1798, commony
known as the Sedton Act)
27
2. atio The pubcaton of an artce can not be punshed under
Act No. 292 of the Unted States Phppne Commsson as havng
sedtous tendences uness t has a tendency to produce
dsaffecton or a feeng ncompatbe wth a dsposton to reman
oya to the Government and obedent to ts aws.
- The pubcaton of an artce abusve of the Unted States
Phppne Commsson and ts members s not a be upon the
Government and does not fa wthn sad Act No. 292 of the Unted
States Phppne Commsson.
easonin; The artce n queston contans no attack upon the
government system of the U.S., and though grossy abusve as
respects both the Commsson as a body and some of ts ndvdua
26
N.B. We need to answer ths queston frst n order to be abe to resove the next ssue.
2<
"It s made an offense to wrte, prnt, utter, pubsh or cause to procure to be wrtten, prnted, uttered, or
pubshed or to knowngy and wngy assst or ad n wrtng, prntng, utterng, or pubshng any fase,
scandaous, and macous wrtng or wrtngs aganst the Government of the Unted States, or the Presdent of
the Unted States, wth ntent to defame the sad Government, or ether House of sad Congress, or the sad
Presdent, or to brng them, or ether of them, nto contempt or dsrepute, or to excte aganst them or ether any
of them the hatred of the good peope of the Unted States."
members, t contans no attack upon the governmenta system by
whch authorty of the U.S. s enforced n these Isands.
Furthermore, t s the character of the men who are ntrusted wth
the admnstraton of the government that the wrter s seekng to
brng nto dsrepute by mpugnng the purty of ther motves, ther
pubc ntegrty, and ther prvate moras, and the wsdom of ther
pocy. The pubcaton of the artce therefore, no sedtous
tendency beng apparent, consttutes no offense under secton 8 of
Act No. 292)
0ispositive The |udgment of convcton s reversed and the
defendants are acqutted.
/,I/!8
&# I !&#IO!&L #EI#O2
The natona terrtory comprses the Phppne archpeago, wth a
the sands and water embraced theren, and a other terrtores
over whch the Phppnes has soveregnty or |ursdcton,
consstng of ts terrestra, fuva and aera domans, ncudng ts
terrtora sea, the seabed, the subso, the nsuar sheves, and
other submarne areas. The waters around, between, and
connectng the sands of the archpeago, regardess of ther
breadth and dmensons, form part of the nterna waters of the
Phppnes.
EP%.LIC &C# !O. MJG8
&n &0t to De/ine t*e .aselines o/ t*e #erritorial (ea o/ t*e
P*ilippines
- Approved: 17 |une 1961
Ahereas %la$ses -
1. The foowng form part of terrtora sea of the Phs:
A waters wthn mts set forth n Treaty of Pars (1898),
US-Span treaty (1900), and US-Brtan treaty (1930).
A waters around, between and connectng the varous
sands of the archpeago.
A waters beyond outermost sands of archpeago but
wthn mts of boundares set forth n such treates.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'7
2. The basenes from whch the terrtora sea of Phppnes s
determned consst of straght nes |onng approprate ponts of
the outermost sands of the archpeago.
Se%t#on 1 - It defnes and descrbes the basenes for the terrtora
sea of the Phs.
Se%t#on 2 - A waters wthn the basenes provded n sec1 are
consdered nand or nterna waters of the Phs.
EP%.LIC &C# !O. 5GG8
.&. 5GG8 s smpy an Act to correct typographca errors n
Secton 1 of R.A. 3046 defnng the basenes of the terrtora sea of
the Phppnes. It further says that the defnton of the basenes of
the terrtora seas of the Phppne Archpeago as provded n ths
Act s wthout pre|udce to the deneaton of the basenes of the
terrtora sea around the terrtory of Sabah, stuated n North
Borneo, over whch the Repubc of the Phs. has acqured domnon
and soveregnty. Approved September 18, 1968.
PE(IDE!#I&L DECEE !O. 15F8
|une 11, 1978 - Pres. Marcos ssued P.D. 1596 decarng certan
area (the Kaayaan Isand Group or more commony known as the
"Spraty Isands") as Phppne terrtory as we as provdng for ts
Government and Admnstraton.
sad area s vta to the securty and economc survva of
the Phppnes and much of t s part of the contnenta
margn of the Ph. archpeago
the area does not egay beong to any state or naton and
by reason of hstory, ndspensabe need, effectve
occupaton and contro estabshed n accordance wth
nternatona aw, sad area (ncudng ts sea-bed, subso,
contnenta margn and ar space) must be deemed to
beong to and sub|ect to the soveregnty of the Ph.
other states cams to some of the area cannot preva over
the cams of the Phppnes on ega, hstorca, and
equtabe grounds
named t "Kaayaan" and consttuted t as a dstnct and
separate muncpaty of Paawan
admnstraton and government sha be vested n the
Secretary of Natona Defense or n other Cv govt. or AFP
offcers as may be desgnated by the Pres.
PE(IDE!#I&L DECEE !O. 15FF
Esta6lis*ing an E:0lusive E0onomi0 4one an+ /or Ot*er
Purposes
- Excusve Economc Zone (EEZ) s a seazone over whch a state
has speca rghts over the exporaton and use of marne resources
- A#=#)e&#a
- It extends from two hundred nautca mes beyond and from the
basenes from whch the terrtora sea
- when t overaps another EEZ, the common boundares sha be
determned by countres
- What can be exercsed n EEZ?
o Soveregnty rghts for the purpose of exporaton and
expotaton, conservaton and management of the natura
resources
o Excusve rghts and |ursdcton wth respect to the
estabshment and utzaton of artfca sands, off-shore
termnas, nstaatons and structures, the preservaton of the
marne envronment, ncudng the preventon and contro of
pouton, and scentfc research
o Other rghts recognzed by nternatona aw or state practce
- It aso restrcts other countres from exercsng the rghts above n
our EEZ.
- Recognzes that other countres have EEZs
- The Presdent may authorze a government agency to promugate
rues for the purposes of ths decree
- Anyone who voates any provson of the decree sha be sub|ect
to a fne (P2,000-P100,000) or mprsonment (6 mos - 10 yrs) or
both. Vesses and other equpment or artces used sha be
confscated.
+,!+-,
PE&".LE
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.''
We, the soveregn Fpno peope, mporng the ad of Amghty
God, n order to bud a |ust and humane socety and estabsh s
Government that sha embody our deas and aspratons, promote
the common good, conserve and deveop our patrmony, and
secure to ourseves and our posterty, the bessngs of
ndependence and democracy under the rue of aw and a regme of
truth, |ustce, freedom, ove, equaty, and peace, do ordan and
promugate ths Consttuton.
&# II DECL&&#IO! O' PI!CIPLE( &!D (#&#E POLICIE(
Sec 1: The Phppnes s a democratc and repubcan State.
Soveregnty resdes n the peope and a government authorty
emanates from them.

Sec 4: The prme duty of the Government s to serve and protect
the peope. The Government may ca upon the peope to defend
the State and, n the fufment thereof, a ctzens may be
requred, under condtons provded by aw, to render persona,
mtary or cv servce.

Sec 15: The State sha protect and promote the rght to heath of
the peope and nst heath conscousness among them.
Sec 16: The State sha protect and advance the rght of the peope
to a baanced and heathfu
&# III .ILL O' IG3#(
Sec 2:
Sec 7:
&# VII EBEC%#IVE DEP&#"E!#
Sec 4:
&# BVI GE!E&L POVI(IO!(
Sec 2:
&# BVIII #&!(I#O2 POVI(IO!(
Sec 25:
#EC(O! V. CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
VITUG; March 3, 2004
'&C#(
- On December 31, 2003, FP| fed hs certfcate of canddacy for
the poston of Presdent of the Phppnes under the Koasyon ng
Nagkakasang Ppno (KNP).
- In hs certfcate of canddacy, FP| represented hmsef to be
a natura-born ctzen.
- Hs rea name was stated to be "Fernando, |r." or "Ronad
Aan" Poe, born n Mana on August 20, 1939.
- On |anuary 9, 2004, Vctorno X. Forner fed a petton before the
COMELEC to dsquafy FP| and to deny due course or to cance hs
certfcate of canddacy on the ground that FP| made a matera
msrepresentaton n hs certfcate of canddacy by camng to be a
natura-born Fpno ctzen.
- Accordng to Forner, FP|s parents were foregners - hs
mother Besse Keey Poe was an Amercan and hs father
Aan F. Poe was a Spansh natona beng a son of Lorenzo
Pou, a Spansh sub|ect.
- Even f Aan F. Poe was a Fpno ctzen, he coud not have
transmtted hs Fpno ctzenshp to FP| because FP| was
egtmate.
- Aan F. Poe contracted a pror marrage to a certan
Pauta Gomez before marryng Besse Keey accordng
to an "uncertfed" copy of a supposed certfcaton of
the marrage n |uy 5, 1936.
- Even f no such pror marrage exsted, Aan F. Poe
marred Bessey Keey ony a year after the brth of FP|.
The marrage certfcate of ther marrage refected the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.'9
date of ther marrage to be on September 16, 1940
where Aan was 25, unmarred and Fpno, and Besse
was 22, unmarred and Amercan.
- FP|s earest estabshed ascendant was hs grandfather Lorenzo
Pou.
- No brth certfcate for Lorenzo but hs death certfcate
ssued upon hs death n September 11, 1954 at age 84
dentfed hm as a Fpno resdng n San Caros, Pangasnan.
- Lorenzo marred Marta Reyes and ther son Aan was born
on May 17, 1915. The brth certfcate of Aan showed that
hs father was an Espao father and to a mestza Espao
mother.
+rocedure
- In the |anuary 19, 2004 hearng before the COMELEC, Forner
presented the foowng peces of evdence:
- Copy of the certfcate of brth of FP|
- Certfed photocopy of an affdavt by Pauta Gomez-Poe
attestng that she had fed a bgamy case aganst Aan F. Poe
because of hs reatonshp wth Keey (n Spansh)
Engsh transaton of (b)
- Certfed copy of the certfcate of brth of Aan F. Poe
- Certfcaton from the drector of the Records Management
and Archves Offce statng that a Lorenzo Poe/Pou resded n
the Phppnes before 1907
- Certfcaton from OIC of the Archves Dvson of the Natona
Archves statng that there was no avaabe nformaton
regardng the brth of Aan F. Poe
- FP| presented the foowng peces of evdence among others:
- Certfcaton that there was no avaabe nformaton
regardng the brth of Aan F. Poe n the regstry of brths for
San Caros, Pangasnan
- Certfcaton by the OIC of the Archves Dvson of the
Natona Archves that there was no avaabe nformaton
about the marrage of Aan F. Poe and Pauta Gomez
- Certfcate of brth of Ronad Aan F. Poe
- Orgna Certfcate of Tte f the Regstry Deeds of
Pangasnan n the name of Lorenzo Pou,
- Copes of tax decaratons under the name of Lorenzo Pou
- Copy of certfcate of death of Lorenzo Pou
- Copy of marrage contract of Fernando Pou and Besse Keey
- Certfcaton ssued by the Cty Cv Regstrar of San Caros,
Pangasnan statng that the records of the brth of the sad
offce from 1900 to May 1946 were destroyed durng Word
War II
- |anuary 23, 2004 - COMELEC dsmssed the Forner petton for
ack of mert and Forner fed a moton for reconsderaton on
|anuary 26, 2004. The moton was dened by the COMELEC en banc
on February 6, 2004.
- February 10, 2004 - Forner fed a petton before the Supreme
Court, prayng for TRO, a wrt of premnary n|uncton or any other
resouton that woud stay the fnaty and/or executon of the
COMELEC resoutons.
- The two other pettons (Tecson and Desdero v. COMELEC and
Veez v. Poe) chaenge the |ursdcton of the COMELEC and assert
that ony the Supreme Court has orgna and excusve |ursdcton
to resove the basc ssue on the case.
I((%E(
1. Does the Court have |ursdcton over the three cases fed?
2. Can FP| be dsquafed as a presdenta canddate on the ground
that he materay msrepresented n hs certfcate of canddacy
that he was a natura-born Fpno?
3ELD
1. atio |ursdcton ssue
- The COMELECs decson on dsquafed cases nvovng a
presdenta canddate coud be eevated to and coud be
taken cognzance by the Supreme Court.
- The |ursdcton of the Supreme Court woud not ncude
cases drecty brought before t questonng the quafcatons
of a canddate for the presdency or vce-presdency before
the eectons are hed.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.90
easonin;
- Does the Court have |ursdcton over the three cases fed?
- Forner petton - Yes
- In seekng the dsquafcaton of FP| before the COMELEC,
Forner reed on the foowng:
- H0 *er#f#e& )et#t#on see=#ng to &en+ &$e %o$rse or to
%an%el a %ert#f#%ate of %an&#&a%+ ma+ /e f#le& /+ an+
)erson e,%l$s#*el+ on the gro$n& that an+ mater#al
re)resentat#on %onta#ne& there#n as re4$#re& $n&er
Se%t#on 74 #s falseIJ (Omnbus Eecton Code, Sec. 78)
- HIthe Comm#ss#on shall ha*e e,%l$s#*e %harge of the
enfor%ement an& a&m#n#strat#on of all la.s relat#*e to the
%on&$%t of ele%t#ons for the )$r)ose of en&$r#ng free,
or&erl+ an& honest ele%t#onsIJ (Sec. 52, same)
- Han+ #ntereste& )art+J authorzed to fe a verfed
petton to deny or cance the certfcate of canddacy of
any nusance canddate (Art. 69, same)
- Decsons of the COMELEC on dsquafcaton cases may be
revewed by the Supreme Court under the Revsed Rues of
Cv Procedure (Rue 65). Asde from that, accordng to Art. 9,
Sec. 7 of the Consttuton, Han+ &e%#s#on, or&er or r$l#ng of
ea%h Comm#ss#on ma+ /e /ro$ght to the S$)reme Co$rt on
%ert#orar# /+ the aggr#e*e& )art+ .#th#n th#rt+ &a+s from
re%e#)t thereof.J
- |udca power s vested n the Supreme Court whch ncudes
the duty of the courts to sette actua controverses nvovng
rghts whch are egay demandabe and enforceabe and to
determne whether or not there has been grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton on the
part of any branch of nstrumentaty of the government. (Art.
8, Sec. 1, Consttuton).
- Tecson petton and Veez petton - No
- The Tecson and Veez pettons make use of Art. 7, Sec 4(7)
of the Consttuton n assang the COMELECs |ursdcton
when t took cognzance of the Forner petton because the
HS$)reme Co$rt s#tt#ng en /an% shall /e the sole 3$&ge of all
%ontests relat#ng to the ele%t#on, ret$rns an& 4$al#f#%at#ons of
the Pres#&ent or V#%e Pres#&ent an& ma+ )rom$lgate #ts r$les
for the )$r)ose.J
- A "contest" refers to a post-eecton scenaro. Eecton
contests are ether eecton protests or a quo warranto whch
woud have the ob|ectve of dsodgng the wnner from offce.
The Rues of the Presdenta Eectora Trbuna state:
- H"r#/$nal shall /e the sole 3$&ge of all %ontestsIrelat#ng
to 4$al#f#%at#ons of the Pres#&ent or V#%e-Pres#&ent of the
Ph#l#))#nes.J (Rue 12)
- H0n ele%t#on %ontest #s #n#t#ate& /+ the f#l#ng of an
ele%t#on %ontest or a )et#t#on for 4$o-.arranto aga#nst the
Pres#&ent or V#%e-Pres#&ent.J (Rue 13)
- H2nl+ the reg#stere& %an&#&ate for Pres#&ent or V#%e-
Pres#&ent .ho re%e#*e& the se%on& or th#r& h#ghest
n$m/er of *otes ma+ %ontest the ele%t#on of the Pres#&ent
or the V#%e-Pres#&entI/+ f#l#ng a *er#f#e& )et#t#onI.#th#n
(0 &a+s after the )ro%lamat#on of the .#nner.J (Rue 14)
- The rues speak of the |ursdcton of the trbuna over
contests reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of
the Presdent and the Vce Presdent and not canddates for
Presdent or Vce-Presdent.
2. atio FP|s ctzenshp ssue (Votng 6 concur, 7 dssent, 1
abstenton and 1 separate opnon)
- The dstnctons between egtmacy and egtmacy shoud
ony reman n the sphere of cv aw and shoud not unduy
mpnge on the doman of potca aw.
- The 1935 Consttuton confers ctzenshp to a persons
whose fathers are Fpno regardess of whether such chdren
are egtmate of egtmate.
easonin;
- Can FP| be dsquafed as a presdenta canddate on the ground
that he materay msrepresented n hs certfcate of canddacy
that he was a natura-born Fpno?
- Concept of ctzenshp
- Arstote descrbed a ctzen as a man who shared n the
admnstraton of |ustce and n the hodng of an offce and
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.91
the state woud be composed of such ndvduas n order to
acheve a sef-suffcent exstence.
- Ctzenshp deas wth rghts and enttements on the one
hand and wth concomtant obgatons on the other.
- Ctzenshp underwent changes n the 18
th
to 20
th
centures.
- In the 18
th
century, the concept was cv ctzenshp
whch estabshed the rghts necessary for necessary for
ndvdua freedom (eg. Rghts to property, persona berty
and |ustce)
- In the 19
th
century, t expanded to ncude potca
ctzenshp whch encompassed the rght to partcpate n
the exercse of potca power.
- In the 20
th
century, there was the deveopment of soca
ctzenshp whch ad emphass on the rght of the ctzen
to economc we-beng and soca securty.
- Internatonazaton of ctzenshp s an ongong
deveopment.
- Ctzenshp n the Phppnes from the Spansh tmes to the
present
- Durng the Spansh perod, no such term as "Phppne
ctzens," ony "Spansh sub|ects." In church records, natves
were dentfed as "ndos."
- Spansh aws on ctzenshp ncuded:
- Order de a Regenca of 1841
- Roya Decree of 23 August 1868 (defned the potca
status of chdren born n the Phppnes)
- Ley Extran|era de Utramar of 1870
- The 1876 Spansh Consttuton was not extended to the
Phppnes because the coony was to be governed by
speca aws.
- Accordng to the Cv Code of Span, the foowng were
Spansh ctzens:
- Persons born n Spansh terrtory
- Chdren of a Spansh father or mother even f they
were born outsde Span
- Foregners who have obtaned naturazaton papers
- Those who, wthout such papers, may have become
domced nhabtants of any town of the Monarchy
- Artce 10 of the Treaty of Pars stated that the cv and
potca status of the natve nhabtants woud be determned
by the US Congress. Spansh sub|ects and natves who
choose to reman n the terrtory may preserve ther
aegance to the Crown of Span by makng a decaraton of
ther decson wthn a year from the date of the ratfcaton of
the treaty. If no such decaraton s made, ther aegance
sha be hed renounced and they woud have adopted the
natonaty of the terrtory n whch they resde.
- Upon ratfcaton of the treaty, the natve nhabtants of
the Phppnes became Spansh sub|ects.
- They dd not become Amercan ctzens but were ssued
passports descrbng them to be ctzens of the Phppnes
entted to protecton of the US.
- Phppne Organc Act of 1902 - frst appearance of the term
"ctzens of the Phppne sands." A ctzen of the Phppne
sands under ths Act was:
- An nhabtant of the Phppnes and a Spansh sub|ect on
Apr 11, 1899.
- An nhabtant meant:
- A natve born nhabtant
- An nhabtant who was a natve of Span
- An nhabtant who obtaned Spansh papers on or
before Apr 11, 1899.
- Controversy as to the ctzenshp of a chd born between
Apr 11, 1899 and |uy 1, 1902 as there was no ctzenshp
aw n the Phppnes. The common aw prncpe |us so
(prncpe of terrtoraty) was sad to govern those born n
the Phppnes durng ths tme.
- Phppne Autonomy Act (|ones Law) - A natve born
nhabtant of the Phppnes was deemed to be a ctzen of the
Phppnes as of Apr 11, 1899 f:
- A Spansh sub|ect on Apr 11, 1899
- Resdng n the Phppnes on the sad date
- Snce that date, not a ctzen of another country
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.92
- 1935 Consttuton - provded that |us sanguns (bood
reatonshp) be the bass for ctzenshp, as stated n Sec. 1,
Art. 3:
- Those who are ctzens of the Phppne Isands at the
tme of the adopton of the Consttuton
- Those born n the Phppne Isands of foregn parents
who, before the adopton of ths Consttuton, had been
eected to pubc offce n the Phppne Isands
- "hose .hose fathers are %#t#6ens of the Ph#l#))#nes
- Those whose mothers are ctzens of the Phppnes and
upon reachng the age of ma|orty, eect Phppne
ctzenshp
- Those who are naturazed n accordance wth aw
- 1973 Consttuton - Corrected Sec. 1, Art. 3 (4) of the 1935
Consttuton, whch, when taken together wth the exstng
cv aw provsons woud provde that women woud
automatcay ose ther Fpno ctzenshp and acqure that of
ther foregn husbands. Ths was deemed dscrmnatory n
that t ncapactated the Fpno woman from transmttng her
ctzenshp to her egtmate chdren and requred egtmate
chdren of Fpno mothers to st eect Fpno ctzenshp
upon reachng the age of ma|orty. The provsons of Sec. 1,
Art. 3 of the 1973 Consttuton state that the foowng are
ctzens of the Phppnes:
- Those who are ctzens of the Phppnes at the tme of
the adopton of ths Consttuton
- "hose .hose fathers or mothers are %#t#6ens of the
Ph#l#))#nes
- Those who eect Phppne ctzenshp pursuant to the
provsons of the 1935 Consttuton
- Those who are naturazed n accordance wth aw
- Add Sec. 2 of the same artce whch provded that a
femae ctzen of the Phppnes who marres an aen
retaners her Phppne ctzenshp uness by her act or
omsson she s deemed to have renounced her ctzenshp
under the aw.
- 1987 Consttuton - amed to correct the rreguar stuaton
generated by the questonabe provso n the 1935
Consttuton whch outnes n Artce 4, Sec. 1 that the
foowng are Fpno ctzens:
- Those who are ctzens of the Phppnes at the tme of
the adopton of ths Consttuton
- Those whose fathers and mothers are ctzens of the
Phppnes
- Those born before |anuary 17, 1973 of Fpno mothers
who eect Phppne ctzenshp upon reachng the age of
ma|orty
- Those who are naturazed n accordance wth aw.
- The Consttuton requres that the Presdent of the Phppnes
shoud be, among the many requrements, a natura-born
ctzen of the Phppnes (Art. 7, Sec. 2).
- Natura born ctzen - ctzens of the Phppnes from brth
wthout havng to perform any act to acqure or perfect ther
Phppne ctzenshp
- Ctzenshp of FP| n reaton to grandfather Lorenzo Pous
ctzenshp and father Aan F. Poes ctzenshp
- Aan F. Poe was a Fpno ctzen because hs father
Lorenzo was aso Fpno.
- Concusons wth some degree of certanty to be drawn
from the documents presented:
- The parents of FP| were Aen Poe and Besse Keey.
- FP| was born to them on August 20, 1939.
- Aan F. Poe and Besse Keey were marred to each
other on September 16, 1940.
- The father of Aan F. Poe was Lorenzo Pou.
- At the tme of hs death on September 11, 1954,
Lorenzo Poe was 84 years od.
- The pubc documents submtted are deemed
trustworthy.
- The three documents (brth certfcate of FP|,
marrage certfcate of Besse and Aan and the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.9(
death certfcate of Lorenzo) were certfed true
copes of the orgnas.
- The Rues of Court (130, Secton 3) state that when
the sub|ect of the nqury s the content of the
document, no evdence sha be admssbe except
the orgna document tsef. One of the exceptons
however s when the orgna s a pubc record n the
custody of a pubc offce s recorded n a pubc
offce.
- As pubc documents, the three documents are
prma face proof of ther contents as stated n the
Rues of Court (130, Secton 44) that the entres n
offca records made by a pubc offcer n the
performance of hs duty are prma face evdence of
the facts stated theren. Ths s grounded on: of
offca duty n the preparaton of the statement
made. The penaty affxed to a breach of that duty.
Routne and dsnterested orgn of most such
statements. Pubcty of the record whch makes
more key the pror exposure of such errors as
mght have occurred
- It s safe to assume that Lorenzo Pous pace of
resdence at the tme of death was the same as hs
resdence before death n the absence of evdence that
woud attest otherwse. In that case, Lorenzo Pou woud
have benefted from the "en masse Fpnzaton" that
the Phppne B effected n 1902. Ths ctzenshp
woud then extend to hs son Aan F. Poe, FP|s father.
- Lorenzo born sometme n 1870 durng the Spansh
coonzaton perod.
- Forner argues that Lorenzo was not n the
Phppnes durng the cruca perod of 1898 to 1902
but there s no exstng record to attest to that cam.
- Forner faed to show that Lorenzo was out of the
country durng that same tme perod.
- Lorenzos resdence at the tme of death was n San
Caros, Pangasnan.
- For proof of faton or paternty, the mandatory rues of
cv aw woud not appy n ths case. The duy notarzed
decaraton by Ruby Keey Mangahas, FP|s materna aunt
and sster of hs mother Besse, provng the acts of Aan F.
Poe, recognzng hs own paterna reatonshp wth FP|
(vng wth Besse and the chdren n one house as one
famy) woud be accepted.
- Forner argues that the mandatory rues under cv rue
shoud appy because FP| was an egtmate son.
- Acknowedgement needed to estabsh paternty
(eg. Acknowedgement n the brth certfcate by
sgnng name)
- In the FP| case, there was no sgnature of Aan F.
Poe n the brth certfcate of FP|.
- 1950 Cv Code - acknowedgement of egtmate
chdren of three types whch had to be done durng
the fetme of the presumed parent:
- Vountary (expressy made n record brth, w
or a statement before the court n authentc
wrtng)
- Lega (n favor of fu bood brothers and ssters
of an egtmate chd who was recognzed as
natura)
- Compusory (demanded generay n cases when
the chd had n hs favor any evdence to prove
faton)
- The Famy Code has berazed the rues as
stated n Artces 172, 173 and 175 and the rues
have retroactve effect (Artce 255). These
provsons are there to govern the prvate and
persona affars of the famy. There s tte
ndcaton that ths shoud aso govern hs potca
rghts.
- Ths shoud be taken n the context of cv aw, beng
that branch of aw whch s concerned wth the
organzaton of the famy and reguaton of property.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.94
The reevance of ctzenshp s exempfed n Art. 15 of
the Cv Code.
- The proof of faton for purposes of determnng
ctzenshp status shoud be deemed ndependent from
those prescrbed for cv code purposes. The ordnary
rues shoud govern.
- DNA testng to prove paternty coud aso be resorted
to.
- There s no |ursprudence to prove that an egtmate chd
cannot nhert hs fathers ctzenshp.
- Forner argues that even f Aan F. Poe were Fpno,
Aans ctzenshp woud not have been transmtted to FP|
because FP| was egtmate.
- FP| was aeged to be egtmate because of the
bgamous marrage between hs parents Aan and Besse
for the reason that Aan aegedy had a pror exstng
marrage to a certan Pauta Gomez. The Court hed that
the veracty of ths marrage between Pauta and Aan s
doubtfu.
- Forner aso contended that even f Aan and Besses
marrage was not bgamous, FP| was st egtmate
because hs parents were marred after he was born.
Forner based hs arguments on the cases of Morano v.
Vvo, Chongban v. de Leon and Serra v. Repubc.
- In the cases cted above, t s mportant to note the
s mota n each case. If the pronouncement of |us
sanguns was n the s mota, t woud consttute
doctrne courtesy of stare decss. If not, t s mere
obter dctum.
- In a of the mentoned cases, there was no |us
sanguns n the s mota of the cases. If there was
|us sanguns mentoned, t was mere obter dctum.
- The pronouncement that an egtmate chd cannot
nhert the fathers ctzenshp has no textua bass n the
Consttuton and voates the equa protecton cause.
- For |ursprudence that regarded an egtmate chd to
nhert the mothers ctzenshp, t was there to ensure a
Fpno natonaty for the chd wth the assumpton that
the mother woud gan custody.
- The 1935 Consttuton appes to FP| snce he was born
durng that tme perod and t states that Fpno ctzens
ncude those whose fathers are ctzens of the Phppnes.
0ecision
1. The evdence does not estabsh concusvey FP|s ctzenshp but
the evdence preponderates n hs favor to hod that he coud not
be guty of msrepresentaton n hs certfcate of canddacy.
Forner v. COMELEC DI("I((ED for faure to show grave abuse of
dscreton on the part of the COMELEC for dsmssng the orgna
petton.
2. Tecson v. COMELEC and Veez v, Poe DI("I((ED for want of
|ursdcton.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P%!O
$uris+i0tion
- SC s unanmous on the ssue of |ursdcton
- Tecson and Vadez pettons - pettoners cannot nvoke Art
VII S4 of the Consttuton because the word "contest" means
that the Court can ony be nvoked after the eecton and
procamaton of a Presdent or Vce Presdent. There can be no
"contest" before a wnner s procamed.
- Forner petton - as a revew under R64 n reaton to R65 of
the RoC, Court has |ursdcton.
- COMELEC dd not commt grave abuse of dscreton when t rued
that pettoner faed to prove by substanta evdence that FP|
deberatey msrepresented that he s a natura-born Fpno ctzan
n hs CoC
- Certorar power of the SC to revew COMELEC decsons s a
mted power
- Can ony reverse or change the COMELEC decson on the
ground that COMELEC commtted grave abuse of dscreton
(despotc, arbtrary or caprcous)
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.9
- The rung of the COMELEC denyng the petton to dsquafy
respondent Poe s based on substanta evdence, hence s not
despotc, whmsca or caprcous
- Romuadez-Marcos v COMELEC - msrepresentaton must not
ony be matera but aso deberate and wfu
- Pettoner has burden to prove evdence to show that (1)
respondent made msrepresentaton n hs CoC, (2) that
msrepresentaton s matera to the poston to whch he s
canddate and (3) that matera msrepresentaton was made
deberatey and wfuy
- Anayss of pettoners evdence
- Certfcate of brth - ony proved the date of brth of FP|, not
that he s not a natura-born ctzen
- Sworn statements of Pauta Gomez chargng Aan Poe wth
bgamy and marrage cense of between Aan Poe and Pauta
Gomez, presented thru Dr. Manapat - pued out because
they were fabrcated
- Respondent submtted affdavts that show that the fes
submtted by the pettoner are fabrcated by Manapats
nstructons
- Pettoner cams that the affdavts must not be
consdered because of technca grounds
- SC rued that the COMELEC s a quas-|udca body and
are not bound by the technca rues of evdence.
- Brth certfcate of Aan Poe - aso fabrcated; does not prove
anythng besdes brth
- Certfcaton of Dr. Manapat that the Natona Archves has
no record that Lorenzo Pou entered or resded n the
Phppnes before 1907 - manufactured
- Certfcaton of Estrea Domngo, OIC Archves Dv that the
Regster of Brths that there s no nformaton on the Natona
Archves on the brth of Aan Poe to the spouse Lorenzo Pou
and Marta Reyes - ack of nformaton s not proof
- Poe from the tme of hs nvountary brth has aways
conducted hmsef as Fpno
- "For faure of the pettoner to dscharge the burden of
proof, Poe s entted to an outrght dsmssa of the Forner
petton." Poe does not need to present contrary evdence for
the burden of proof s not shfted to hm.
- Assumng that COMELEC gravey abused ts |ursdcton and the
ssue of whether respondent Poe s a natura-born ctzen Fpno
shoud now be resoved, the Forner petton need not be remanded
to the COMELEC for further recepton of evdence
- Remand to the COMELEC to gve the pettoner a second
opportunty to prove hs case s a papabe error
- "In ght of these erudte opnons of our amc curae, t s
dayght cear that pettoner Forner s not ony wrng wth hs
facts but aso wrong wth hs aw.
- Remand means a new round of tgaton n the COMELEC
when ts proceedngs have ong been cosed and termnated;
to gve another chance to prove facts whch he faed to prove
before
- Favors of remand cannot be extended to the tgant because
of potca neutraty
- Remand w change the nature of a Sec 78 proceedng by |udca
egsaton, hence, unconsttutona
- Prncpa ssue: whether respondent deberatey made a
matera msrepresentaton n hs CoC when he wrote that he
s a natura-born Fpno ctzen
- Remandng the case to COMELEC w change the character
of a S78 proceedng (WON FO| s a natura-born Fpno ctzen
w be the man ssue and not |ust an ssue ncdenta to the
ssue of matera msrepresentaton)
- SC cannot engage n |udca egsaton as t s somethng
ony egsature can change by another aw
- Remand w voate respondent Poes rght to due process, hence,
unconsttutona
- If case were remanded to the COMELEC, the body s no
onger an mparta trbuna s there are three of the seven
members of the commsson that have gven frm vew that
Poe s not a natura-born Fpno ctzen
- Remand w deay the resouton of the ssue of whether
respondent Poe s quafed. Deay w aso pre|udce hs canddacy
and w favor hs potca opponents.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.96
- "The rght to run for pubc offce ncudes the rght to equa
chance to compete. The rght to run s empty f the chance to
wn s dmnshed of dened a canddate.
- To avod deay, the court shoud tsef decde the ssue and
decare respondent Poe as a natura-born ctzen on the bass of the
evdence adduced before the COMELEC
- Whether respondent Poe s egtmate s rreevant n
determnng hs status as natura-born ctzen --- that s the aw.
- The aw does not make any dstncton n appyng 3$s
sang$#n#s to egtmate chdren.
- Morano v Vvo - WON the stepson was to fe the natura
cerebra house.
- Chongban v de Leon - a egtmate son whose father
became Fpno because of eecton to a pubc offce before
the 1935 consttuton
- Serra v Repubc - an egtmate son of a Chnese father and
a Fpno mother
- Paa v Chan - Ountn cams that hs father s Fpno
because hs grandmother s a Fpna. The court rued that
snce there s no proof that hs grandmother s Fpno then
hs father s not Fpno thereby not makng hm Fpno as
we. The courts rung shoud have stopped here but the SC
foowed wth an o/#ter &#%t$m that even f Ountns father
were Fpno, he woud not be Fpno because he was
egtmate.
- The statements on the egtmate chd were
unnecessary and were |ust o/#ter &#%ta and not rat#o
&e%#&en&#, therefore do not consttute stare &e%#s#s.
- 2/#ter &#%ta do not estabsh doctrne even f repeated
endessy.
- Reasons why court shoud create new doctrne:
- There s no textua foundaton
- It voates the equa protecton cause
- Peope v Cayat - estabshed the doctrne on
consttutonay aowabe dstnctons. Such dstncton
must be germane to the purpose of the aw.
- Tan Chong v Secretary of Labor - "The duty of ths Court
s to forsake and abandon any doctrne or rue found to be
n voaton of the aw n force."
- E/# les non &#st#ng$#t ne nos &#st#ng$ere &e/em$s,
especay f the dstncton has no textua
- Mern Magaona - transmssve essence of ctzenshp
- To estabsh that respondent Poe s a natura-born ctzen, a that
s needed s proof of hs faton to hs father Aan Poe, a Fpno
ctzen --- that s the crtca fact.
- Fpno ctzenshp of Aan Poe, respondents father s we
estabshed.
- To dsquafy respondent Poe because he s egtmate w voate
our treaty obgaton.
0ispositive Whether respondent Fernando Poe, |r. s quafed to
run for Presdent nvoves a consttutona ssue but ts potca tone
s no ess domnant. The Court s spt down the mdde on the
ctzenshp of respondent Poe, an ssue of frst mpresson made
more dffcut by the nterpay of natona and nternatona aw.
Gven the ndecsveness of the votes of the members of ths Court,
the better pocy approach s to et the peope decde who w be
the next Presdent. For on potca questons, ths Court may err
but the soveregn peope w not. To be sure, the Consttuton dd
not grant to the uneected members of ths Court the rght to eect
n behaf of the peope.
I! VIE7 73EEO', the pettons n G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634
and 161824 are DISMISSED.
D&VIDE
'&C#(
- |anuary 9, 2004 - Forner fed petton to dsquafy FP| and to
cance hs certfcate of canddacy for the May 10 eectons because
of he s not a natura-born Fpno ctzen
- |anuary 23, 2004 - COMELEC dsmssed the case decarng that ts
|ursdcton s mted to a matters reatng to eecton, returns and
quafcatons of a eectve regona, provnca and cty offcas,
but not those of natona offcas ke the presdent.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.97
- but t has |ursdcton to pass upon the ssue of ctzenshp of
natona offcas under sec 78 of OECon pettons to deny due
course or cance certfcates of canddacy on the ground of
fase matera representaton.
- Fndngs:
- Forner evdence s not substanta
- FP| dd not commt any fasehood n matera
representaton when he stated that he s a natura-born
Fpno ctzen
- Tecson and Desdero, |r prayed speca cv acton of certorar
under R65 RoC to chaenge |ursdcton of COMELEC over the ssue
of FP|s ctzenshp. They cam that ony the Sc has |ursdcton
(ArtVII S4, const)
- |anuary 29, 2004 - Veez fed petton wth the ff ssues:
- Whether COMELEC has |ursdcton over the pettons to deny
due course or cance certfcated of canddacy of Presdenta
canddates
- Whether SC has |ursdcton over the pettons of Tecson,
Veez and Forner
- Whether FP| s a Fpno ctzen, and f so, f hes a natura-
born Fpno ctzen
$uris+i0tion
- Tecson and Veez pettons
- The provson n the consttuton ony refers to past-eecton
remedes, they shoud have resorted to pre-eecton remedes
n the OEC whch are mpemented by the COMELEC Rues of
Procedure
- Pre-eecton remedes are not wthn the |ursdcton of the
SC
- Under the OEC, COMELEC has orgna |ursdcton to
determne whether a canddate for an eectve offce negbe
for the offce for whch he fed hs certfcate of canddacy
because of any of the recognzed grounds for dsquafcaton.
- Forner petton
- SC has |ursdcton over the case under (Art IX-A S7 Const )
- SC can take cognzance of ssue of WON COMELEC
commtted grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or
excess of |ursdcton n the chaenged resouton by vrtue of
(ArtVIII S1 Const)
7O! 'P$ is a natural-6orn 'ilipino Citi,en
Facts:
1. FP| was born on 20 August 1939 n Mana, Phppnes.
2. FP| was born to Aan Poe and Besse Keey.
3. Besse Keey and Aan Poe were marred on 16 September
1940.
4. Aan Poe was a Fpno because hs father, Lorenzo Poe, abet a
Spansh sub|ect, was not shown to have decared hs aegance to
Span by vrtue of the Treaty of Pars and the Phppne B of 1902.
atio For the purposes of ctzenshp, an egtmate chd whose
father s Fpno and whose mother s an aen, proof of paternty or
faton s enough for the chd to foow the ctzenshp of the father
COMELEC dd not commt any grave abuse of dscreton n hodng
that FP| s a Fpno ctzen pursuant to Art IV S1 per 3 const. The
provson dd not make any dstncton between egtmate and
egtmate chdren of Fpno fathers.
+etitions are dismissed.
(&!DOV&L-G%#IEE4
"a1 0ourt e:er0ise <u+i0ial power to +isLuali/1 a 0an+i+ate
6e/ore t*e ele0tionK
- Court may not. It w wreck the consttutona rght of the peope
to choose ther canddates.
omual+e,-"ar0os v CO"ELEC
- Mr. |ustce Vcente V. Mendoza, a retred member of ths Court, n
hs Separate Opnon sad, "In my vew, the ssue n ths case s
whether the Commsson on Eectons has the power to dsquafy
canddates on the ground that they ack egbty for the offce to
whch they seek to be eected. I thnk that t has none and that the
quafcatons of canddates may be questoned ony n the event
they are eected, by fng a petton for 4$o .arranto or an eecton
protest n the approprate forum."
- Rung of COMELEC s the same as Mandoza opnon.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.9'
- Dsquafyng respondent Poe w be vewed as drected aganst
the "masses," a stuaton not aowed by the Consttuton. The SC
may become ke the Iranan Guardan Counc.Ths Court, as the
ast guardan of democracy, has the duty to protect the rght of our
naton to a genune, free and far eecton.
7*et*er t*e CO"ELEC 0ommitte+ grave a6use o/ +is0retion
in +ismissinG 'ornierAs petition /or +isLuali/i0ation against
respon+ent
- Sacedo v COMELEC - the ony nstance when a petton rasng
the quafcatons of a regstered canddate s before eecton (S78
OEC)
- To |ustfy the canceaton of CoC, fase representaton
mentoned must pertan to matera matter
- There must be deberate attempt to msead, msnform, or
hde fact whch woud render a canddate negbe
- Forner petton brought under R65 RoCP - where COMELEC acted
wth grave abuse of dscreton n |an 23 and Feb 6 resoutons
hodng that "consderng the evdence presented by the pettoner
s not substanta, we decare that the respondent dd not commt
any matera msrepresentaton when he stated n hs CoC that he
s a natura born Fpno ctzen"
Aegatons n the COMELEC petton:
1. Respondent Poe commtted fase matera representaton by
statng n hs Certfcate of Canddacy that he s a natura
born Fpno ctzen; and
2. He knowngy made such fase representaton.
- FP| s not a ctzen because both hs parents are aens.
- Drector Manapat of the Natona Archves fasfed the
marrage contract of FP|s parents and hs fathers brth
certfcate.
- E# #n%$m/#t )ro/at#on 4$# &e%#t, non 4$e negat. - he who
asserts, not he who denes, must prove; S1 R131 RroE;
Borongan v Madrdeo - burden of proof s on the party
assertng the affrmatve of an ssue
- Forner faed to prove aegatons; wrt of certorar can ony
be granted f t can be proven that COMELEC commtted a
grave abuse of dscreton;
-Grave abuse of dscreton - caprcous and whmsca
exercse of |udgment so patent and gross that t amounted
to an evason of postve duty or to a vrtua refusa to
perform the duty en|oned or to act at a n contempaton
of aw
- We cannot dscern from the records any ndcaton that the
COMELEC gravey abused ts dscreton n dsmssng Forners
petton. Indeed, hs avament of the extraordnary wrt of
certorar s grossy mspaced.
Whether the respondent commtted a matera and fase
representaton when he decared n hs CoC that he s a natura-
bron Fpno ctzen
- COMELEC hed that the FP| dd not commt any matera
msrepresentaton n hs CoC because hs father s a Fpno by
vrtue of 3$s sang$#n#s and under the 1935 consttuton.
- Vaes v COMELEC - Phppne aw on ctzenshp adheres to 3$s
sang$#n#s
- FP| s Fpno ctzen, havng been born to a Fpno father
- Pettoners cam that Aan Fernando Poe s a ctzen of Span
because hs
- Marrage Contract wth Pauta Gomez shows that hs parents
are ctzens of Span.
- The marrage certfcate was shown to have been fasfed.
- Forner dd not dspute that Aan Fernando Poe s the father
of FP|
- Aans father, Lorenzo Pou s a Spansh sub|ect and an
nhabtant of the Phppnes on Apr 11, 1899 when Span
ceded the Phppnes (Treaty of Pars, Ph B 1902 and |ones
Law)
- In re Bosque - expraton of the term of 18 months wthout makng
an express decaraton of ntenton to retan ther Spansh
natonaty resuted n the oss of the atter and thereby becomng
sub|ects of the new soveregn n the same manner as the natves of
these sands
- Paanca v Repubc -
- "A person, who was an nhabtant of the Phppne Isands
and a naturazed sub|ect of Span on the 11
th
day of Apr
1899, s a Fpno ctzen, by vrtue of the provsons of Sec. 4
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.99
of the Act of Congress on 1 |uy 1902 and of Sec. 2 of the Act
of Congress of 29 August 1916. Under the Consttuton, he s
aso a ctzen of the Phppnes because he was such at the
tme of the adopton of the Consttuton."
- Consttuton dd not specfy n referrng to those whose
fathers are Fpno ctzens as to whether ths ony appes to
egtmate chdren or not.
- E/# le, non &#st#ng$#t ne% nos &#st#ng$ere &e/em$s,
especay f the dstncton has no textua foundaton n the
Consttuton, serves no state nterest, and even mposes an
n|ustce on an nnocent chd. (Fr Bernas)
- To ntroduce a dstncton between egtmacy or egtmacy
n the status of the chd vs--vs the dervaton of hs
ctzenshp from the father defeats the transmssve essence
of ctzenshp n bood reatonshp. (Dean Mern Magaona)
In fne, I reterate that the COMELEC dd not gravey abuse ts
dscreton n renderng ts assaed Resoutons dated |anuary 23,
2004 and February 6, 2004.
73EE'OE, I concur wth |ustce |ose C. Vtug n hs )onen%#a
and wth Senor |ustce Reynato S. Puno n hs Separate Opnon
DISMISSING Forners petton
C&PIO-"O&LE(
Issues 9or esolution:
1) Whether ths Court has orgna and excusve |ursdcton to pass
upon the quafcatons of presdenta canddates;
2) Whether the COMELEC acted wth grave abuse of dscreton
when t ssues ts Resoutons of |an. 23, 2004 and Feb. 6, 2004,
dsmssng the Petton for Dsquafcaton;
3) Whether FP| s a natura-born Fpno and therefore quafed to
seek eecton as Presdent.
1) $uris+i0tion:
- Pettons n G.R. Nos. 161464 and 161634
- Pettoners Tecson et al. and Veez assert that ths Court
has excusve orgna |ursdcton to determne whether FP|
s quafed to be a canddate for Presdent: paragraph 7,
Secton 4 of Artce VII of the Consttuton:
- #*e (upreme Court5 sitting en banc5 s*all 6e t*e
sole <u+ge o/ all 0ontests relating to t*e ele0tion5
returns5 an+ Luali/i0ations o/ t*e Presi+ent or
Vi0e-Presi+ent, and may promugate ts rues for the
purpose.
- refers to ths Courts |ursdcton over eectora contests
reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of the
Presdent, and not to the quafcatons or
dsquafcatons of a presdenta canddate. FP| s st
|ust a canddate; petton: premature.
- Pettoners Tecson et al. and Veez cam that the ssue of
FP|s quafcaton for the Presdency may aso be brought
drecty to ths Court on the bass of Secton 1 of Artce VIII
of the Consttuton through a petton for %ert#orar# under
Rue 65 of the Rues of Court, specay consderng that the
nstant case s one of transcendenta mportance.
- a petton for %ert#orar# under Rue 65 of the Rues of
Court s not avaabe where there s another pan,
speedy and adequate remedy n the ordnary course of
aw-ke n ths case: (to ntervene n the Petton for
Dsquafcaton)
- n determnng whether procedura rues, such as
standng, shoud be reaxed on the ground of
"transcendenta mportance," the foowng shoud be
consdered: the ack of any other party wth a more
drect and specfc nterest n rasng the questons beng
rased. Consderng that the substantve ssues rased by
pettoners Tecson et al. and Veez n G.R. Nos. 161434
and 161634, respectvey, are vrtuay dentca to those
rased by pettoner Forner n G.R. No. 161824, ths
Court s not convnced that the "transcendenta
mportance" of the ssues rased heren |ustfes a drect
resort to ths Court under Rue 65 of the Rues of Court
or the exercse of ts expanded %ert#orar# |ursdcton
under Sec. 1, Artce VIII of the Consttuton.
- Petton n G.R. No. 161824
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.100
- ths Court defntey has |ursdcton over the petton for
Certorar questonng the Resoutons of |an. 23, 2004 and
Feb. 6, 2004, ssued by COMELEC: Secton 7 of Art. IX-A of
the Consttuton vests ths Court wth the power of revew
over decsons, orders, or rungs of the COMELEC.
- C2ME5ECGs 1$r#s&#%t#on 2*er the S$/3e%t Matter of the Pet#t#on
for :#s4$al#f#%at#on En&er Se%t#on 7' of the 2mn#/$s Ele%t#on
Co&e.
- not reay a consttutona queston.
I) 7*et*er #*e CO"ELEC &0te+ wit* Grave &6use o/
Dis0retion in Dismissing t*e Petition /or is Luali/i0ation /or
La09 o/ "erit.
- the COMELEC dd ndeed act wth grave abuse of dscreton n
ssung them:
- By resovng to dsmss the petton n the Petton for
Dsquafcaton wthout statng the factua bases therefore:
- Secton 14, Artce VIII of the Consttuton provdes that
"|n|o decson sha be rendered by any court wthout
expressng theren ceary and dstncty the facts and the
aw on whch t s based."
- By resovng to dsmss the Petton for Dsquafcaton wthout
rung categorcay on the ssue of FP|s ctzenshp.
- To |ustfy ts evason of the duty to rue squarey on the
ssue of ctzenshp, the COMELEC rees on ths Courts
rung n Sal%e&o 77 *. Comm#ss#on on Ele%t#ons, and hed
that hed that Forner shoud have presented "proof of
msrepresentaton wth a deberate attempt to msead" on
the part of FP|- confned the ssue n the Petton for
Dsquafcaton to whether FP| "must have known or have
been aware of the fasehood as |aegedy| appearng on hs
certfcate."
- Carpo-Moraes: t s mpossbe for the COMELEC to
determne whether FP| was aware of a fase matera
representaton n hs Certfcate of Canddacy wthout frst
determnng whether such matera representaton (n ths
case, hs cam of natura-born ctzenshp) was fase. The
fact aone that there s a pubc document (#.e., hs brth
certfcate) whch FP| mght have reed upon n averrng
natura-born ctzenshp does not automatcay excude the
possbty that (a) there s other evdence to show that such
averment s fase, and (b) that FP| was aware of such
evdence.
M) 7*et*er 'P$ is a natural-6orn 'ilipino
- Fve cruca factua questons
(1) Whether Lorenzo Pou has been estabshed to be a Fpno
ctzen at the tme of the brth of hs son, Aan F. Poe;
- the evdence presented does not show that Lorenzo Pou
acqured Phppne ctzenshp by vrtue of the Treaty of
Pars or the Organc Acts coverng the Phppne Isands. (no
evdence as to hs resdence, ony prma face evdence.)
(2) Whether Aan F. Poe, the putatve father of FP| was a
Fpno at the tme of the brth of the atter;
- Cam: Aan F. Poe acqured Fpno ctzenshp
ndependenty of hs fathers by vrtue of 3$s sol#, Aan F.
Poe havng been aegedy born n the Phppnes on
November 27, 1916.
- even assumng arg$en&o that Aan F. Poe was born n the
Phppnes on November 27, 1916, such fact, per se, woud
not suffce to prove that he was a ctzen of the Phppne
Isands absent a showng that he was |udcay decared to
be a Fpno ctzen: In "an Chong *. Se%retar+ of 5a/or, ths
Court rued that the prncpe 3$s sol# or acquston of
ctzenshp by pace of brth was never extended or apped
n the Phppne Isands:
(3) Whether FP| s a egtmate or egtmate chd;
- FP|s brth certfcate ndcates that hs parents were
marred, and that he s a egtmate chd. However, the
Marrage Contract of hs putatve parents, Fernando R. Pou
and Besse Keey, s dated September 16, 1940, thereby
ndcatng that he was born out of wedock. Snce, n the
Marrage Contract, the two contractng partes, Aan F. Poe
and Besse Keey, partcpated n ts executon, the entry
theren wth respect to the date of ther marrage shoud be
gven greater weght than the brth certfcate, whch was
executed by a physcan who had to rey on hearsay as
regards FP|s egtmacy.
- FP| was born out of wedock, and was thus an egtmate
chd at brth.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.101
(4) Whether Aan F. Poe has been egay determned to be the
father of FP| (Assumng arg$en&o that Aan F. Poe has been
shown to have acqured Phppne ctzenshp)
- As proof of hs faton, FP| rees upon (1) the stpuaton
by pettoner Forner, both before the COMELEC and ths
Court that Aan F. Poe s ndeed the father of FP|; (2) the
decaraton of Ruby Keey Mangahas; and (3) a certfed
copy of an affdavt of "Fernando R. Poe" for Phppne Army
Personne.
- none of the proofs supped are suffcent proofs of faton
under Artce 172 of the Famy Code.
(5) Whether FP| s a natura-born Fpno Ctzen.
- Carpo-Moraes adopts the rue that an illegitimate5 0*il+
o/ an alien-mot*er who cams to be an offsprng of a
Fpno father may be consdered a natura-born ctzen i/
*e was +ul1 a09nowle+ge+ 61 t*e latter at birt&, thus
eavng the egtmate chd wth noth#ng more to &o to
a%4$#re or )erfe%t h#s %#t#6ensh#) (nothng more to do to
acqure ctzenshp = natura born).
- no evdence has been submtted to show that Aan F. Poe
dd ndeed acknowedge FP| as hs own son at 6irt*
- Snce FP| then was born out of wedock and was not
acknowedged by hs father, the ony possbe Fpno
parent, at t*e time o/ *is 6irt*, the nescapabe
concuson s that he s not a natura-born Phppne ctzen.
Conclusion 73EE'OE, I vote to: (1) DISMISS the pettons n
G.R. Nos. 161434 and 161634 for beng premature, (2) DECLARE
COMELEC Resoutons dated |anuary 23, 2004 and February 6,
2004, rendered n COMELEC SPA No. 04-003 NULL AND VOID, and
(3) DIRECT the COMELEC to cance the Certfcate of Canddacy of
Ronad Aan Keey Poe, a.k.a. Fernando Poe |r., for contanng a
fase matera representaton.
I! E- C3I!G
KAPUNAN; October 1, 1999
'&C#(
- Petton for Admsson to the Ph Bar
- Apr 1964: Vcente D Chng born as the egtmate son of sps Tat
Chng, Chnese ctzen, and Presca Duay, Fpna, n La Unon.
Snce brth, Chng has resded n the Phs
- Durng ths tme, the governng charter s the 1935
Consttuton. Fathers ctzenshp s foowed, wth a rght to
eect ctzenshp upon reachng the age of ma|orty
- |uy 1998: Chng, after graduatng from St. Lous Unversty n
Baguo Cty, fed an appcaton to take the 98 Bar Examnatons.
- Sept 1998: Court aowed Chng to take the exams provded he
must submt proof of hs Ph ctzenshp
- Nov 1998: Chng submtted certfcaton that he s CPA, Voter Cert
from COMELEC, and Cert as a member of the Sanggunang Bayan
of Tubao, La Unon aso from COMELEC.
- Apr 1999: resuts of Bar Exams were reeased and Chng passed.
He was further requred to submt more proof of ctzenshp.
- |uy 1999: Chng fed Manfestaton w/ Affdavt of Eecton of Ph
Ctzenshp and hs Oath of Aegance.
- OSG commented that Chng beng the "egtmate chd of a
Chnese father and a Fpno mother and born under the 1935
Const was a Ch#nese ctzen and contnued to be so, uness upon
reachng the age of ma|orty he eected Ph ctzenshp. If Chng
formay eects Ph ctzenshp, t woud aready be beyond the
reasonabe tme aowed by present |ursprudence
- Two condtons of an effectve eecton of Ph ctzenshp (from
OSG):
1
st
- the mother of the person makng the eecton must be a
Ph ctzen
2
nd
- eecton must be made upon reachng the age of ma|orty
(w/c means a reasona6le time nterpreted by the Sec of
|ustce as 3 yrs, from the Veayo case; n Cuenco, noted that
ths pd not nfexbe, however, hed n the same case that 7 yrs
not reasonabe tme)
- Chng, to support hs cause, nvokes these speca crcumstances:
contnuous and unnterrupted say n the Phppnes, beng a CPA, a
regstered voter, and eected pubc offca
I((%E
1. WON Chng has eected Ph ctzenshp w/n a reasonabe tme
and f so, WON hs ctzenshp has retroacted to the tme he took
the bar.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.102
2. WON Chngs speca crcumstances entte hm to ctzenshp
3ELD
1. No, Chngs eecton was ceary beyond, by any reasonabe
yardstck, the aowabe pd w/n whch to exercse the prvege.
Beng born n Apr 1964, he was aready 35 yrs od when he
comped w/ the requrements of C.A. No 625 n |une 99. He was
aready more then 14 yrs over the age of ma|orty.
Athough the Court s sympathetc of hs pght, controng statues
and |ursprudence compe the Court n ts decson. Aso, Chng has
offered no reason why he deayed hs eecton of Ph ctzenshp,
the atter not beng a tedous and panstakng process.
Ph#l#))#ne %#t#6ensh#) %an ne*er /e treate& l#=e a %ommo&#t+ that
%an /e %la#me& .hen nee&e& an& s$))resse& .hen %on*en#ent. It
shoud be avaed of wth fervor, enthusasm and prompttude.
2. No, the abovementoned speca crcumstances cannot vest n
hm Phppne ctzenshp as the aw specfcay ays down the
requrements for acquston of Phppne ctzenshp by eecton.
0ecision Court denes Vcente D Chngs appcaton for admsson
to the Phppne Bar
.E!G4O! III V 3O%(E O' EPE(E!#&#IVE( ELEC#O&L
#I.%!&L
KAPUNANP May 7, 2001
'&C#(
- Consttutona requrement for members of the House of
Representatves: "no person sha be a Member of the House of
Representatves uness he s a natura born ctzen."
- Teodoro Cruz s a natura born ctzen of the Phppnes. He was
born n Tarac on Apr 27, 1960. On November 5, 1985 he ensted
n the US Marne Corps wthout the consent of the Repubc of the
Phppnes. He took an oath of aegance to the US and as a
consequence he ost hs Fpno Ctzenshp because under the
Commonweath Act no. 63 a Fpno may ose hs ctzenshp by
renderng servce to or acceptng commsson n the armed forces
of a foregn country. Any doubts as to hs ctzenshp at the tme
was setted by hs naturazaton as a US ctzen on |une 5, 1990.
- May 17, 1994 he reacqured hs ctzenshp through repatraton
under RA 2630.
- He was eected as the Representatve of the Second Dstrct of
Pangasnan n 1998 and hs opponent was Bengson.
- Bengson fed a case Ouo Warranto Ad Cauteam wth HRET
camng Cruz, not beng a natura-born ctzen by the contenton
that Arce IV, Sec 2 of the Const defnes natura-born ctzens as
"ctzens from brth .#tho$t ha*#ng to )erform an+ a%t to acqure or
perfect such ctzenshp, was not egbe to be member of the
House.
I((%E(
1. WON Cruz, a natura born Fpno who became an Amercan
ctzen, can st be consdered a natura-born Fpno upon hs
reacquston of Phppne ctzenshp va Repatraton, so that the
queston of WON he s egbe to be a member of the House mght
be addressed
2. - WON the HRET commtted serous erros and grave abuse of
dscreaton amountng to excess of |ursdcton n rung n favour of
Cruz as natura-born ctzen
3ELD
1. Yes.
atio Two ways of acqurng Fpno ctzenshp
o By brth - natura born ctzens
o Naturazaton - Naturazed ctzens (those who become
Fpno ctzens through naturazaton, generay under the
Commonweath Act no. 473. To be naturazed, an appcant
has to prove that he possesses a the quafcatons and
none of the dsquafcatons
- 1987 Consttuton ony provdes for 2 casses of ctzens:
o Natura born
o Naturazed
- Fpno ctzens who have ost ther ctzenshp may reacqure t by
naturazaton, repatraton or by drect act of Congress.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.10(
o Naturazaton - mode for acquston and reacquston of
Phppne ctzenshp.
o Repatraton - avaabe for those who have ost ther
ctzenshp due to deserton of the armed forces, servce
n the armed forces of the aed forces n WWII, servce
n the armed forces of the US at any other tme,
marrage of a Fpno woman to an aen, and potca
and economc necessty. Process: takng an oath of
aegance to the RP and regsterng t n the Loca Cv
Regstrar of the pace where the person concerned
resdes or ast resded.
- Repatraton woud resut n the recovery of the orgna
natonaty. He w be restored to hs former status as a natura-
born ctzen. Cruz recovered hs orgna status as a natura-born
ctzen because of hs repatraton.
Note@ 0s &#st#ng$#she& from the length+ )ro%ess of
nat$ral#6at#on, re)atr#at#on s#m)l+ %ons#sts of ta=#ng an oath of
alleg#an%e to the >P an& reg#ster#ng sa#& oath .#th the 5o%al
C#*#l >eg#str+
- 1987 Consttuton does not provde a separate category for
persons who after osng Phppne ctzenshp, subsequenty
reacqures t because they are ether natura born or naturazed
dependng on the reason for the oss of ther ctzenshp and the
mode prescrbed by the appcabe aw for reacquston.
- Cruz was not requred by aw to go through naturazaton
proceedngs n order to reacqure hs ctzenshp, he s perforce a
natura-born Fpno.
2. No.
atio HRET has been empowered by the Const to be the "soe
|udge" of a contests reatng to the ecton, returns and
4$al#f#%at#ons of the members of the House. Courts |ursdcton s
merey to check WON there has been grave abuse; absent such
showng, there s no occason for the Court to exercse ts
correctve power
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
(&!DOV&L-G%#IEE4
Addtona Facts:
- In the 1995 oca eectons, Cruz fed hs certfcate of canddacy
for Mayor decarng hmsef to be a nat$ral#6e& Fpno ctzen
- Thereafter, Cruz ran for Congres, ths tme decarng hmsef as
nat$ral-/orn
- Pettoner and respondent present opposng nterpretaton of the
phrase "from brth" n Art IV, Sec 2 of the Const
- Pettoner avers: means startng from a defnte pont and must
be contnuous, constant and wthout nterrupton
- Respondent contends: refers to the nnate, nherent and
nborn characterstc of beng a "natura-born"
- |. Sandova-Guterrez hods:
- Natura-born ctzens are so by vrtue of brth .#tho$t
)erform#ng an+ a%ts. To repatrate, Cruz had to perform certan
acts before he coud agan become a Fpno ctzen. Therefore,
he does not reaqure natura-born ctzenshp
- The hstory of the Const shows that the meanng and
appcaton of the requrement of beng natura-born have
become more narrow and quafed over the years, more
strngent; and the decson of HRET n the case at bar reverses
the hstorca trend and cear ntendment of the Const, a matter
whch can ony be accompshed through const amendment;
ceary, HRET has acted wth grave abuse of dscreton.
CO""O!7E&L#3 &C# !O. GHM
&n &0t to Provi+e /or t*e &0Luisition o/ t*e Citi,ens*ip 61
!aturali,ation5 an+ to repeal &0ts IFIH an+ MGG;
(e0 1- #itle- >evise+ !aturali,ation Law? (e0 I-
@uali/i0ations- 7*o ma1 6e0ome 0iti,ens o/ t*e P*ilippines
61 naturali,ationK
1. >21 years od at the day of the hearng of the petton
2. resded n the Phppnes for CONTINUOUS perod of >10yrs
3. of good mora character
+ beeves n prncpes underyng the Phppne Consttuton (1935
Const)
+ conducted hmsef n proper and rreproachabe manner durng
entre perod of resdence n the Phppnes n reaton wth
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.104
consttuted government and communty wth communty n whch
he s vng
4. (must own rea estate n the Phppnes > P5000) or
Phppne currency or ucratve trade/professon/awfu
occupaton
5. abe to speak and wrte Engsh/Spansh + any one of the
prncpa Phppne anguage
6. enroed hs MINOR chdren of schoo age n any of the
pubc schoos/prvate schoos durng the entre perod of
resdence n the Phppnes requred of hm pror to the
hearng of hs petton
.Schoo:
- recognzed by the Offce of Prvate Educaton of the Phppnes
- teaches Phppne hstory, government and cvcs and
prescrbes t as part of the schoo currcuum
(e0 M- (pe0ial Luali/i0ations- w*en t*e 1J 1ear Luali/i0ation
reLuire+ in (e0I(I) 0oul+ 6e re+u0e+ to a 0ontinuous 5
1earsK
1. had honoraby hed offce under the Government of the
Phppnes/ under that of any of the provnces, ctes,
muncpates, or potca subdvsons thereof |aens,
partcuary Amercan ctzens, were the ones who were
governng the country pror to the Commonweath|
2. estabshed new ndustry/ ntroduced a usefu nventon n
the Phppnes
3. marred to a Fpno woman
4. engaged as a teacher n the Phppnes for >2 yrs
schoo: pubc/recognzed prvate schoo + not estabshed for
excusve nstructon of chdren of persons of partcuar
natonaty/race
5. born n the Phppnes
(e0 G- 7*o are +isLuali/ie+K PersonsQ
a. opposed to organzed government/affated wth any
assocaton or group of persons who uphod and teach
doctrnes opposng organzed govt
b. defendng/teachng the necessty or proprety of
voence/persona assaut/assassnaton for the success and
predomnance of ther deas
c. Poygamsts/beevers of poygamy
d. Convcted of crmes (mora turptude)
e. Sufferng from menta aenaton/ncurabe contagous
dsease
f. Not mnged socay w/ Fpnos, have not evnced a sncere
desre to earn and embrace customs, tradtons, and deas
of Fpnos
g. Ctzens/sub|ects of natons w/whom US and the Phppnes
are at war - durng such war
h. Ctzens/sub|ects of foregn country |OTHER THAN US!|
whose aws dont grant Fpnos r#ght to /e%ome nat$ral#6e&
%#t#6ensCs$/3e%ts
(e0 5. De0laration o/ intention- /ile +e0laration t*at it is *is
6ona /i+e intention to 6e0ome a 0iti,en o/ t*e P*ilippines
- under oath
- 1 year pror to the fng of petton for admsson to Phppne
ctzenshp
of the Bureau of |ustce
-contents+ name
+ age
+ occupaton
+ persona descrpton
+ pace of brth
+ast foregn resdence and aegance
+date of arrva
+name of vesse/arcraft (f any) n whch he came to the
Phppnes
+pace of resdence n the Phppnes at the tme of makng the
decaraton *to be vad: estabsh awfu entry for permanent
resdence + ssued certfcate showng date, pace, and manner of
arrva
*aso state that he had enroed hs mnor chdren n schoo (see
sec2(6))
*2 pctures of hmsef
(e0 8. 7i+ow an+ minor 0*il+ren o/ aliens +1ing a/ter
+e0laration o/ intention not reLuire+ to /ile +e0laration o/
intention
(e0 H. Petition /or 0iti,ens*ip- reLuirements /ile+ wit*
0ompetent 0ourt
*a petton n trpcate
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.10
%ontents of petton:
+name and surname
+present and former paces of resdence
+occupaton
+pace and date of brth
+status; f marred and the father, ncude name, age, brthpace
and resdence of wfe and each chd
+approxmate date of hs/her arrva n the Phppnes
+name of the port of debarkaton + name of shp (f
remembered)
+decaraton of quafcatons and non-dsquafcaton
+decaraton that he has comped wth sec. 5
+decaraton of contnuous resdence n RP from date of fng
petton to admsson as RP Ctzen
*2 photographs of pettoner
*petton sgned by appcant + supported by affdavt of at east 2
credbe persons (see provson for requrements)
(e0 ;. Competent 0ourt- CFI of provnce n w/c the pettoner has
resded for at east 1 yr mmedatey precedng the fng of the
petton
(e0 F. !oti/i0ation an+ appearan0e. Tasks of cerk of court
.pubsh petton for 3 consecutve weeks n OG and n one of gen
crcuaton newspapers n the provnce where pettoner resdes
.post copes of pettons n conspcuous paces (contan name,
brthpace and resdence of pettoner, date and pace of arrva,
names of wtnesses, date of hearng the petton)
*hearng sha not be hed w/n 90 days from date of ast
pubcaton of notce
.forward copes of the petton, sentence, naturazaton
certfcate and pertnent data to Department of the Interor, Bureau
of |ustce, Provnca Inspector of the Phppne Constabuary of the
provnce, and |ustce of peace of the muncpaty where pettoner
resdes
(e0 1J. 3earing o/ t*e petition.
*no hearng w/n 30 days precedng any eecton
*pubc hearng
*Soctor-Genera/representatve/provnca fsca appear for
Commonweath at a proceedngs
*upon beef of court of quafcatons and non-dsquafcaton of
pettoner, court order proper naturazaton certfcate n proper
cv regstry (requred n (e0. 1J5 &0t !o. MH5M)
(e0 11. &ppeal- to t*e (C
(e0 1I- Issuan0e o/ t*e Certi/i0ate o/ !aturali,ation- 30 days
after and from date of notce to the partes (n case of appea, SC
confrmed dec), cerk of court ssue naturazaton certfcate
contents of certfcate of naturazaton"
*fe no. of petton
*number of naturazaton certfcate
*sgnature of the person naturazed affxed n the presence of the
cerk of court
*persona crcumstances of the person naturazed
*dates of fng of decaraton of ntenton and petton
*date of decson grantng petton
*name of the |udge who rendered dec
*photograph of pet wth dry sea of court w/c granted petton
*oath decared n open court |refer to the orgna|
(e0 1M. e0or+ .oo9s- cerk of court keep 2 books: (1) record of
petton and decaratons of ntentons n chronoogca order; (2)
record of naturazaton certfcate
(e0 1G. 'ees.
*P30.00 (for recordng of petton and for proceedngs + ssuance
of certfcate)
*P24.00 (for each appea and for connected servces rendered)
sec 15. Effect of naturazaton on wfe and chdren
*on wfe: sha be deemed a ctzen of Phppnes (f |ust marred or
aso naturazed)
*on mnor chdren:
.f born n the Phppnes: Fpno
.f foregn-born but dweng n the Phppnes durng
naturazaton of parent: Fpno
.f foregn-born, not dweng n the Phppnes durng
naturazaton of parent: Fpno durng mnorty, uness
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.106
resdes n the Phppnes permanenty and st a mnor,
then egay Fpno upon age of ma|orty
.f foregn-born after naturazaton of parent: Fpno
uness fas to regster and take oath 1 yr after age of
ma|orty
(e0 18. ig*t o/ wi+ow an+ 0*il+ren o/
petitionersRw*oR*aveR+ie+- contnue proceedngs, same ega
effect
(e0 1H. enun0iation o/ title or or+ers o/ no6ilit1- uness w/
express consent of the Natona Assemby
(e0 1;. Can0ellation o/ naturali,ation 0erti/i0ates issue+
*upon moton made n proper proceedngs by Soctor-
Genera/representatve/proper provnca fsca
*canceed by competent |udge on the ff. grounds:
a. naturazaton certfcate obtaned frauduenty/egay
b. person naturazed estabshes permanent resdence outsde
Phppnes w/n 5 yrs after ssuance of naturazaton certfcate
c. petton made on nvad decaraton of ntenton
d. mnor chdren shown to have faed to graduate from schoo n
sec 2 (6) through faut of parents ether by negect to support or
by transferrng them to another schoo(s)
e. naturazed ctzen ony used as a dummy to voate
consttutona or ega provson requrng Phppne ctzenshp
(e0 1F Penalties /or violation o/ t*is &0t- fne < P5,000.00 or
mprsonment< 5 yrs or both, naturazaton canceed
(e0 IJ. Pres0ription- fe compant w/n 5 yrs from
detecton/dscovery of commsson of offense
(e0. I1. egulation an+ 6lan9s.
*Secretary of |ustce: ssue necessary reguatons
*Soctor-Genera, sub|ect to approva of Secretary of |ustce:
naturazaton certfcate banks, etc.
(e0 II. epealing 0lause- Repeas Act. No. 2927 as amended by
Act No. 3448 |Naturazaton Law|
EP%.LIC &C# !O. 5MJ
&n &0t "a9ing &++itional Provisions /or !aturali,ation
- Requres the pubcaton of pettons for ctzenshp (aso requred
by prevous aw, prob. Act 423, beow)
- Court w hear pettons for ctzenshp 6 months after the
pubcaton
- Decsons grantng the appcaton become executory ony after 2
years, and
- The Soctor Genera or hs representatve fnds that durng the
ntervenng tme, appcant has:
NOT eft the Phppnes
Dedcated hmsef contnuousy to awfu cang or
professon
NOT been convcted of any offense or voaton of
govt. rues
NOT commtted any act pre|udca to the nterest of
the naton or contrary to any govt. announced poces
- After the fndng, the order of the court grantng ctzenshp w be
regstered and the oath taken by the appcant before he w be
entted to the prveges of ctzenshp.
- Repeaed nconsstent parts of Act No. 423.
- Approved, |une 16, 1950.
CO""O!7E&L#3 &C# !O. 8M
&n &0t Provi+ing /or t*e 7a1s in w*i0* P*ilippine
Citi,ens*ip ma1 6e lost or rea0Luire+
(e0tion 1. 3ow 0iti,ens*ip ma1 6e lost.
(1) naturazaton n a foregn country;
(2) express renuncaton of ctzenshp;
(3) subscrbng to an oath of aegance to support consttuton or
aws of foregn country upon +21y.o.: a Fpno may not dvest
hmsef of Phppne ctzenshp whe the RP s at war;
(4) renderng servces to/acceptng commsson n, the armed
forces of foregn country: renderng of servce to/the acceptance
of such commsson n, the armed forces of foregn country, and
the takng of an oath of aegance ncdent thereto, wth the
consent of RP, sha not dvest a Fpno of hs Phppne
ctzenshp f e#ther of the ff. s present:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.107
(a) RP has defensve and/or offensve pact of aance wth the
sad foregn country; or
(b) sad foregn country mantans armed forces on Phppne
terrtory w/ consent of RP: Fpno ctzen concerned, at the tme
of renderng sad servce/or acceptance of sad commsson, &
takng the oath of aegance ncdent thereto, states that he
&oes so onl+ #n %onne%t#on .#th h#s ser*#%e to sa#& fore#gn
%o$ntr+: & provded that any Fpno ctzen who s renderng
servce to/or s commssoned n, the armed forces of foregn
country under (a) or (b), sha not be permtted to partcpate
nor vote n any eecton of RP durng perod of servce
to/commsson n, the armed forces of sad foregn country.
automatcay entted to fu en|oyment of cv and potca
rghts as a Fpno ctzen upon hs dscharge;
(5) canceaton of certfcates of naturazaton;
(6) havng been decared by competent authorty, a &eserter of the
AFP n tme of war, uness pardon or granted amnesty; &
(7) woman: marrage to a foregner f, by vrtue of the aws n force
n her husband's country, she acqures hs natonaty.
*** Sec 1 amended by RA 106, secton 1, approved |une 2, 1947
*when dua ctzenshp was aowed at that tme:
.acquston of ctzenshp by natura born Fpno ctzen from
Iberan/democratc Ibero-Amercan countres/ Unted Kngdom f
the aw of that country grants same prvege to ts ctzens -
agreed upon by treaty between the Phppnes and foregn
country from whch ctzenshp s acqured.
(e0tion. I. 3ow 0iti,ens*ip ma1 6e rea0Luire+.
(1) naturazaton: appcant possess none of the dsquafcaton's
prescrbed n sec 2, Act No. 2927 (repeaed by CA 473 - so sec 4)
(2) repatraton of deserters of the Army, Navy or Ar Corp:
Provded, woman by sec 1(7) may be repatrated n accordance
wth the provsons of ths Act after the termnaton of the marta
status;(see PD 725 for more detas)
(3) drect act of the Natona Assemby.
(e0tion M. Pro0e+ure in0i+ent to rea0Luisition o/ P*ilippine
0iti,ens*ip. Appy Act No. 2927 (now CA 473) to the reacquston
of Phppne ctzenshp by naturazaton provded for n the next
precedng sec: Provded, quafcatons and speca quafcatons
prescrbed n sec 3 & 4 of Act 2927 sha not be requred (sorry
guys, I cant fnd a copy of Act 2927 n the net so I dont know what
these sectons are n CA 473): further, appcant.
(1) at east 21 y.o. + resded n RP at east 6 mos. before he appes
for naturazaton;
(2) have conducted hmsef n proper and rreproachabe manner
durng
+the entre perod of hs resdence n RP
+n hs reatons wth the consttuted government
+wth the communty n whch he s vng; and
(3) subscrbes to an oath decarng hs ntenton to renounce
absoutey and perpetuay a fath and aegance to the foregn
authorty/state/soveregnty of whch he was a ctzen or sub|ect.
(e0tion G. epatriation- effected by merel+ ta=#ng the ne%essar+
oath of alleg#an%e to the Common.ealth of the Ph#l#))#nes (>P! an&
reg#strat#on #n the )ro)er %#*#l reg#str+. (used n the Bengzon Case)
(e0tion 5. Smar to Sec 21 of CA 473
2% V DE'E!(O-(&!#I&GO
PADILLA; |anuary 24, 1989
'&C#(
- Petton for Habeas Corpus
- 1971 - Yu was ssued a Portuguese passport n 1971 vad for 5
years & renewed for same perod upon presentment before
Portuguese consuar offcer
- Feb. 10, 1978 - He was naturazed as a Ph. ctzen
- Apr 1980 - sgned commerca documents n Hong Kong
(Companes Regstry of Ta Shun Estate, Ltd.) and he decared hs
natonaty as Portuguese
- |uy 21, 1981 - He apped & was ssued another Portuguese
passport n Tokyo. Passport w expre |uy 20, 1986.
Procedura Facts:
- |uy 4, 1988 - He fed for a petton for habeas corpus. He was
detaned because the Commsson on Immgraton & Deportaton
was processng hs deportaton. CID cams that hs acts are
tantamount to an express renuncaton of hs Phppne ctzenshp.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.10'
- |uy 20, 1988 - ora arguments
- Nov. 10, 1988 - SC resouton dened petton for habeas corpus &
resoved ssued on |ursdcton of CID over naturazed Fpno
ctzen & vadty of warrantess arrest & detenton. Yu fed MFR,
dened w/fnaty. Fed urgent moton for ssuance of restranng
order, dened.
- Dec. 5, 1988 - Yu fed moton for carfcaton w/prayer for
restranng order.
- Dec. 7, 1988 - SC ssued TRO. CID ordered to cease & desst from
deportng Yu pendng concuson of hearngs before Board of
Speca Inqury of CID.
- Dec. 13, 1988 - Respondent commssoner fed moton to ft TRO
sayng the commsson aready ssued a summary |udgment of
deportaton aganst Yu on Dec. 2, 88.
- Dec. 13, 1988 - Yu fed an urgent moton for reease from
arbtrary detenton. Opposed vgorousy to ftng of TRO.
- Yu ordered to expan why he shoud st be consdered a Ph
ctzen. He comped. Hs repy reveaed aforementoned
substantve facts.
I((%E
WON the acts of Yu consttute an express renuncaton of hs
Phppne ctzenshp.
3ELD
Yes. Moton for reease from detenton dened. TRO fted.
atio
- Renuncaton - made known dstncty & expcty and not eft to
nterference or mpcaton (BI Commssoners vs. Go Gaano). Hs
resumpton/reacquston of hs Portuguese ctzenshp and passport
and representaton as a Portuguese even after he has acqured
Fpno ctzenshp are proof enough of hs renuncaton.
- He does not dspute the facts. He was gven the opportunty to
show proof of contnued Phppne ctzenshp but he faed. There
s no dena of due process.
- Tra court shoud have |ursdcton over ths case. But due to
pettoners nsstence, SC had to do t.
- Phppne ctzenshp s not a commodty or were to be dspayed
when requred and suppressed when convenent.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D0on0urE
Yu has faed to overcome presumpton that he has forfeted hs
status as naturazed Fpno by obtanng Portuguese passport.
Passports are generay ssued ony to natonas. No proof of Yus
unequvoca & deberate renuncaton of Ph. Ctzenshp w/ fu
awareness of ts sgnfcance & consequences as provded for n CA
No. 63. Commerca documents sgned are not proof enough of
renuncaton.
'E!&! D+issentE
Summary procedure & peces of documentary evdence are not
enough to reach such decson. Evdence must be cear & express
w/o room for nterference or mpcaton. In a deportaton
proceedng where aen cams ctzenshp w/substanta evdence,
hes entted to have hs status determned by |udca & not an
executve trbuna. He deserves a fu-bown tra under more rgd
rues of evdence n a court proceedng. SC s not a trer of facts.
G%#IEE4 D+issentE
Summary procedure woud not suffce. Somethng as mportant as
denaturazaton shoud be fed & prosecuted n proper tra court n
accordance w/the due process cause. When a person peads
vgorousy that he has not renounced hs ctzenshp, he shoud at
east be gven a fu tra where hs actons may be expored & the
facts fuy ascertaned. Dangerous precedent to aow
admnstratve offcas to rue that one has renounced hs
ctzenshp based on nforma evdence. Mere use of a foregn
passport s not express renuncaton. He may have passport for
other purposes (empoyment, convenence). Some hgh govt
offcas have done acts w/c are more ndcatve of express
renuncaton than mere use of passport or dfferent ctzenshp has
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.109
been sgned. SC s not a trer of facts. Yus moraty s besde the
pont. He deserves hs fu day n court.
CO#E( D+issentE
CID fndngs are sub|ect to |udca revew. Loss of Yus Fpno
ctzenshp has not been estabshed. Evdence presented were not
authentcated by proper Phppne consu, thus not substanta and
are nadequate.
PEOPLE V &VE!GO4&
RELOVA; December 7, 1982
'&C#(
- Cr#m#nal CaseK 0))eal from :e%#s#on of C;7 of Camar#nes S$r
- Ansema Avengoza and husband Go Gam, a Chnese, together
wth the formers mother Gavna Avengoza and Rafaea Anfante are
beng charged wth voaton of the Ant-Dummy Law on
transactons for the spouses to own agrcutura ands n the
Phppnes.
- Ansema Avengoza, upon marrage to Go Gam, acqured Chnese
ctzenshp
- The Ant-Dummy Law provdes that ony Fpno ctzens may own
oca agrcutura and.
- Pendng tgaton, Go Gam and Gavna passed away.
- Upon Go Gams passng, Ansema executed an oath of aegance
to the RP and fed t wth the Offce of the Muncpa Treasurer for
the purpose of reacqurng her ctzenshp by repatraton, averrng
by reason whereof that her crmna abty s thereby
extngushed; and that the ssue of the crmna case s rendered
moot and academc
- Tra court dsmssed case prncpay predcated on ts opnon
that Ansema had vady reacqured Phppne ctzenshp
I((%E(
1. WON Ansema reacqured ctzenshp after executng an oath of
aegance to the RP and fng t wth the Muncpa Treasurer
2. f so, WON such reacquston of ctzenshp exempted her from
abty for the voaton of the Ant-Dummy Law
3ELD
1. No.
atio Mere takng of oath of aegance nsuffcent for
reacquston of Fpno ctzenshp. Woud-be repatrate shoud
show concusve proof that she has the quafcatons to be so
repatrated. Ansema became an aen by reason of her awfu
marrage to a Chnese ctzen; however ths does not necessary
mean that she was a Fpno ctzen pror to such marrage.
2. No.
atio Even had she been consdered repatrated, ke an aen who
became a naturazed Fpno ctzen, her repatraton w not
exempt her from crmna abty for voaton of the Ant-Dummy
Law.
$&O V EP%.LIC
VASOUEZ; March 29, 1983
'&C#(
- Modesta |ao cams to be a Phppne ctzen because she was
born of a Chnese father and an terate Fpna mother who were
not egay marred. - She marred a Chnese man and therefore ost
her Phppne ctzenshp but he s now dead.
- Her handcapped mother erroneousy regstered her as an aen
and she was ssued an Aen Certfcate of Regstraton (ACR).
- She s camng back her Ph. ctzenshp, by way of a petton for
repatraton fed n CFI of Davao.
- CFI ssued an order decarng pettoner as "|udcay repatrated,"
and ordered canceed her ACR.
- Provnca Fsca n behaf of the Repubc, appeaed the case.
I((%E
WON the |udca decree by the RTC was necessary for repatraton.
3ELD
atio Proceedngs to decare a person as "|udcay repatrated"
are a compete nuty. There s no aw requrng or authorzng that
repatraton shoud be effected by a |udca proceedng.
easonin; In 5#m *. >e)$/l#%, (7 SC>0 7'(, t was hed that
"there s no proceedng estabshed by aw or the rues by whch
any person camng to be a ctzen may get a decaraton n a court
of |ustce to that effect or n regard to hs ctzenshp." A that s
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.110
needed for a femae ctzen of the Ph. who ost her ctzenshp to
an aen to reacqure her Ph. ctzen, upon the termnaton of her
marta status, "s for her to take necessary oath of aegance to
the Repubc of the Ph. and to regster the sad oath n the proper
cv regstry."
0isposition Decson appeaed from s revoked and set asde. 5
|ustces concur.
!biter Pettoners cam of Ph. ctzenshp pror to her marrage
for beng aegedy an egtmate chd of a Chnese father and a
Fpna mother may not be estabshed n an acton where the
mother or her hers are not partes. 7t #s the %ons#stent r$le #n th#s
3$r#s&#%t#on that Ph#l. %#t#6ensh#) ma+ not /e &e%lare& #n a non-
a&*ersar+ s$#t .here the )ersons .hose r#ghts are affe%te& /+ s$%h
a &e%larat#on are not )art#es, s$%h as an a%t#on for &e%larator+
rel#ef, )et#t#on for 3$&#%#al re)atr#at#on, or an a%t#on to %an%el
reg#strat#on as an al#en.
VILL&VICE!CIO V L%).&!
MALCOLM; March 25, 1919
'&C#(
- Mana Mayor, |usto Lukban, wantng to extermnate vce, ordered
the cosng of the ctys red ght dstrct. The brothes were cosed
and the workers (170 women) were rounded up and kept confned
to ther houses n the dstrct by the poce for a tte more than a
week. On the nght of Oct.25, 1918, the women were forcby
husted aboard the steamers Correg#&or and Negros and sent off to
Davao to work as aborers wthout ther consent, wthout
opportunty to consut wth frends/famy or to defend ther rghts.
They reached Davao 4 days ater and were met by Francsco Saes,
governor of Davao and by hacendero Fecano Ygo and Rafae
Casto, etc.
- Durng ther voyage, the womens reatves and frends ntated
an appcaton for habeas corpus, aegng that |usto Lukban, aong
wth Anton Hohmann (the poce chef), and others deprved the
women of ther berty. The court awarded the wrt of habeas
corpus (w of hc) and ordered Lukban and co. to brng the women
before the court. Athough they returned wth none of the women,
they were gven another chance. The court ssued another order
ths tme cang for the respondents to produce a of the women
not n Mana. The respondents were ony abe to brng forward 8
women and chaenged the ssuance of the wrt.

I((%E(
1. Re: the proper grantng of the wrt:
a. WON the pettoners had standng
b. WON the S.C. erred n assumng |ursdcton
c. WON the women were actuay restraned of ther berty
2. WON there was compance wth the court orders
3. On contempt of court
3ELD
1a. Yes
atio When t s s mpossbe for a party to sgn an appcaton for
the w of hc, another person may submt t n hs/her behaf.
easonin; It was mpossbe for the women to have sgned a
petton for habeas corpus wth the way ther expuson was
conducted. They were frst soated from socety and then shpped.
It was consequenty proper for the wrt to be submtted by persons
n ther behaf.
16 No
atio The w of hc may be granted by the Supreme Court or any
|udge thereof enforcbe anywhere n the Phppnes. The SC can
decde upon where the wrt sha be made returnabe to (whether
before the SC or before a ower court).
easonin; The CFI of Davao was not n sesson. The case nvoves
partes from dfferent parts of the country. Habeas Corpus was
devsed as a s)ee&+ and effe%t$al remedy to reeve persons from
unawfu restrant.
10. Yes
atio The forcbe takng, soaton, and transfer of the women s
consttutve of deprvaton of freedom of ocomoton.
easonin; The essenta ob|ect and purpose of the wrt of habeas
corpus s to nqure nto a manner of nvountary restrant as
dstngushed from vountary and to reeve a person from such
restrant f t s ega. Any restrant whch w precude freedom of
acton s suffcent.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.111
2. 1
st
or+er- No. Respondents were not abe to brng the women
before the court on the day named. The court coud have sent the
respondents to |a however, the court forebore drastc acton
because t dd not want the pubc to see a cash between executve
offcas and the |udcary and because t wanted to gve the
respondents another chance to demonstrate ther good fath and to
mtgate ther wrong.
I
n+
or+er- Yes. Respondents (through better effort) were abe to
produce 8 women. The mandate caed for a of the women not n
Mana. However, the court decded that there was substanta
compance, notng the effort (pacards were posted, poce heped,
free shppng to Mana was provded) and the fact that they had a
sncere desre to see the unhappy ncdent fnay cosed.
M. atio Ony Lukban s guty of contempt. Hs ntentons were
commendabe, hs methods were unawfu. An offcers faure to
produce the body of a person n obedence to a wrt of habeas
corpus, when he has power to do so, s contempt commtted n the
face of the court.
easonin; He was prmary responsbe for settng forth ths
whoe chan of events and had under hs power as head of the cty
government to factate the return of the women to Mana but
faed. The rest of the respondents other than Lukban are not guty
of contempt. Some were merey foowng the orders of ther
superors or merey fufng a duty. Another was merey drawn nto
the case through mscommuncaton.
0isposition No further acton on the w of hc. Lukban found n
contempt of court and sha pay Php 100 wthn 5 days. Rest of
respondents found not to be n contempt of court.
)%OD& $&L&!DO!I
MORAN; March 26, 1949
'&C#(
Kuroda, a hgh rankng |apanese army offca s beng charged by
the Mtary Commsson wth faure to perform dutes as
commander n preventng crmes/atroctes aganst cvans, and
POWs. In defense, he s aegng that Executve Order No. 68 (EO68)
whch estabshed a Nat. War Crmes Offce s unconsttutona and
that 2 prosecutng attorneys, Hussey and Port (both Amercan)
have no authorty to practce aw n the country. As such, the
respondents shoud be prohbted from proceedng wth ths case.
I((%E(
1. WON EO68 s unconsttutona
2. Re: Attys. Hussey and Port
A. WON they are quafed to practce n accordance wth the Rues
of Court
B. WoN ther appontment as prosecutors s voatve of the
Consttuton
3ELD
1. atio The Presdent as Commander n Chef s fuy empowered
to consummate an unfnshed aspect of war whch s the tra and
punshment of war crmnas through the ssuance and enforcement
of EO68.
easonin; EO68 was ssued by the Presdent to estabsh a Nat.
War Crmes Offce and provde for rues and reguatons n tryng
accused war crmnas. It conforms to the generay accepted
prncpes/poces of nternatona aw, ncudng the Hague
Conventon and the Geneva Conventon, whch are part of the aw
of the naton. Its promugaton was an exercse of the Presdent of
hs powers as Commander n Chef of the whoe armed forces. In
Yamashta v. Tyer, the court hed that "the power to create a
mtary commsson for the tra and punshment of war crmnas s
an aspect of wagng war. A mtary commsson has |ursdcton so
ong as a technca state of war contnues."
2A. atio The Mtary Commsson s speca mtary trbuna
governed by a speca aw and not by the Rues of Court.
easonin; There s nothng n EO68 whch requres that counse
appearng before sad commssons must be attys. quafed to
practce aw n the Ph. n accordance wth the Rues of Court.
2B. No
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.112
atio The appontment of the 2 Amercan attorneys s not
voatve of our natona soveregnty.
easonin; It s ony far and proper that the US, whch has
submtted the vndcaton of crmes aganst her govt. and her
peope to a trbuna of our naton, shoud be aowed representaton
n the tra of those very crmes.
0isposition The Mtary Commsson havng been convened by
vrtue of a vad aw, wth |ursdcton over the crmes charged
whch fa under the provsons of Executve Order No. 68, and
havng |ursdcton over the person of the pettoner by havng sad
pettoner n ts custody, ths Court w not nterfere wth the due
processes of such Mtary Commsson. Petton dened. Wth costs
&e of#%#o.
IC3O!G V 3E!&!DE4 &!D (&"IE!#O
LABRADOR; May 31, 1957
'&C#(
- In|uncton and Mandamus
- The Legsature enacted RA 1180 entted "An Act to Reguate the
Reta Busness." It prohbts aens and assocatons, partnershps,
or corporatons, whch are not whoy owned by ctzens, to engage
drecty or ndrecty n the reta trade. In effect t natonazes the
reta busness.
- +rocedure Lao Ichong, n hs own behaf and n behaf of other
aen resdents, corporatons, and partnershps adversey affected
by RA 1180 fed a petton for In|uncton and Mandamus aganst
|ame Hernandez, Secretary of Fnance and Marceno Sarmento,
Cty Treasurer of Mana.
- +reliminar( consideration o9 le;al principles involved
A. Poce Power
- the most postve and actve of a governmenta processes, the
most essenta, nsstent and mtabe
- necessary esp. n a modern democratc framework
B. Equa Protecton Cause
- aganst undue favor and ndvdua or cass prvege, as we as
hoste dscrmnaton or the oppresson of nequaty; t requres
that a persons sha be treated ake, under ke crcumstances and
condtons
- s not nfrnged by egsaton whch appes ony to those persons
fang wthn a specfed cass, f t appes ake to a persons wthn
such cass, and reasonabe grounds exsts for makng dstncton
between those who fa wthn such cass and those who do not.
- Crtera for Test of EPC
1. presence of pubc nterest and wefare
2. exstence of reasonabe reaton between purposes and
means
3. exstence of reasonabe bass for dstncton and cassfcaton
made
C. Due Process cause
- has to do wth reasonabeness of egsaton enacted n pursuance
of the poce power
- Ouestons for test:
1. Is there s a pubc nterest/purpose?
2. Is the Act s reasonaby necessary for the accompshment of
the egsatures purpose; s t not unreasonabe, arbtrary or
oppressve?
3. Can the ams conceved be acheved by the means used or s
t merey an un|ustfed nterference wth prvate nterest?
I((%E(
1. WON RA 1180 denes to aen resdents the equa protecton of
the aws.
2. WON RA 1180 deprves aen resdents of ther berty and
property wthout due process of aw.
3. WON the tte of the Act s mseadng or deceptve, as t
conceas the rea purpose of the b, whch s to natonaze the
reta busness and prohbt aens from engagng theren.
4. WON RA 1108 voates nternatona and treaty obgatons of the
Repubc of the Phppnes.
3ELD
1. No. The act does not transcend the mt of equa protecton
estabshed by the Consttuton f there s a queston of pubc
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.11(
nterest nvoved or pursued and the cassfcaton or dstncton
used by the egsature, n ths case between natonas and aens,
s a0tual5 real an+ reasona6le, and a persons of one cass are
treated ake, and as t cannot be sad that cassfcaton s patenty
unreasonabe and unfounded.
easonin;
a. Based on e,)er#en%e of the country, aen retaer has shown
dsregard for hs customers and the peope on whom he makes hs
proft. Aens ack sprt of oyaty and enthusasm for the country.
Aen partcpaton n the reta trade has been attended by
ntoerabe practces ke the ff:
- hoardng essenta commodtes
- voatng prce contro aws
- boycottng honest merchants and traders who woud not cater
or yed to ther demands
- beeved to have evaded tax aws
- brbng pubc offcas
/. E%onom#% reason - aen retaer never reay makes a genune
contrbuton to natona ncome and weath snce the gans and
profts he makes are not nvested n ndustres that woud hep the
countrys economy and ncrease natona weath.
%. )re%e&ents
Smth Be & Co. vs. Natvdad, Gbbon vs. Ongden Commonweath
vs. Hana, Anton vs. Van Wnke, Tempar vs. Mchgan State Board
of Examners
- Essentay hed that the dfference n status between ctzens
and aens consttutes a bass for reasonabe cassfcaton n the
exercse of poce power.
Takahash vs. Fsh and game Commsson, Fraser vs. McConway &
Tarey
- hed that the dstncton between aens and ctzens s not
vad because the aws were found to be arbtrary, unreasonabe
or caprcous, or were the resut or product of raca antagonsm
and hostty, and there was no queston of pubc nterest
nvoved or pursued.
I. No. There s due process f the aws passed are seen to have
reasonabe reaton to a proper egsatve purpose, the means are
reasonaby necessary for the accompshment of the purpose, and
not unduy oppressve upon ndvduas.
easonin;
a. leg#t#ma%+ of the )$r)ose of the la.
- Its purpose s to prevent persons who are not ctzens of the
Phppnes from havng a strange hod upon our economc fe\
- Freedom and berty are not rea and postve f the peope are
sub|ect to the economc contro and domnaton of others,
especay f not of ther own race or country.
b Nat#onal#st#% )rote%t#*e )ol#%+ la#& &o.n #n the Const#t$t#on
- Secton 8 of Artce XIV provdes that "no franchse, certfcate, or
any other form of authorzaton for the operaton of a pubc utty
sha be granted except to ctzens of the Phppnes"
%. Pro*#s#ons of la. not $nreasona/le
- The egsature s prmary the |udge of the necessty of an
enactment or of any of ts provsons, and every presumpton s n
favor of ts vadty, and though the Court may hod vews
nconsstent wth the wsdom of the aw, t may not annu the
egsaton f not n excess of the egsatve power.
M. No. The provsons of the aw are ceary embraced n the tte.
The genera rue s for the use of genera terms n the tte of the
b and the tte need not be an ndex to the entre contents of the
aw.
easonin;
a. The term reguate s a broader term than ether prohbton or
natonazaton. Both of these have aways been ncuded wthn
the term reguaton.
G. No treaty has actuay been entered nto on the sub|ect and the
poce power may not be curtaed or surrendered by any treaty or
any other conventona agreement.
GO!4&LE( V 3EC3&!OV&
CONCEPCION; October 22, 1963
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.114
'&C#(
- Respondent Exec. Sec. authorzed mportaton of foregn rce and
created rce procurement commttee. Gonzaes, a rce panter and
Presdent of Ioo Paay and Corn Panters Assocaton, fed petton.
+rocedure Case s an orgna acton for prohbton wth
premnary n|uncton to restran mpementaton of decson of
Exec. Sec. to mport rce. Respondents were requred to fe answer
and hearng was set.
- on WON respondents are actng wthout |ursdcton or n excess of
|ursdcton
Pet#t#onerGs stan&@
- Yes, bec. RA 3452 expcty prohbts mportaton of rce and corn
by Rce and Corn Admnstraton and any other govt agency.
>es)on&entsG stan&@
- Pettoner has no suffcent nterest to fe petton.
- Pettoner has not exhausted a admnstratve remedes
avaabe before comng to court.
- Pettoners acton s not suffcent and not governed by RA 3452
because mportaton was authorzed by Presdent as Commander n
Chef for mtary stock pe purposes. As such, Pres must prepare
for threats wthout watng for any speca authorty.
- Aso, they say ts not under RA 3452 bec. the RAs prohbt
mportaton of rce and corn by "government agency" and not the
government tsef.
- Even f the proposed mportaton voated the RAs, t can st be
permtted because t s for the beneft of the peope.
- The Phs s aready under executve agreements wth contracts
for purchase of rce wth Vetnam and Burma. In case of confct
between the RAs and the contracts, the contracts shoud preva
because t came ater. These contracts have been consummated
bec. the Phs. has aready pad.
I((%E
WON respondents are actng wthout |ursdcton or n excess of
|ursdcton
3ELD
- RA 3452 says that the govt pocy s to purchase basc foods
drecty from farmers n Phs. Pettoner has suffcent nterest.
- Case at bar nvoves queston whch s a purey ega one. It fas
under the exempton from the doctrne of exhauston of
admnstratve remedes.
- The proposed mportaton s governed by RA 2207 and RA 3452
bec t covers "a mportatons of rce and corn nto the Phs."
- RA 2207 and 3452 aso appes to mportatons of the government
tsef bec. RA 2207 taks about mports authorzed by the Presdent,
by and on behaf of government. RA 3452 aso ndcates that ony
prvate partes may mport rce under ts provsons. These RAs are
ony n addton to Commonweath Act No. 138 whch says that n
a purchases by govt, nc. those for armed forces, preference s
gven to materas produced n the Phs.
- The "beneft of the peope" argument cant be accepted because
there s no oca rce shortage. And the mportaton s sad to be for
stockpe of Army, not for the cvan popuaton.
- The contracts w/ Vetnam and Burma are not executve
agreements. Even f they were, they are unawfu, beng aganst
the RAs. The aeged consummaton does not render ths case
academc. The contracts may have aready been entered nto and
the payment may have been made but the actua mportaton has
not yet taken pace.
0isposition- For ack of requste ma|orty, n|uncton prayed for s
DENIED.
- It s decared that Exec. Sec. has no power to authorze
mportaton n queston and he exceeded |ursdcton n grantng
authorty. The mportaton s not sanctoned by aw and s contrary
to ts provsons.
&((OCI&#IO! O' ("&LL L&!DO7!E( V (ECE#&2 O'
D&
CRUZ; |uy 14, 1989
'&C#(
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.11
- The Consttuton n 1935 mandated the pocy of soca |ustce to
"nsure the we-beng and economc securty of a the peope,"
especay the, ess prveged.
- In 1973, the new Consttuton affrmed ths goa addng
specfcay that "the State sha reguate the acquston,
ownershp, use, en|oyment and dsposton of prvate property and
equtaby dffuse property ownershp and profts. Sgnfcanty,
there was aso the specfc n|uncton to "formuate and mpement
an agraran reform program amed at emancpatng the tenant
from the bondage of the so."
- The 1987 Consttuton, besdes echong these sentments, aso
adopted one whoe and separate Artce XIII on Soca |ustce and
Human Rghts. One of ts sectons:
- SEC. 4. The State sha, by aw, undertake an agraran reform
program founded on the rght of farmers and reguar farmworkers,
who are andess, to own drecty or coectvey the ands they t
or, n the case of other farmworkers, to receve a |ust share of the
fruts thereof To ths end, the State sha encourage and undertake
the |ust dstrbuton of a agrcutura ands, sub|ect to such
prortes and reasonabe retenton mts as the Congress may
prescrbe, takng nto account ecoogca, deveopmenta, or equty
consderatons and sub|ect to the payment of |ust compensaton. In
determnng retenton mts, the State sha respect the rght of
sma andowners. The State sha further provde ncentves for
vountary andsharng.
- R.A, No. 3844, otherwse known as the Agrcutura Land Reform
Code, had aready been enacted by the Congress of the Phppnes
on August 8, 1963, n ne wth the above-stated prncpes. Ths
was substantay superseded amost a decade ater by P.D. !o.
IH, whch was promugated on October 21, 1972, aong wth
marta aw, to provde for the compusory acquston of prvate
ands for dstrbuton among tenant-farmers and to specfy
maxmum retenton mts for andowners.
- On |uy 17, 1987, Presdent Corazon C. Aquno ssued E.O. !o.
II;, decarng fu and ownershp n favor of the benefcares of
P.D. No. 27 and provdng for the vauaton of st unvaued ands
covered by the decree as we as the manner of ther payment.
Ths was foowed on |uy 22, 1987 by Presi+ential Pro0lamation
!o. 1M1, nsttutng a comprehensve agraran reform program
(CARP), and E.O. !o. IIF, provdng the mechancs for ts
mpementaton.
- Wth ts forma organzaton, the revved Congress of the
Phppnes (formay convened on |uy 27, 1987) took over
egsatve power from the Presdent and started ts own
deberatons, ncudng extensve pubc hearngs, on the
mprovement of the nterests of farmers. The resut, after amost a
year of sprted debate, was the enactment of .&. !o. 885H,
otherwse known as the Compre*ensive &grarian e/orm Law
o/ 1F;;, whch Presdent Aquno sgned on |une 10, 1988. Ths aw,
whe consderaby changng the earer mentoned enactments,
nevertheess gves them suppetory effect nsofar as they are not
nconsstent wth ts provsons.
I((%E(
1. WON pettons are |ustcabe.
2. WON P.D. No. 27, Presdenta Procamaton No. 131, E.O. Nos.
228 and 229 and R.A. 6657 contravene the Consttuton on the
grounds nter aa of separaton of powers, due process, equa
protecton and the consttutona mtaton that no prvate property
sha be taken for pubc use wthout |ust compensaton.
Sub ssues
a. The determnaton of |ust compensaton may be made ony by a
court of |ustce and not by the Presdent of the Phppnes.
b. The |ust compensaton contempated by the B of Rghts s
payabe ony n money or n cash but not n the form of bonds or
other thngs of vaue.
c. In consderng rentas as advance payment on the and, E.O. No.
228 deprves the pettoners of ther property rghts as protected by
due process.
d. The equa protecton cause s voated when the burden of
sovng the agraran probems s paced on the owners ony of
agrcutura ands.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.116
e. In decarng the benefcares under P.D. No. 27 to be the owners
of the ands occuped by them, E.O. No. 228 gnored |udca
prerogatves and so voated due process.
f. The power to provde for a Comprehensve Agraran Reform
Program as decreed by the Consttuton beongs to Congress and
not the Presdent. Athough pettoners agree that the Presdent
coud exercse egsatve power unt the Congress was convened,
they contend that she coud do so ony to enact emergency
measures durng the perod.
g. The money needed to create the P50 bon speca fund under
Proc. No. 131 s #n f$t$ro, not #n esse, .e., t has yet to be rased
and cannot be approprated at that tme.
h. The sugar panters argued that they are a separate group wth
probems excusvey ther own and by beng umped n the same
egsaton wth other farmers, ther rght to equa protecton has
been voated.
. There was a faure to estabsh by cear and convncng evdence
the necessty for the exercse of the powers of emnent doman,
and the voaton of the fundamenta rght to own property.
|. The pettoners aso decry the penaty for non-regstraton of the
ands, whch s the expropraton of the sad and for an amount
equa to the government assessor's vauaton of the and for tax
purposes. On the other hand, f the andowner decares hs own
vauaton, he s un|usty requred to mmedatey pay the
correspondng taxes on the and, n voaton of the unformty
rue.
28
k. E.O. No. 229 voates the consttutona requrement that a b
sha have ony one sub|ect, to be expressed n ts tte.
3ELD
1. D- Yes. The Court w assume |ursdcton over a consttutona
queston ony f t s shown that the essenta requstes of a |udca
nqury nto such a queston are frst satsfed but even f they are
not covered by the defnton, t s st wthn the wde dscreton of
the Court to wave the requrement and so remove the mpedment
28
Ths was not dscussed drecty but may be construed as beng under No. 1 above. It w st be the courts
who w decde what |ust compensaton woud be.
to ts addressng and resovng the serous consttutona questons
rased.
Ia. The determnaton made by the DAR s ony premnary uness
accepted by a partes concerned. Otherwse, the courts of |ustce
w st have the rght to revew wth fnaty the sad determnaton
n the exercse of what s admttedy a |udca functon. (Sec. 16f)
I6. It cannot be dened that the tradtona medum for the
payment of |ust compensaton s money and no other. And so,
conformaby, has |ust compensaton been pad n the past soey n
that medum. However, we do not dea here wth the tradtona
exercse of the power of emnent doman.
29
Ths s not an ordnary
expropraton where ony a specfc property of reatvey mted
area s sought to be taken by the State from ts owner for a specfc
and perhaps oca purpose. What we dea wth here s a
revoutonary knd of expropraton.
I0. When E.O. No. 228, categorcay stated n ts Secton 1 that:
A quafed farmer-benefcares are now deemed fu owners as of
October 21, 1972 of the and they a%4$#re& by vrtue of P.D. No. 27.
It was obvousy referrng to ands aready vady acqured under
the sad decree, after proof of fu-fedged membershp n the
farmers' cooperatves and fu payment of |ust compensaton.
Hence, t was aso perfecty proper for the Order to aso provde n
ts Secton 2 that the "ease rentas pad to the andowner by the
farmer-benefcary after October 21, 1972 (pendng transfer of
ownershp after fu payment of |ust compensaton), sha be
consdered as advance payment for the and.
I+. Equa protecton smpy means that a persons or thngs
smary stuated must be treated ake both as to the rghts
conferred and the abtes mposed. The argument that not ony
andowners but aso owners of other propertes must be made to
share the burden of mpementng and reform must be re|ected.
There s a substanta dstncton between these two casses of
owners that s ceary vsbe except to those who w not see.
30
29
The power of emnent doman s one of the three nherent powers of the State. It s the power "to forcby
acqure prvate ands ntended for pubc use upon payment of |ust compensaton to the owner." It s nherent
because t exsts wthout need for egsaton, .e., even f t s not sanctoned by any aw or even the
Consttuton, the State may exercse t. Why? Because these powers are necessary for a state to exst. The other
two are poce power and taxaton.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.117
Ie. The CARP Law condtons the transfer of possesson and
ownershp of the and to the government on recept by the
andowner of the correspondng payment or the depost by the DAR
of the compensaton n cash or LBP bonds wth an accessbe bank.
Unt then, tte remans wth the andowner. No outrght change of
ownershp s contempated ether.
I/. The power of Presdent Aquno to promugate Proc. No. 131 and
E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 was authorzed under Secton 6 of the
Transtory Provsons of the 1987 Consttuton. It s not correct to
say that these measures ceased to be vad when she ost her
egsatve power for, ke any statute, they contnue to be n force
uness modfed or repeaed by subsequent aw or decared nvad
by the courts. A statute does not pso facto become noperatve
smpy because of the dssouton of the egsature that enacted t.
Sgnfcanty, the Congress she s aeged to have undercut has not
re|ected but n fact substantay affrmed the chaenged measures
and has specfcay provded that they sha be suppetory to R.A.
No. 6657 whenever not nconsstent wth ts provsons.
Ig. Proc. No. 131 s not an appropraton measure even f t does
provde for the creaton of sad fund, for that s not ts prncpa
purpose. An appropraton aw s one the prmary and specfc
purpose of whch s to authorze the reease of pubc funds from
the treasury. The creaton of the fund s ony ncdenta to the man
ob|ectve of the procamaton, whch s agraran reform. Secton 24
and Secton 25(4) of Artce VI, are not appcabe. Wth partcuar
reference to Secton 24, ths obvousy coud not have been
comped wth for the smpe reason that the House of
Representatves, whch now has the excusve power to ntate
appropraton measures, had not yet been convened when the
procamaton was ssued. The egsatve power was then soey
vested n the Presdent of the Phppnes, who emboded, as t
were, both houses of Congress.
I*. No evdence has been submtted to the Court that the
requstes of a vad cassfcaton have been voated. Cassfcaton
has been defned as the groupng of persons or thngs smar to
30
Franky, I dont ke the way ths ponente argues. Hes ke sayng, now I dont want to expan why. If you cant
see the reasonng ts your faut. Anyway, were nfabe remember? Hs next sentence: "here #s no nee& to
ela/orate on th#s matter. Tsk.
each other n certan partcuars and dfferent from each other n
these same partcuars. To be vad, t must conform to the
foowng requrements: (1) t must be based on substanta
dstnctons; (2) t must be germane to the purposes of the aw; (3)
t must not be mted to exstng condtons ony; and (4) t must
appy equay to a the members of the cass. The Court fnds that
a these requstes have been met by the measures here
chaenged as arbtrary and dscrmnatory.
Ii. The power of expropraton s by no means absoute. The
mtaton s found n the consttutona n|uncton that "prvate
property sha not be taken for pubc use wthout |ust
compensaton" and n the abundant |ursprudence that has evoved
from the nterpretaton of ths prncpe. Bascay, the requrements
for a proper exercse of the power are: (1) pubc use and (2) |ust
compensaton.
31
Some of the pettoners nvoked ther rght of maxmum retenton
under Art. XIII, Sec. 4 of the Consttuton and under P.D. 316 whch
was promugated n mpementaton of P.D. 27.
I<. R.A. No. 6657 does provde for such mts now n Sec. 6 of the
aw, whch n fact s one of ts most controversa provsons. (Sec 6:
Ma, )er lan&o.ner #s he%. ( he% ma+ /e a.ar&e& to ea%h %h#l& at
least 1 +rs ol& an& a%t$all+ t#ll#ng or &#re%tl+ manag#ng the lan&!
I9. It s setted that the tte of a b does not have to be a
cataogue of ts contents and w suffce f the matters
emboded n the text are reevant to each other.
0ecision
WHEREFORE, the Court hods as foows:
1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and
229 are SUSTAINED aganst a the consttutona ob|ectons rased
n the heren pettons.
2. Tte to a exproprated propertes sha be transferred to the
State ony upon fu payment of compensaton to ther respectve
owners.
3. A rghts prevousy acqured by the tenant-farmers under P.D.
No. 27 are retaned and recognzed.
31
There was a shft n sub|ect after ths. He tacked the argument on why the State dd not dstrbute pubc
ands ony by pontng out the Consttutons "the |ust dstrbuton of all agrcutura ands" cause. Then he pays
the potca queston card on the ssue of why the dstrbuton woud be prvate ands f#rst.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.11'
4. Landowners who were unabe to exercse ther rghts of retenton
under P.D. No. 27 sha en|oy the retenton rghts granted by R.A.
No. 6657 under the condtons theren prescrbed.
5. Sub|ect to the above-mentoned rungs, a the pettons are
DISMISSED, wthout pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. (Unanmous court)
L%4 '&"( V (ECE#&2 O' D&
PARAS; December 4, 1990
'&C#(
- Petton for prohbton to revew the decson of the Secretary of
the Department of Agraran Reform
- 6/10/88: Pres. Aquno approved RA 6657 or the Comprehensve
Agraran Reform Law whch ncudes the rasng of vestock, swne
and poutry
1/2/89: Sec. of Agraran Reform (SAR) promugated Gudenes and
Procedures Impementng Producton and Proft Sharng for RA 6657
(S13 & S32)
- 1/9/89: SAR promugated Rues and Reguatons mpementng
S11 (commerca farms)
-Luz Farms, pettoner, s a corporaton engaged n
vestock/poutry, adversey affected by RA 6657
-petton prays that RA be decared unconsttutona; t s aso
prayed that a premnary n|uncton be ssued to en|on the
enforcement of the sad aw (n|uncton dened)
8/24/89: court granted moton for reconsderaton on n|unctve
reef
-Luz Farms questons the foowng provsons of RA 6657:
S3(b): ncudes rasng of vestock n defnton of "Agrcutura
Enterprse/Actvty"
S11: defnes "commerca farms" as "agrcutura ands devoted
to commerca vestock, poutry and swne rasng
S13: cas for producton-sharng pan (dstrbute 3% of gross
saes & 10% of gross profts to workers as addtona
compensaton)
S16(d) & 17: vests n DAR authorty to determne compensaton
to be pad for ands covered by RA 6657
S32: spes out producton-sharng pan n S13
-the consttutona provson under consderaton s A13, S4,
"Agraran and Natura Resources Reform"
whch grants farmers and farm-workers who are andess, the rght
to drecty or coectvey own the and they are tng
-vestock and poutry rasng s dfferent from crop farmng n that
and s not a prmary nput n the former
I((%E
WON S3(b), 11, 13 & 32 of RA 6657 are consttutona nsofar as
sad aw ncudes the ra#s#ng of l#*esto%=, )o$ltr+ an& s.#ne n ts
coverage as we as n ts Impementng Rues and Gudenes
3ELD
Instant petton GRANTED. S3(b), 11, 13 & 32 of RA 6657 are
consttutona nsofar as sad aw ncudes the ra#s#ng of l#*esto%=,
)o$ltr+ an& s.#ne n ts coverage as we as n ts Impementng
Rues and Gudenes are hereby decared nu and vod for beng
unconsttutona and the wrt of premnary n|uncton ssued s
hereby made permanent
atio the queston rased s one of consttutona constructon; n
construng any ambguous provsons, the courts may ook to the
debates of the concon
-the transcrpts of the 1986 concon ceary show that the meanng
of the word "agrcutura" (ts dctonary meanng asde) was never
meant to ncude vestock and poutry ndustres n ts coverage;
there s no reason to ncude vestock and poutry ands n agraran
reform
-S13 & 32 cang for producton-sharng s confscatory and s thus
voatve of due process
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
(&"IE!#O
-agrees that petton be granted but not that man ssue s one of
const constructon and nterpretaton
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.119
A13, S4: "..n case of other farm workers, to receve a |ust share of
the fruts thereof."-ths phrase provdes a possbe coverage of
vestock, poutry and swne
-every presumpton shoud be nduged n favor of the
consttutonaty of a statute
ISSUE: WON assaed provsons voate equa protecton cause of
the const
-ceary, vestock & poutry ands and crop & tree farms are not
smary stuated, hence the ncuson of the former n CARP woud
be voatve of the equa protecton cause
G&CI& V EBEC%#IVE (ECE#&2
CRUZ; December 2, 1991
'&C#(
+etitioner c&allen;es #7A=$ on t&e ;round t&at:
- It defeats the consttutona pocy of deveopng a sef-reant and
ndependent natona economy effectvey controed by Fpnos
and the protecton of Fpno enterprses aganst unfar foregn
competton and trade practces
- He cams that the aw abdcates a reguaton of foregn
enterprses n ths country and gves them unfar advantages over
oca nvestments whch are practcay ebowed out n ther own
and wth the compcty of ther own government
- Under Secton 5 of the sad aw a foregn nvestor may do
busness n the Phppnes or nvest n a domestc enterprse up to
100% of ts capta wthout need of pror approva
o A that t has to do s regster wth the Securtes and
Exchange Commsson or the Bureau of Trade Reguaton and
Consumer Protecton n the case of a snge propretorshp
o "The SEC or BTRCP, as the case may be, sha not mpose any
mtatons on the extent of foregn ownershp n an enterprse
addtona to those provded n the Act"
- Under Secton 7, "non-Phppne natonas may own up to one
hundred percent (100%) of domestc market enterprses uness
foregn ownershp theren s prohbted or mted by exstng aw or
the Foregn Investment Negatve Lst under Secton 8 hereof."
- However, the system of negatve st under Secton 8 abandons
the postve aspect of reguaton and exercse of authorty over
foregn nvestments. In effect, t assumes that so ong as foregn
nvestments are not n areas covered by the st, such nvestments
are not detrmenta to but are good for the natona economy.
o Lst A - merey enumerate areas of actvtes aready reserved
to Phppne natonas by mandate of the Consttuton and
specfc aws
o Lst B - contan areas of actvtes and enterprses aready
reguated accordng to aw and ncudes sma and medum-
szed domestc market enterprses or export enterprses whch
utze raw materas from depetng natura resources wth
pad-n equty capta of ess than the equvaent of
US$500,000.00; meanng, SMEs are for Fpnos. Or even,
Fpnos are not encouraged to go bg.
o Lst C - contan areas of nvestment m whch "exstng
enterprses aready serve adequatey the needs of the
economy and the consumers and do not need further foregn
nvestments."; However, exstng enterprses must be
quafed as Fpno, f not, t sha protect foregn enterprses
too
- Secton 9 s aso attacked, because f a Phppne natona
beeves that an area of nvestment shoud be ncuded n st C, the
6ur+en is on *im to s*ow t*at t*e 0riteria enumerate+ in
sai+ se0tion are met
- Artces 2, 32, & 35 of the Omnbus Investments Code of 1982 are
done away wth by RA 7042.
- By repeang Artces 49, 50, 54 and 56 of the 1987 Omnbus
Investments Code, RA No. 7042 further abandons the reguaton of
foregn nvestments by dong away wth mportant requrements for
dong busness n the Phppnes.
- The Transtory provsons of RA 7042, whch aow practcay
unmted entry of foregn nvestments for three years, sub|ect ony
to a supposed Transtory Foregn Investment Negatve Lst, not ony
competey dereguates foregn nvestments but woud pace
Fpno enterprses at a fata dsadvantage n ther own country.
.ol<4en ans:ers:
- phrase "wthout need of pror approva" appes to equty
restrctons aone
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.120
o pror to the effectvty of RA 7042, Artce 46 of
the Omnbus Investments Code of 1987 (EO No. 226),
provded that a non-Phppne natona coud, wthout need of
pror authorty from the Board of Investments (BOI), nvest n:
(1) any enterprse regstered under Book I (Investments wth
Incentves); and (2) enterprses not regstered under Book I, to
the extent that the tota nvestment of the non-Phppne
natona dd not exceed 40% of the outstandng capta
o On the other hand, under Artce 47 thereof, f an
nvestment by a non-Phppne natonas n an enterprse not
regstered under Book I was such that the tota partcpaton
by non-Phppne natonas n the outstandng capta thereof
exceeded 40%, pror authorty from the BOI was requred.
- Wth the ntroducton of the Negatve Lst under Sectons 8 & 15,
the areas of nvestments not open to foregn nvestors are aready
determned and outned; hence, regstraton wth the SEC or
BTRCP, as the case may be, s now the nta step to be taken by
foregn nvestors.
- Ths regstraton consttutes reguaton and exercse of authorty
over foregn nvestments. Under SEC and BTRCP rues and
reguatons, foregn nvestors must frst compy wth certan
requrements before they can be ssued a cense to do busness n
the Phppnes.
- Secton 7 of RA 7042 aows non-Phppne natonas to own up to
100% of domestc market enterprses ony n areas of nvestments
outsde the prohbtons and mtatons mposed by aw to protect
Fpno ownershp and nterest.
- The Foregn Investment Negatve Lst under Secton 8 reserves to
Fpnos senstve areas of nvestments. Lst C prohbts foregn
nvestors from engagng n areas of actvtes where exstng
enterprses aready serve adequatey the needs of the economy
and the consumer.
o The Act opens the door to foregn nvestments ony after
securng to Fpnos ther rghts and nterests over the
natona economy.
o Lst A - The provsons of the Consttuton and other specfc
aws reguate or mt the extent of foregn ownershp n
enterprses engaged n areas of actvty reserved for Fpnos
o Lst B - contans areas aready reguated pursuant to aw
aready makes t cear that t s reguatory. It channes efforts
at promotng foregn nvestments to bgger enterprses where
there s an acute ack of Fpno capta; scheme s for foregn
nvestments to suppement Fpno capta n bg enterprses.
o Lst C - to aow heathy competton, Actvtes whch do not
adequatey meet-the needs of the consumers shoud not be
ncuded n st C; f not, consumers woud be at the mercy of
unscrupuous producers
o Foregn Corporatons under a vad cense pror to the
enactment of RA 7042 necessary come wthn the protecton
of the aw.
- Secton 9 provdes for the crtera to be used by NEDA n
determnng the areas of nvestment for ncuson n Lst C
o Petton for ncuson theren requres "a pubc hearng at
whch affected partes w have the opportunty to show
whether the pettoner ndustry adequatey serves the
economy and the consumers."
o Provson s desgned to protect the consumers as not a
exstng enterprses satsfy the crtera ncuson n Lst C.
- Regardng the repeang of provsons of the Omnbus Investment
Code
o purposey removed because the determnaton of the areas of
nvestment open to foregn nvestors s made easy by the
Foregn Investment Negatve Lst formuated and
recommended by NEDA foowng the process and crtera
provded n Sectons 8 & 9 of the Act
- Re the Transtory Foregn Investment Negatve Lst
o t practcay ncudes the same areas of nvestment reserved
to Fpno under Secton 5", and the "SEC sha dsaow
regstraton of the appyng non-Phppne natona f the
exstng |ont venture enterprses, partcuary the Fpno
partners theren, can reasonaby prove they are capabe to
make the nvestment needed for the domestc market
actvtes to be undertaken by the competng appcant.
.enator +aterno as Intervenor:
- the over-a strategy emboded n the Act to deveop a sef-reant
economy, as we as the provsons desgned to promote fu
empoyment for Fpnos
- suggests that the consttutona chaenge shoud be re|ected
outrght for noncompance wth the requstes of a |udca nqury
nto a consttutona queston, to wt: (1) there must be an actua
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.121
case or controversy; (2) the consttutona queston must be rased
by a proper party; (3) the consttutona queston must be rased at
the earest opportunty; and (4) the resouton of the consttutona
queston must be necessary to the decson of the case.
I((%E(
1. WON there s actua controversy
2. WON pettoners have ega standng
3. WON consttutonaty s mota of the case
4. WON ths entas a potca queston
3ELD
1. There s at ths pont no actua case or controversy,
partcuary because of the absence of the mpementng rues
that are supposed to carry the Act nto effect
a. A controversy must be one that s approprate or
"rpe" for determnaton, not con|ectura or antcpatory
2. The pettoner, as a ctzen and taxpayer, and partcuary as
a member of the House of Representatves, comes under the
defnton that a proper party s one who has sustaned or s n
danger of sustanng an n|ury as a resut of the act companed
of.
3. The consttutona queston has not been rased tardy but
n fact, as |ust remarked, prematurey.
- The consttutona chaenge must be re|ected for faure to show
that there s an ndubtabe ground for t, not to say even a
necessty to resove t.
a. Pocy of the courts s to avod rung on consttutona
questons and to presume that the acts of the potca
departments are vad n the absence of a cear and
unmstakabe showng to the contrary. To doubt s to sustan.
b. based on the doctrne of separaton of powers whch
en|ons upon each department a becomng respect for the
acts of the other departments
c.theory s that as the |ont act of Congress and the Presdent of
the Phppnes, a aw has been carefuy studed and
determned to be n accordance wth the fundamenta aw
before t was fnay enacted.
- the cause of unconsttutonaty has not been proved by the
pettoner
d. Act does not voate any of the consttutona
provsons the pettoner has mentoned
4. What we see here s a debate on the wsdom or the effcacy
of the Act, but ths s a matter on whch we are not competent to
rue.
a. In Angara v Eectora Commsson: "the |udcary does
not pass upon questons of wsdom, |ustce or expedency of
egsaton."
b. aowed ony "to sette actua controverses nvovng
rghts whch are egay demandabe and enforceabe," 5 and
may not annu an act of the potca departments smpy
because we fee t s unwse or mpractca.
c.There s no rreguarty aso, that shows that there has been a
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of
|ursdcton on the part of any branch or nstrumentaty of the
Government.
0ecision Petton dsmssed.
C&L&L&!G vs. 7ILLI&"(
LAUREL; December 2, 1940
'&C#(
- The Secretary of Pubc Works and Communcatons (PWC)
approved wth modfcaton the recommendaton that orgnated
from the Natona Traffc Commsson (NTC), whch was favoraby
ndorsed by the Drector of Pubc Works (PW), that Rosaro Street
and Rza Avenue be cosed to traffc of anma-drawn vehces,
between the ponts and durng the hours from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., for
a perod of one year from the date of the openng of the Cogante
Brdge to traffc; that the Mayor of Mana and the Actng Chef of
Poce of Mana have enforced and caused to be enforced the rues
and reguatons thus adopted; that as a consequence of such
enforcement, a anma drawn vehces are not aowed to pass
and pck up passengers n the paces above-mentoned to the
detrment not ony of ther owners but of the rdng pubc as we.
- Commonweath Act No. 548 gves the Drector of Pubc Works,
wth the approva of the Secretary of the Pubc Works and
Communcatons the authorty to promugate rues and reguatons
to reguate and contro the use of and traffc on natona roads.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.122
+rocedure Maxmo Caang, n hs capacty as prvate ctzen and
as a taxpayer of Mana, fed a petton for a wrt of prohbton
aganst the Charman of NTC, Drector of PW, Actng Secretary of
PWC, Mayor of Mana and Actng Chef of Poce of Mana.
I((%E(
1. WON Commonweath Act No. 548 s unconsttutona because t
consttutes an undue deegaton of egsatve power.
2. WON the rues and reguatons promugated consttute an
unawfu nterference wth egtmate busness or trade and abrdge
the rght to persona berty and freedom of ocomoton.
3. WON the rues and reguatons companed of nfrnge the upon
the consttutona precept regardng the promoton of soca |ustce
to nsure the we-beng of a the peope.
3ELD
1. No.The Legsature cannot deegate power to make aw; but t
can make a aw to deegate a power to determne some fact or
state of thngs upon whch the aw makes, or ntends to make, ts
own acton depend.
easonin;
1. a&heren%e to )re%e&ent
Rub vs. Provnca Board of Mndoro, Wayman vs. Southard - t was
hed here that dscreton may be deegated to executve
departments or subordnate offcas the executon of certan acts,
fna on questons of fact.
2. te,t$al #nter)retat#on of Common.ealth 0%t No. 4'
The provson that "..the Drector of Pubc Works, wth the
approva of the Secretary of the Pubc Works and
Communcatons, sha promugate rues and reguatons to
reguate and contro the use of and traffc on natona roads.", s
an a+ministrative functon whch cannot be drecty dscharged
by the Natona Assemby.
(. )ra%t#%al#t+
The compextes of modern governments, the mutpcaton of the
sub|ects of govt reguatons, and the ncreased dffcuty n
admnsterng the aw gve rse to the adopton, wthn certan
mts, the deegaton of greater powers by the egsatve and
vestng a arger amount of dscreton n admnstratve and
executve offcas, not ony n the executon of the aws, but aso
n the promugaton of certan rues and reguatons.
2. No. The state may enact aws that may nterfere wth persona
berty, wth property, and wth busness and occupaton f the sad
aws are ntended to promote the wefare of the pubc. (poce
power of the State)
easonin;
1. )re%e&ents (US vs. Gomez, Dobbns vs. Los Angees &
Peope vs. Pomar)
2. Para&o, - The apparent curtament of berty s precsey
the very means of nsurng ts preservaton
3. No. Soca |ustce s promoted f the greatest good s brought
about to the greatest number.
.&(CO V P3ILIPPI!E &"%(E"E!# &!D G&"I!G
COPO&#IO!
PARAS; May 14, 1991
'&C#(
- PAGCOR was created by vrtue of PD 1067-A and was granted
franchse under PD 1067-B to estabsh, operate and mantan
gambng casnos. PAGCOR proved to be a potenta source of
revenue. Thus, PD 1399 was passed for PAGCOR to fuy attan ts
ob|ectves. PD 1869 was passed ater on to enabe
PAGCOR/government to reguate and centraze a games of
chance, gvng t terrtora |ursdcton a over the Phppnes.
PAGCOR became 3
rd
argest source of govt revenue, next to BIR
and Bureau of Customs. It sponsored soco-cutura and chartabe
pro|ects and at that tme empoyed 4,494 empoyees n ts 9
casnos.
+rocedure Ths s petton seekng to annu the PAGCOR charter -
PD 1869
I((%E(
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.12(
Pro0e+ural Issue
WON pettoners, as taxpayers and practcng awyers can queston
and seek the annument of PD 1869
(u6stantive IssueCs
WON PD 1869 shoud be annued based on the ff grounds:
1. t s aegedy contrary to moras, pubc pocy and order
2. t waved and ntruded nto the Mana Cty governments rght to
mpose taxes and cense fees
3. t voates equa protecton cause n that t egazes PAGCOR
but outaws other forms of gambng and vces
4. t voates trend of government away from monopostc and
crony economy
3ELD
Pro%e&$ral 7ss$e@
- Consderng transcendenta pubc nterest and the Courts duty
to check on mts of other branches of govt, SC brushed asde
techncates of procedure and took cognzance of the petton.
S$/stant#*e 7ss$es@
1. Gambng, uness aowed by aw, s prohbted. But prohbton
does not mean that govt cant reguate t n exercse of poce
power. Poce power s "state authorty to enact egsaton that
may nterfere wth persona berty or property n order to promote
genera wefare." PAGCOR has been benefca, not |ust to govt,
but to socety as we.
2. Mana, beng a mere muncpa corporaton, has no nherent
rght to mpose taxes, ts power to tax must aways yed to a
egsatve act. Muncpa corporatons are mere creatures of
Congress, therefore Charter of Mana s sub|ect to contro by
Congress. If Congress can grant a muncpa corporaton the power
to tax, t can aso provde exemptons or even take back the power.
Aso, Manas power to mpose cense fees on gambng has ong
been revoked. The power s now vested excusvey on natona
government.
Loca governments, too, have no power to tax nstrumentates of
natona government, such as PAGCOR. PAGCOR s exempt from
oca taxes.
The power of oca govt to mpose taxes and fees s aways sub|ect
to mts w/c Congress may provde. It cant be voatve, but
consstent wth prncpe of oca autonomy.
Loca autonomy doesnt make oca govt soveregn w/n state; t
smpy means decentrazaton. The oca govt has been descrbed
as a potca subdvson of state consttuted by aw and has
substanta contro of oca affars. It can ony be an ntra soveregn
subdvson of a soveregn naton, t cant be an mperum n
mpero.
3. Equa protecton doesnt precude cassfcaton of ndvduas
who may be accorded dff. treatment as ong as cassfcaton s not
unreasonabe/arbtrary. The fact that some gambng actvtes
(e.g. sweepstakes, ottery, races, cockfghtng, etc.) are egazed
whe others are prohbted does not render appcabe aws such as
PD 1869 unconsttutona.
Whether or not PD 1869 s a wse egsaton s up for Congress to
determne. But as of now, every aw has n ts favor the
presumpton of consttutonaty. For a aw to be nufed, there
must be a showng of cear and unequvoca breach of Consttuton.
4. If PD 1869 runs counter to govt poces, t s for Executve to
recommend to Congress ts repea or amendment. |udcary does
not sette pocy ssues.
0isposition Petton s DISMISSED.
OPO(& V '&C#O&!
DAVIDE; |uy 30, 1993
'&C#(
- The overarchng theme of the case deas wth the preventon the
msappropraton or mparment of Phppne ranforests and arrest
the unabated hemorrhage of the countrys vta fe support
systems and contnued rape of Mother Earth.
- In 1991 a case was fed by mnors (represented by ther parents)
and the Phppne Ecoogca Network (PENI) aganst the then
Secretary of the Department of Envronment and Natura Resources
(DENR), Fugenco Factoran, |r. who was substtuted by the new
secretary, Ange Acaa. The compant was nsttuted to be a
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.124
taxpayers cass sut as t aeges that a ctzens of the Phppnes
are entted to beneft, use and en|oyment of the countrys vrgn
tropca ranforests. The sut aso aeges that ths sut represents
peope who are sharng the same sentment towards the
preservaton of our natura resources (snce not a of them coud
go before the court). Furthermore, ths was aso asserted to be
representatve of the current generaton and generaton that are
yet to be born.
- The sut cas for two prmary actons that orders the Department
of Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR), ts agents,
representatves, and those actng on ts behaf to, 1. Cance a
exstng tmber cense agreements n the country and 2. to cease
and desst from recevng, acceptng, processng, and renewng or
approvng new tmber cense agreements.
- The sut starts off wth statement of facts regardng the country,
the countrys sands, ts natura resources, and scentfc evdences
pontng to the requrement for the country to mantan a baanced
and heathfu ecoogy (54% shoud be use for forest cover and 46%
for agrcutura, resdenta, ndustra, commerca, and other uses).
They asserted that deforestaton resuted n, a. water shortages b.
sanzaton c. massve eroson and oss of so fertty d. extncton
of some of the countres fora and fauna e. dsturbance and
dsocaton of ndgenous cutures f. staton of rvers and seabed g.
drought h. ncreasng veocty of typhoon wnds . foodng of
owands |. staton and shortenng of the fe span of dams k.
reducton of earths capacty to process carbon doxde.
- Intay the petton was dsmssed on the grounds of ack of cause
of acton, of beng potca queston, and of causng the mparment
of contracts. The pettoners fed for certorar hence ths case.
They contend that there s a cause of acton usng artces 19, 20,
and 21 of the Cv Code (the rght to a sound envronment), Secton
4 of Executve Order No. 192 that cas for the creaton of the
Department of Envronment and Natura Resources (DENR) to
safeguard the peopes rght to a heathfu envronment, Secton 3
of Presdenta Decree No. 1151 ( Phppne Envronmenta Pocy),
and Secton 16, Artce II of the 1987 Consttuton that recognzes
the rght of the peope to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy. As we
as the concept of generatona genocde n Crmna Law and the
concept of mans naenabe rght to sef-preservaton and sef-
perpetuaton n natura aw.
I((%E(
1. Locus Stand: WON the case s a cass sut?
2. WON mnors can assert that they represent other generatons
and those succeedng thers?
3. Merts: WON the respondent |udge commtted grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack of |ursdcton by decarng the
pettoners to have no ega rght?
4. Whether or not grantng the petton woud voate the non-
mparment cause found n the Consttuton?
3ELD
1. Yes t s a cass sut because the sub|ect matter of the compant
s of common and genera nterest to a ctzens of the Phppnes
and that t woud be mpractcabe to brng them a to court. The
pantffs n ths case are numerous and representatve enough to
ensure that a nterests s protected.
2. Yes they can, foowng the concept of ntergeneratona
responsbty. Every generaton has a responsbty to the next to
preserve the rhythm and harmony for the fu en|oyment of a
baanced and heathfu envronment.
3. Yes respondent |udge commtted grave abuse of dscreton
amountng to ack of |ursdcton because t faed to recognze the
ega rght of the pettoners whch s the rght to a baanced and
heathfu ecoogy that s ncorporated n the 1987 Consttuton
under Secton 16 Artce II.
- Moreover, ths rghts need not be wrtten n the Consttuton for
ths deas wth rghts that are assumed from the very ncepton oh
humanknd. The reason why t was wrtten was because the
framers feared that wthout a mandate as stated n the state
poces future generatons woud nhert nothng to sustan fe. It s
cear then that there s a ega rght for a baanced heathfu
ecoogy and the rght to heath. Gven that t coud aso be sad that
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.12
ths rght s further supported by Executve Order No. 192 and the
Admnstratve Code of 1987 makng the cause of acton exstent.
4. No t does not voate the non-mparment cause because
censes are not contracts, propertes or a property rght that s
protected by the due process cause of the Consttuton. As the
court hed n "an *. :#re%tor of ;orestr+, a cense s merey a
permt or prvege to do what otherwse woud be unawfu and s
not a contract. It s not rrevocabe. The Chef Executve may vady
amend, modfy, repace, or rescnd censes when natona nterests
so requre.
Gven that t s not a contract, the non-mparment cause cannot be
nvoked.
- Even f the censes are contracts, the acton stated n the case
st does not affect t gven that no aw or acton by the Chef
Executve to amend, modfy, repace, or rescnd censes so t s
coud not as of the moment be nvoked. And furthermore, f there
woud be a aw passed t woud not be consdered as a voaton of
the non-mparment cause as the very nature of the aw deas wth
the exercsng of the poce power of the state to advance the rght
of the peope to a baanced and heathfu ecoogy. The non-
mparment cause yeds to the poce power of the state.
0ecision Petton s granted. Pettoners may amend compant to
mpead as defendants the hoders or grantees of the questoned
tmber cense agreements.
DEC( V (&! DIEGO
CRUZ; December 21, 1989
'&C#(
- decded en banc, unanmous decson
- Respondent Roberto Rey C. San Dego s a BS Zooogy graduate
from UE. He has taken the NMAT four tmes and funked t as many
tmes. Hs appcaton to take a ffth examnaton was dened by
pettoner DECS on the bass of the "three-funk rue" under MECS
Order #12, Seres of 1972.
San Dego fed a petton for mandamus at the Vaenzuea RTC,
nvokng hs consttutona rghts to academc freedom and quaty
educaton. In an amended compant, he rased the addtona
grounds of due process and equa protecton and aso chaenged
the consttutonaty of the aforementoned order.
- Pendente te, wth the agreement of both partes, he was aowed
to take a ffth attempt at NMAT. Ths attempt he aso faed.
- RTC decson reeased 4 |uy 1989 granted the petton and
decared the chaenged order nvad. It hed that the pettoner
had been deprved of hs rght to pursue a medca educaton
through an arbtrary exercse of the poce power.
I((%E
WON a person who has thrce faed the Natona Medca Admsson
Test (NMAT) s entted to take t agan.
Or, WON the three-funk rue s a proper exercse of the poce
power of the State
3ELD
atio Measures, such as admsson exams and the three funk
rue, desgned to gauge the academc preparaton of an
appcant fa wthn the vad exercse of the poce power of
the State.
easonin;
1. use o/ pre0e+ent- In "a/lar#n *. 9$t#erre6, unanmous Court
uphed the consttutonaty of the NMAT as a measure ntended to
mt the admsson to medca schoos ony to those who have
ntay proved ther competence and preparaton for a medca
educaton.
- analog1- Tabarn case & case at bar - ssue s academc
preparaton of the appcant. Admsson test and the three-funk
rue are both vad measures n the reguaton of the medca
professon. The reguaton of the practce of medcne n a ts
branches s a reasonabe method of protectng the heath and
safety of the pubc. Ths power to reguate and contro the
practce of medcne aso ncudes the power to reguate
admsson to the ranks of those authorzed to practce medcne.
2. The poli0e power o/ t*e (tate is vali+l1 e:er0ise+ i/
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.126
- (a) the nterests of the pubc generay, as dstngushed from
those of a partcuar cass, requre the nterference of the State
<law/ul su6<e0t>; &
(b) the means empoyed are reasonaby necessary to the
attanment of the ob|ect sought to be accompshed, not unduy
oppressve upon ndvduas <law/ul met*o+>
- #*e 0ase at 6ar 0omplies wit* t*is reLuisites...
<sub|ect> It s the rght and ndeed the responsbty of the State
to nsure that the medca professon s not nftrated by
ncompetents to whom patents may unwary entrust ther ves
and heath.
<method> The three-funk rue s ntended to nsuate the
medca schoos and utmatey the medca professon from the
ntruson of those not quafed to be doctors.
3. #*e rig*t to Lualit1 e+u0ation is !O# a6solute. The
Consttuton aso provdes that "every ctzen has the rght to
choose a professon or course of study, sub|ect to far, reasonabe
and equtabe admsson and academc requrements."
- It s not enough to smpy nvoke the rght to quaty educaton
as a guarantee of the Consttuton: one must show that he s
entted to t because of hs preparaton and promse.
4. What the eLual prote0tion 0lause requres s equaty among
equas. A aw does not have to operate wth equa force on a
persons or thngs to be conformabe to Artce III, Secton 1 of the
Consttuton.
- A substanta dstncton exsts between medca students and
other students who are not sub|ected to the NMAT and the three-
funk rue. The medca professon drecty affects the very ves of
the peope, unke other careers whch, for ths reason, do not
requre more vgant reguaton. The accountant, for exampe,
whe beongng to an equay respectabe professon, does not
hod the same decate responsbty as that of the physcan and
so need not be smary treated.
- There woud be unequa protecton f some appcants who have
passed the tests are admtted and others who have aso quafed
are dened entrance.
Note Whe every person s entted to aspre to be a doctor, he
does not have a consttutona rght to be a doctor. The Court
suggests the noton of appropriate 0alling. It s tme ndeed that
the State took decsve steps to reguate and enrch our system of
educaton by drectng the student to the course for whch he s
best suted as determned by nta tests and evauatons.
0ecision Petton s granted. Decson of Vaenzuea RTC reversed.
Costs aganst prvate respondent San Dego.
C&I!O V I!(%L& GOVE!"E!#
MALCOLM; February 23, 1909
'&C#(
- An appea to revew the |udgment of the Supreme Court of the
Phppne Isands whch affrmed a |udgment of the Court of Frst
Instance of the Provnce of Benguet, dsmssng an appcaton for
the regstraton of certan and.
- Mateo Carno, an Igorot, fed an appcaton for the regstraton of
a certan and n the Provnce of Benguet. For more than 50 years
before the Treaty of Pars, n 1899, the appcant and hs ancestors
had hed the and as owners. Hs grandfather had ved upon t and
mantaned fences suffcent for the hodng of catte. Hs father had
cutvated parts and had used parts for pasturng catte. He had
receved the and from hs father n accordance wth Igorot customs
and had used t for pasture. They a had been recognzed as
owners of the and by the Igorots. No document of tte, however,
had ssued from the Spansh crown and athough I, n 1893-1894,
and agan n 1896-1897, he made appcaton for one under the
roya decrees then n force, nothng has come of t. In 1901, he fed
a petton, aegng ownershp, under the mortgage aw, and the
ands were regstered to hm, that process estabshng ony a
possessory tte.
- Appcant cams that he now owns the and, and s entted to
regstraton under the Phppne Commssons Act No,496 of 1902,
whch estabshed a court for that purpose wth |ursdcton
throughout the Phppne Archpeago, and authorzed n genera
terms appcatons to be made by persons camng to own the and.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.127
- The government cams that Span had tte to a the and n the
Phppnes except so far as t saw ft to permt prvate ttes to be
acqured; that there was no prescrpton aganst the crown and
that, f there was, a decree of |une 25, 1880, requred regstraton
wthn a mted tme to make the tte good; that the appcants
and was not regstered, and therefore became pubc and; that he
Unted States succeeded to the tte of Span, and that the he has
no rghts that the Phppne government s bound to respect.
I((%E
WON the appcant owns the and
3ELD
- Yes. By the Organc Act of |uy 1, 1902, a the property and rghts
acqured by the Unted States are to be admnstered for the
benefts of the nhabtants of the Phppnes. Thus, when, as far
back as testmony or memory goes, the and has been hed by
ndvduas under a cam of prvate ownershp, t sha be presumed
to have been hed n the same way before the Spansh conquest,
and never to have been pubc and.
- Under the aws of Span, there s no cear proof that he does not
own the and. Span dd not assume to convert a the natve
nhabtant of the Phppnes nto trespassers or even nto tenants at
w. The fact was that ttes were admtted to exst that owed
nothng to the powers of Span.
- Roya Cedua of October 15, 1754 - Where such possessor sha
not be abe to produce tte deeds, t sha be suffcent f they sha
show that ancent possesson, as vad tte by prescrpton. As
prescrpton, even aganst the Crown, was recognzed by the aws
of Span, the court sees no suffcent reason to admt that t was
recognzed n the Phppnes n regard to ands over whch Span
had ony a paper soveregnty.
- Decree of |une 25, 1880 - For prvate ownershp, there must have
been a grant by competent authorty. For a ega effects, those
who have been n possesson for certan tmes sha be deemed
owners. For cutvated and, 20 years; for uncutvated, 30 years.
When ths decree went nto effect, the appcants father was owner
of the and by the very terms of the decree. Ths beng the case
and the fact that hs possesson was not unawfu (no attempt at
any such proceedngs aganst hm or hs father was ever made),
the reguaton for the regstraton of roya and wrongfuy occuped
does not appy to hm. Moreover, the decree was not cacuated to
the mnd of an Igorot Chef the noton that ancent famy
possessons were n danger, f he had read every word of t.
0isposition |udgment reversed. Law and |ustce requre that the
appcant shoud be granted what he seeks, and shoud not be
deprved of what by practce and beef of those among whom he
ve, was hs property.
%.I V POVI!CI&L .O&D O' "I!DOO
MALCOLM; February 28, 1919
'&C#(
- Rub and varous other Manguanes n the Provnce of Mndoro
were ordered by the provnca governor of Mndoro to remove ther
resdence from ther natve habtat and to estabsh themseves on
a reservaton at Tgbao n the Provnce of Mndoro and to reman
there, or be punshed by mprsonment f they escaped. Ths
reservaton, as appears from the resouton of the provnca board,
extends over an area of 800 hectares of and, whch s
approxmatey 2,000 acres, on whch about three hundred
Manguanes are confned. One of the Manguanes, Dabaos,
escaped from the reservaton and was taken n hand by the
provnca sherff and paced n prson at Caapan, soey because he
escaped from the reservaton. The Manguanes sued out a wrt of
habeas corpus n ths court, aegng that they are deprved of ther
berty n voaton of aw.
- The return of the Soctor-Genera aeges that on February 1,
1917, the provnca board of Mndoro adopted resouton No. 25
sgned by the provnca governor, Hon. |uan Morente, |r.. The aws
prmary ob|ectve s the advancement of the wefare of the non-
Chrstan peope of Mndoro. In one of the Whereas causes, t was
stated that the provnca governor s of the opnon that the sto of
Tgbao on Lake Nau|an s a pace most convenent for the
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.12'
Mangyanes to ve on. Pursuant to the Governors powers under
secton 2077 of the Admnstratve Code, 800 hectares of pubc
and n the sto of Tgbao on Nau|an Lake was seected as a ste for
the permanent settement of Mangyanes n Mndoro sub|ect to the
approva of the Honorabe Secretary of the Interor. Under the
resouton of the Provnca Board, any Mangyan who sha refuse to
compy wth ths order sha upon convcton be mprsoned not
exceedng sxty days n accordance wth secton 2759 of the
revsed Admnstratve Code. The resouton of the provnca board
of Mndoro coped n paragraph 1 and the executve order of the
governor of the same provnce coped n paragraph 3, were
necessary measures for the protecton of the Mangyanes of
Mndoro as we as the protecton of pubc forests n whch they
roam, and to ntroduce cvzed customs among them.
I((%E(
1. WON the Mangyans were deprved of due process when ther
berty to choose ther homes were mted by the aw.
2. WON the Legsature exceeded ts authorty n enactng the aw
mandatng the forcbe transfer of the Mangyanes.
3ELD
1. NO. None of the rghts of the ctzen can be taken away except
by due process of aw. Dane Webster, n the course of the
argument n the Dartmouth Coege Case before the Unted States
Supreme Court, snce a cassc n forensc terature, sad that the
meanng of "due process of aw" s, that "every ctzen sha hod hs
fe, berty, property, and mmuntes under the protecton of the
genera rues whch govern socety." To consttute "due process of
aw," as has been often hed, a |udca proceedng s not aways
necessary. In some nstances, even a hearng and notce are not
requste, a rue whch s especay true where much must be eft to
the dscreton of the admnstratve offcers n appyng a aw to
partcuar cases. (See McGehee, Due Process of Law, p. 371.)
Nether s due process a statonary and bnd sentne of berty.
"Any ega proceedng enforced by pubc authorty, whether
sanctoned by age and custom, or newy devsed n the dscreton
of the egsatve power n furtherance of the pubc good whch
regards and preserves these prncpes of berty and |ustce must
be hed to be due process of aw." (Hurtado vs. Caforna |1883|,
110 U. S., 516.) "Due process of aw" means smpy * * * "frst, that
there sha be a aw prescrbed n harmony wth the genera powers
of the egsatve department of the Government; second, that ths
aw sha be reasonabe n ts operaton; thrd, that t sha be
enforced accordng to the reguar methods of procedure
prescrbed; and fourth, that t sha be appcabe ake to a the
ctzens of the state or to a of a cass." (U. S. vs. Lng Su Fan
|1908|, 10 Ph., 104, affrmed on appea to the Unted States
Supreme Court.1) "What s due process of aw depends on
crcumstances t vares wth the sub|ect-matter and necesstes of
the stuaton." (Moyer vs. Peabody |1909|, 212 U. S., 82.)
- There s no doubt n my mnd that ths peope has not a rght
concepton of berty and does not practse berty n a rghtfu way.
They understand berty as the rght to do anythng they w-gong
from one pace to another n the mountans, burnng and
destroyng forests and makng ega cagns thereon. Not knowng
what true berty s and not practcng the same rghtfuy, how can
they aege that they are beng deprved thereof wthout due
process of aw?
- But does the Consttutona guaranty that no person sha be
deprved of hs berty wthout due process of aw appy to a cass of
persons who do not have a correct dea of what berty s and do
not practce berty n a rghtfu way?
- To say that t does w mean to sancton and defend an erroneous
dea of such cass of persons as to what berty s. It w mean, n
the case at bar, that the Government shoud not adopt any
measures ookng to the wefare and advancement of the cass of
persons n queston. It w mean that ths peope shoud be et
aone n the mountans and n a permanent state of savagery
wthout even the remotest hope of comng to understand berty n
ts true and nobe sense. In deang wth the backward popuaton,
ke the Manguanes, the Government has been paced n the
aternatve of ether ettng them aone or gudng them n the path
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.129
of cvzaton. The atter measure was adopted as the one more n
accord wth humanty and wth natona conscence.
- The Mangyans w utmatey become a heavy burden to the State
and on account of ther gnorance they w commt crmes and
make depredatons, or f not they w be sub|ected to nvountary
servtude by those who may want to abuse them.. They understand
berty as the rght to do anythng they w-gong from one pace to
another n the mountans, burnng and destroyng forests and
makng ega cagns thereon. To aow them to successfuy
nvoke that Consttutona guaranty at ths tme w eave the
Government wthout recourse to pursue the works of cvzng them
and makng them usefu ctzens. They w thus be eft n a
permanent state of savagery and become a vunerabe pont of
attack by those who doubt, may chaenge the abty of the naton
to dea wth our backward brothers.
- Further, one cannot hod that the berty of the ctzen s unduy
nterfered wth when the degree of cvzaton of the Manguanes s
consdered. They are restraned for ther own good and the genera
good of the Phppnes. Nor can one say that due process of aw,
has not been foowed. To go back to our defnton of due process
of aw and equa protecton of the aws, there exsts a aw; the aw
seems to be reasonabe; t s enforced accordng to the reguar
methods of procedure prescrbed; and t appes ake to a of a
cass.
2. NO. Consdered, therefore, purey as an exercse of the poce
power, the courts cannot fary say that the Legsature has
exceeded ts rghtfu authorty. It s, ndeed, an unusua exercse of
that power. But a great maady requres an equay drastc remedy.
- As a pont whch has been eft for the end of ths decson and
whch n case of doubt, woud ead to the determnaton that
secton 2145 s vad, s the atttude whch the courts shoud
assume towards the setted pocy of the Government. In a ate
decson wth whch we are n fu accord, Gambe vs. Vanderbt
Unversty (200 Southwestern Reporter, 510) the Chef |ustce of
the Supreme Court of Tennessee wrtes:
We can see no ob|ecton to the appcaton of pubc pocy as a
rato decdend. Every reay new queston that comes before
the courts s, n the ast anayss, determned on that theory,
when not determned by dfferentaton of the prncpe of a
pror case or ne of cases, or by the ad of anaoges furnshed
by such pror cases. In baancng confctng soutons, that one
s perceved to tp the scaes whch the court beeves w best
promote the pubc wefare n ts probabe operaton as a
genera rue 2145 of the Admnstratve Code does not deprve a
person of hs berty wthout due process of aw and does not
deny to hm the equa protecton of the aws, and that
confnement n reservatons n accordance wth sad secton
does not consttute savery and nvountary servtude. We are
further of the opnon that secton 2145 of the Admnstratve
Code s a egtmate exerton of the poce power, somewhat
anaogous to the Indan pocy of the Unted States. Secton
2145 of the Admnstratve Code of 1917 s consttutona.
0ecision Pettoners are not unawfuy mprsoned or restraned of
ther berty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not ssue.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C&(O!
- The egsatve and admnstratve hstory of the Phppne Isands
ceary dscoses that the standard of cvzaton to whch a specfc
trbe must be found to have advanced, to |ustfy ts remova from
the cass embraced wthn the descrptve term "non-Chrstan," as
that term s used n the Phppne statute-book, s that degree of
cvzaton whch resuts n a mode of fe wthn the trbe, such that
t s feasbe and practcabe to extend to, and enforce upon ts
membershp the genera aws and reguatons, admnstratve,
egsatve, and |udca, whch contro the conduct of the admttedy
cvzed nhabtants of the Isands; a mode of fe, furthermore,
whch does not fnd expresson n trba customs or practces whch
tend to brutaze or debauch the members of the trbe ndugng n
such customs or practces, or to expose to oss or per the ves or
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(0
property of those who may be brought n contact wth the members
of the trbe.
- So the standard of cvzaton to whch any gven number or group
of nhabtants of a partcuar provnce n these Isands, or any
ndvdua member of such a group must be found to have
advanced, n order to remove such group or ndvdua from the
cass embraced wthn the statutory descrpton of "non-Chrstan,"
s that degree of cvzaton whch woud naturay and normay
resut n the wthdrawa by such persons of permanent aegance or
adherence to a "non-Chrstan" trbe had they at any tme adhered
to or mantaned aegance to such a trbe; and whch woud quafy
them whether they resde wthn or beyond the habtat of a "non-
Chrstan" trbe, not ony to mantan a mode of fe ndependent of
and apart from that mantaned by such trbe, but a mode of fe as
woud not be nmca to the ves or property or genera wefare of
the cvzed nhabtants of the Isands wth whom they are brought
n contact.
- The contenton that n ths partcuar case, and wthout
chaengng the vadty of the statute, the wrt shoud ssue
because of the faure to gve these pettoners as we as the rest of
the ffteen thousand Manguanes by the reconcentraton order an
opportunty to be heard before any attempt was made to enforce t,
begs the queston and s, of course, tantamount to a contenton
that there s no authorty n aw for the ssuance of such an order.
"OI
- I reaze that a +issenting opinion 0arries little weig*t, but
my sense of |ustce w not permt me to et ths decson go on
record wthout expressng my strong dssent from the opnon of
|ustce Macom, concurred n by a ma|orty of the court. I sha not
attempt to anayze the opnon or to go nto the questons n deta.
I sha smpy state, as brefy as may be the ega and human sde
of the case as t presents tsef to my mnd.
- #*e "anguianes are not a separate state. They have no
treaty wth the Government of the Phppne Isands by whch they
have agreed to ve wthn a certan dstrct where they are
accorded excusve rghts. They are ctzens of the Phppne
Isands. Legay they are Fpnos. They are entted to a the rghts
and prveges of any other ctzen of ths country. And when the
provnca governor of the Provnce of Mndoro attempted to take
them from ther natve habtat and to hod them on the tte
reservaton of about 800 hectares, he deprved them of ther rghts
and ther berty wthout due process of aw, and they were dened
the equa protecton of the aw. The ma|orty opnon says "they are
restraned for ther own good and the genera good of the
Phppnes." They are to be made to accept the cvzaton of the
more advanced Fpnos whether they want t or not. They are
backward and defcent n cuture and must be moved from ther
homes, however humbe they may be and "brought under the
bes" and made to stay on a reservaton. Are these pettoners
charged wth any crme? There s no menton n the return of the
Soctor-Genera of the Phppne Isands of any crme havng been
commtted by these "peacefu, tmd, prmtve, sem-nomadc
peope."
- It has been sad that ths s a government of aws and not of men;
that there s no arbtrary body of ndvduas; that the consttutona
prncpes upon whch our government and ts nsttutons rest do
not eave room for the pay and acton of purey persona and
arbtrary power, but that a n authorty are guded and mted by
these provsons whch the peope have, through the organc aw,
decared sha be the measure and scope of a contro exercsed
over them. In partcuar the fourteenth amendment, and especay
the equa protecton cause, thereof, forbds that the ndvdua sha
be sub|ected to any arbtrary exercse of the powers of
government; t was ntended to prohbt, and does prohbt, any
arbtrary deprvaton of fe or berty, or arbtrary spoaton of
property.
- As we have seen, a statute whch makes a purey arbtrary or
unreasonabe cassfcaton, or whch snges out any partcuar
ndvdua or cass as the sub|ect of hoste and dscrmnatng
egsaton, s ceary unconsttutona as beng opposed to the
fourteenth amendment and especay to the equa protecton
cause thereof. Ths s a pan case, and requres no further
dscusson." (Vo. 4, Encycopeda of U. S. Supreme Court Reports,
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(1
p. 366.) When we consder the nature and the theory of our
nsttutons of government, the prncpes upon whch they are
supposed to rest, and revew the hstory of ther deveopment, we
are constraned to concude that they do not mean to eave room
for the pay and acton of purey persona and arbtrary power.
Soveregnty tsef s, of course, not sub|ect to aw, for t s the
author and source of aw; but n our system, whe soveregn
powers are deegated to the agences of government, soveregnty
tsef reman wth the peope by whom and for whom a
government exsts and acts. And the aw s the defnton and
mtaton of power. It s, ndeed, qute true, that there must aways
be odged somewhere, and n some person or body, the authorty
of fna decson; and, n many cases of mere admnstraton the
responsbty s purey potca, no appea yng except to the
utmate trbuna of the pubc |udgment, exercsed ether n the
pressure of opnon or by means of the suffrage. But the
fundamenta rghts to fe, berty, and the pursut of happness,
consdered as ndvdua possessons, are secured by those maxms
of consttutona aw whch are the monuments showng the
vctorous progress of the race n securng to men the bessngs of
cvzaton under the regn of |ust and equa aws, so that, n the
famous anguage of Massachusetts B of Rghts, the Government
of Commonweath 'may be a government of aw and not of men.'
For the very dea that one man may be compeed to hod hs fe,
or the means of vng, or any matera rght essenta to the
en|oyment of fe, at the mere w of another, seems to be
ntoerabe n any country where freedom prevas, as beng the
essence of savery tsef." (Yek Wo vs. Hopkns, 118 U. S., 374.)
- It s sad that the present aw s an od Act beng n substance Act
No. 547 of the Phppne Commsson. But t has never been
brought before ths court for determnaton of ts consttutonaty.
No matter how benefcent the motves of the awmakers f the aw
tends to deprve any man of fe, berty, or property wthout due
process of aw, t s vod. In my opnon the acts companed of
whch were taken n conformty wth secton 2145 of the
Admnstratve Code not ony deprve these Manguanes of ther
berty, wthout due process of aw, but w n a probabty deprve
them of ther fe, wthout due process of aw. Hstory teaches that
to take a sem-nomadc trbe from ther natve fastnesses and to
transfer them to the narrow confnes of a reservaton s to nvte
dsease and sufferng and death.
- From my ong experence n the Isands, I shoud say that t woud
be a crme of tte ess magntude to take the Ifugaos from ther
mountan homes where they have recamed a wderness and
made t a and of beauty and frutfuness and to transfer them to
the more ferte, unoccuped, maara nfested vaeys whch they
ook down upon from ther feds-than t woud be to order ther
decaptaton en masse. There can be no dena that the Ifugaos are
"non-Chrstans," or "wd trbes" and are n exacty the same
category as the Manguanes. If the Manguanes may be so taken
from ther natve habtat and reconcentrated on a reservaton-n
effect an open ar |a-then so may the Ifugaos, so may the
Tnguanes, who have made more progress than the Ifugaos, and so
may the Moros.
- There are "non-Chrstan" n neary every provnce n the
Phppne Isands. A of the thrty-nne governors upon the pror
approva of the head of the department have the power under ths
aw to take the non-Chrstan nhabtants of ther dfferent provnces
from ther homes and put them on a reservaton for "ther own
good and the genera good of the Phppnes," and the courts w
grant them no reef. These unfortunate ctzens of the Phppne
Isands woud hod ther berty, and ther ves, may be sub|ect to
the unreguated dscreton of the provnca governor. And who
woud be safe? After the reservaton s once estabshed mght not
a provnca governor decde that some potca enemy was a non-
Chrstan, and that he woud be safer on the reservaton. No matter
what hs educaton and cuture, he coud have no tra, he coud
make no defense, the |udge of the court mght be n a dstant
provnce and not wthn reach, and the provnca governor's fat s
fna.
- There can be no dena that the Ifugaos are "non-Chrstans," or
"wd trbes" and are n exacty the same category as the
Manguanes. If the Manguanes may be so taken from ther natve
habtat and reconcentrated on a reservaton-n effect an open ar
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(2
|a-then so may the Ifugaos, so may the Tnguanes, who have
made more progress than the Ifugaos, and so may the Moros.
- I thnk ths Court shoud decare that sectons 2145 and 2759 of
the Admnstratve Code of 1917 are unconsttutona, nu and vod,
and that the pettoners are egay restraned of ther berty, and
that they have been dened the equa protecton of the aws, and
order the respondents mmedatey to berate a of the pettoners.
PI#-OG V PEOPLE
FERNAN; October 11, 1990
'&C#(
- Appea from the decson of the Court of Appeas
- There was a communa and n Laog, Mant, Mt. Provnce caed
the ta+an. It was owned by the toma+an group whose members
were descendants of the orgna owners thereof named |akot and
Pang-o. One of ther descendants, Pe-ey Cuaad, was requested
by the toma+an to act n ther behaf n seng the 400-sqm
resdenta porton of the ta+an, n order that the toma+an woud
have somethng to butcher and eat durng a ceebraton caed ato.
The sae was made n consderaton of P1,500 and was made n
favor of Edward Pasteng, whose house had been but thereon. It
was agreed that the unregstered property woud be regstered
under Sec. 194 of the Revsed Admnstratve Code as amended by
Act No. 3344. Besdes Cuaad, severa members of the tomayan
affxed ther sgnatures or thumb marks on the notarzed deed of
sae. Thereafter, Pasteng decared the property as hs own for
taxaton purposes and pad taxes thereon.
- In 1983, whe Pasteng was out huntng, Erkey Pt-og (aka Mary
Pt-og) and her companons destroyed the fence erected by
Pasteng and cut down and took away the sugarcane worth P1,000
and the banana fruts vaued at P100 found n the area. Pasteng
reported the matter to the poce. Three days ater, the poce fed
a compant for theft aganst Erkey Pt-og n the Muncpa Tra
Court of Bontoc.
- Pt-og peaded not guty of theft on the ground that the tayan
beonged to her, her father Lobchoken beng a descendant |akot.
She dd not decare the and for taxaton purposes because no one
n the toma+an was aowed to decare the and as hs own.
However, any member of the tomayan coud make mprovements
on the and and cam them as hs own. Anyone who abandoned the
and woud be succeeded ony by other members. No person
outsde the tomayan coud succeed to the cutvaton of the ta+an.
- Lobchoken, panted sugarcane n the tayan n Loag and when he
ded, hs wdow Pdchoy and ther chdren contnued cutvatng the
and. They aso but a granary thereon. The and was ater gven to
Pt-og by Pdchoy for cutvaton. Thereafter, the famy aowed
Pasteng to bud a house behnd the pace where Pt-og and her
famy used to have a house because Edward was Erkey's unce
beng the brother of her father. Erkey panted the bananas and
avocado trees n the area and harvested the sugarcane. No one
had ever prevented her from cuttng the sugarcane and the other
pants.
The muncpa tra court dscredted Pt-og's story emphaszng
that her cam of contnuous occupaton and possesson of the and
was baseess as she had "no papers to show" or prove such cam.
It found that an the eements of theft under Artce 308 of the RPC
were present and accordngy rendered the |udgment of convcton.
- On appea, the Court of Appeas affrmed the decson of the
ower courts wth the foowng fndngs and observatons:
- Pastengs cam of ownershp s documented by a Deed of
Conveyance, a pubc document whch was executed between hm
and the members of the tomayan group. The vadty of ths pubc
document has never been questoned by any one of the prevous
owners beongng to the tomayan group. Furthermore, the tax
decaratons n the name of and the reaty tax payments by,
Pasteng, athough not concusve proofs of ownershp, are,
nevertheess, )r#ma fa%#e evdence of hs possesson of the and n
queston. In contrast to these documentary evdence, pettoner
offers nothng better than her bare cam. The persona property
taken by accused-pettoner not beng hers but those of Pasteng,
and she ganed from the takng thereof wthout the consent of the
owner, accused-pettoner s guty of the crme of theft.

Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1((
I((%E(
1. WON Pt-og had crmna ntent n takng the sugarcane and the
bananas.
2. WON the present case s crmna or cv n nature.
3ELD
1. Erkey Pt-og coud not have had crmna ntent because she took
the sugarcane and bananas beevng them to be her own.
- Edward Pasteng reed heavy on hs documentary evdence to
prove ownershp over the sugarcane and bananas. A carefu study
of these documents, n con|uncton wth the testmona evdence
extant n the record, however, dscoses matters whch put a coud
of doubt upon Pt-ogs cupabty. The deed of sae descrbes the
property as contanng an area of 400 sqm, whe the tax
decaratons show that the property contans an area of 12 sqm.
The testmones presented by the prosecuton and the defense
show that the areas cutvated by Pasteng and Pt-og were
ad|acent and so cose to each other that the possbty of confuson
as to who panted whch pants s not remote. In fact, before the
fng of ths case, Pt-og had sued Pasteng's son, Donato, who
aegedy cut down bananas she had panted n the area. The fact
that Edward had but a fence around the area he camed as hs
does not necessary prove that he encosed ony the 400 square
meters he had purchased from the toma+an. After a, he had
decared as hs own for taxaton purposes 112 square meters more
than the area he bought.
- There s on record a survey pan of the 512 square-meter area
camed by Edward but there are no ndcatons theren of the exact
area nvoved n ths case. Proof on the matter, however, s
mportant for t means the Identfcaton of the rghtfu owner of the
stoen propertes. It shoud be emphaszed that to prove the crme
of theft, t s necessary and ndspensabe to ceary Identfy the
person who, as a resut of a crmna act, wthout hs knowedge and
consent, was wrongfuy deprved of a thng beongng to hm.
2. The ega ssues that must be roned out wth regard to cams of
ownershp over the tayan shoud be threshed out n an approprate
cv acton.
- Obter dcta reated to Artce II Secton22 re Indgenous
Communty
- We see ths case as exempfyng a cash between a cam of
ownershp founded on customs and tradton and another such
cam supported by wrtten evdence but nonetheess based on the
same customs and tradton. when a court s beset wth ths knd of
case, t can never be too carefu More so n ths case, where the
accused, an terate trbeswoman who cannot be expected to
resort to wrtten evdence of ownershp, stands to ose her berty
on account of an oversght n the court's apprecaton of the
evdence.
0isposition Erkey Pt-og s ACOUITTED for ack of proof beyond
reasonabe doubt that she commtted the crme of theft. No costs.
)ILO(.&2&!5 I!C V "O&#O
MENDOZA; November 16, 1995
'&C#(
- Pettoners seek reconsderaton of our decson n ths case
Pettoners contend that the decson n the frst case has aready
setted
(1) whether pettoner Kosbayan, Inc. has a standng to sue and
(2) whether under ts charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) the
Phppne Charty Sweepstakes Offce can enter nto any form of
assocaton or coaboraton wth any party n operatng an on-ne
ottery, and these questons can no onger be reopened.
- Pettoners argue that the two |ustces who changed ther votes
dd not act accordng to aw and that the two new appontees
regardess of the merts of the case must of necessty agn
themseves wth a the Ramos appontees who were dssenters n
the frst case and consttute the new ma|orty n the second otto
case.
- SC sad the decson n the frst case was a spt decson: 7-6. Wth
the retrement of one of the orgna ma|orty (Cruz, 1.) and one of
the dssenters (Bdn, 1.) t was not surprsng that the frst decson
n the frst case was ater reversed.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(4
- SC cted the case of ;el#%#ano *. 04$#nas (also a s)l#t &e%#s#on!
.h#%h .as o*ert$rne& #n Peo)le *. Lang.
I((%E(
1. WON the consttutona poces and prncpes (Art II Sec 5 ,Sec
12, Sec 13, Sec 17) nvoked by the pettoners may be resorted to
for strkng down aws or offca actons whch are nconsstent wth
them
2. WON the pettoners have standng to sue on consttutona
grounds, gven that the Consttuton guarantees to peopes
organzatons "effectve and reasonabe partcpaton at a eves of
soca, potca and economc decson makng (Art XIII Sec 16).
3. WON, as setted n the frst case, the PCSO under ts charter (R.A.
No. 1169, as amended) cannot enter nto any form of assocaton or
coaboraton wth any party n operatng an on-ne ottery.
3ELD
1. NO. As aready stated, however, these provsons are not sef-
executng. They do not confer rghts whch can be enforced n the
courts but ony provde g$#&el#nes for leg#slat#*e or e,e%$t#*e
a%t#on. By authorzng the hodng of ottery for charty, Congress
has n effect determned that consstenty wth these poces and
prncpes of the Consttuton, the PCSO may be gven ths
authorty. That s why we sad wth respect to the openng by the
PAGCOR of a casno n Cagayan de Oro, "the moraty of gambng
s not a |ustcabe ssue. Gambng s not ega )er se. . . . 7t #s left
to Congress to &eal .#th the a%t#*#t+ as #t sees f#t." (Magta|as v.
Pryce Propertes Corp., Inc., 234 SCRA 255, 268 |1994|).
2. NO. It s noteworthy that pettoners do not queston the vadty
of the aw aowng otteres. It s the contract entered nto by the
PCSO and the PGMC whch they are assang. Ths case, therefore,
does not rase ssues of consttutonaty but ony of contract aw,
whch pettoners, not beng prves to the agreement, cannot rase.
- Kosbayan's status as a peope's organzaton does not gve t the
requste personaty to queston the vadty of the contract n ths
case. The Consttuton provdes that "the State sha respect the
roe of ndependent peope's organzatons to enabe the peope to
pursue and protect, wthn the democratc framework, ther
egtmate and coectve nterests and aspratons through peacefu
and awfu means," that ther rght to "effectve and reasonabe
partcpaton at a eves of soca, potca, and economc decson-
makng sha not be abrdged." (Art. XIII, 15-16)
- These provsons have not changed the tradtona rue that ony
real )art#es #n #nterest or those .#th stan&#ng, as the case may be,
may nvoke the |udca power. The |ursdcton of ths Court, even n
cases nvovng consttutona questons, s mted by the "case and
controversy" requrement of Art. VIII, 5. Ths requrement es at
the very heart of the |udca functon. It s what dfferentates
decson-makng n the courts from decson-makng n the potca
departments of the government and bars the brngng of suts by
|ust any party.
- Pettoners' rght to sue as ta,)a+ers cannot be sustaned because
ths case does not nvove ega dsbursement of pubc funds. Nor
as %on%erne& %#t#6ens can they brng ths sut because no specfc
n|ury suffered by them s aeged. As for the pettoners, who are
members of Congress, ther rght to sue as leg#slators cannot be
nvoked because they do not compan of any nfrngement of ther
rghts as egsators.
3. Indeed n the frst case t was hed that the PCSO under ts
charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) cannot enter nto any form of
assocaton or coaboraton wth any party n operatng an on-ne
ottery HOWEVER THE OUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS CASE ARE LEGAL
OUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS INVOLVED ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN THE PRIOR CASE BETWEEN
THE PARTIES. AS ALREADY STATED, THE ELA IS SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE CONTRACT OF LEASE DECLARED VOID IN
THE FIRST CASE.
Aso, the Court noted n ts decson that the provsons of the frst
contract, whch were consdered to be features of a |ont venture
agreement, had been removed n the new contract.
V&L"O!#E V .EL"O!#E5 $
CORTES; February 13, 1989
'&C#(
- Pettoners are meda practtoners who wsh to confrm reports
that certan members of the Batasang Pambansa, ncudng some
members of the opposton, were granted "cean" oans from the
GSIS before the February 1986 eectons. Pettoner Vamonte fed
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(
a speca cv acton for mandamus wth premnary n|uncton,
prayng that respondent Bemonte, n hs capacty as GSIS Genera
Manager, be drected to:
1. Furnsh pettoners wth a st of the names of the members of
the defunct Batasang Pambansa who were abe to secure "cean"
oans from the GSIS mmedatey pror to the February 7, 1986
eectons through the ntercesson of then-Frst Lady Imeda Marcos.
2. Furnsh pettoners wth certfed true copes of the documents
evdencng sad oans.
3. Aow pettoners access to pubc records for the sub|ect
nformaton.
I((%E(
+rocedural: Have pettoners faed to exhaust admnstratve
remedes?
.ubstantive:
1. Does the nformaton sought by pettoners fa under "matters of
pubc concern"?
2. Does a confdenta reatonshp exst between GSIS and ts
borrowers?
3. Are oan transactons of the GSIS, beng merey ncdenta to ts
nsurance functon, prvate n nature?
3ELD
+rocedural: No. The prncpe of exhauston of admnstratve
remedes s sub|ect to setted exceptons, among whch s when
ony a queston of aw s nvoved. The ssue rased by pettoners,
whch requres the nterpretaton of the scope of the consttutona
rght to nformaton, can be passed upon by the court more
competenty than GSIS or ts Board of Trustees.
.ubstantive:
1. Yes. The pubc nature of GSIS funds and the pubc offce hed by
the aeged borrowers make the nformaton sought ceary a matter
of pubc nterest and concern.
2. No. The rght to prvacy beongs to the ndvdua n hs prvate
capacty and not to pubc and governmenta agences ke the
GSIS. The rght cannot be nvoked by |urdca enttes, as a
corporaton has no rght to prvacy n ts name. The entre bass of
the rght to prvacy s an n|ury to the feengs and sensbtes of
the party and a corporaton woud have no such ground for reef.
However, even the concerned borrowers themseves may not
succeed f they chose to nvoke ths rght. Pubc fgures, most
especay those hodng responsbe postons n government, en|oy
a more mted rght to prvacy as compared to ordnary ndvduas,
ther actons beng sub|ect to coser pubc scrutny.
3. No. The "consttuent-mnstrant" dchotomy characterzng
government functon has ong been repudated. The government,
whether carryng out ts soveregn attrbutes or runnng some
busness, dscharges the same functon of servce to the peope.
That the GSIS was exercsng a propretary functon n grantng the
oans woud not |ustfy the excuson of the transactons from the
coverage and scope of the rght to nformaton. Transactons
entered nto by the GSIS, a government-controed corporaton
created by speca egsaton, are wthn the ambt of the peopes
rght to be nformed pursuant to the consttutona pocy of
transparency n government deangs.
Pettons are entted to access to the documents sub|ect to
reasonabe reguatons. The petton s hed to be mertorous as
to the 2
nd
and 3
rd
aternatve acts sought by pettoners.
The same cannot be sad, however, of the 1
st
act sought.
Athough ctzens are entted to "access to offca records", the
Consttuton does not accord them a rght to compe custodans
of pubc records to prepare sts, abstracts, summares and the
ke n ther desre to acqure nformaton on matters of pubc
concern. It s essenta for a wrt of mandamus to e that the
appcant has a we-defned, cear and certan rght to the thng
demanded and that t s the mperatve duty of the defendant to
perform the act requred.
C3&VE4 V PE(IDE!#I&L CO""I((IO! O! GOOD
GOVE!"E!#
PANGANIBAN; December 9, 1998
'&C#(
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(6
- These are the man questons rased n ths orgna acton seekng
(1) to prohbt and "en|on respondents |PCGG and ts charman|
from prvatey enterng nto, perfectng and/or executng any
agreement wth the hers of the ate Presdent Ferdnand E. Marcos
x x x reatng to and concernng the propertes and assets of
Ferdnand Marcos ocated n the Phppnes and/or abroad -
ncudng the so-caed Marcos god hoard"; and (2) to "compe
respondents to ma=e )$/l#% a negotatons and agreement, be
they ongong or perfected, and a documents reated to or reatng
to such negotatons and agreement between the PCGG and the
Marcos hers."
- Pettoner Francsco I. Chavez, former soctor genera, brought
ths acton n response to news reports n September 1997 referrng
to (1) the aeged dscovery of bons of doars of Marcos assets
deposted n varous coded accounts n Swss banks, and (2) the
reported executon of a compromse between the government
(through PCGG) and the Marcos hers, on how to spt or share
these assets. Actng on a moton of pettoner, the Court ssued a
temporary restranng order dated March 23, 1998, en|onng
respondents, ther agents and/or representatves from "enterng
nto, or perfectng and/or executng any agreement wth the hers
of the ate Presdent Ferdnand E. Marcos reatng to and
concernng ther -gotten weath. On August 19, 1998, Gora,
Cenan, Scaret and Teresa, a surnamed |opson, fed before the
Court a moton for nterventon. They aver that they are "among
the 10,000 camants whose rght to cam from the Marcos famy
and/or the Marcos estate s recognzed by the decson n 7n re
Estate of ;er&#nan& Mar%os".
I((%E(
+rocedural:
1. WON the pettoner has the personaty or ega standng to fe
the nstant petton; and
2. WON ths Court s the proper court before whch ths acton may
be fed.
.ubstantive:
1. WON ths Court coud requre the PCGG to dscose to the pubc
the detas of any agreement, perfected or not, wth the
Marcoses; and
2. WON there exst any ega restrants aganst a compromse
agreement between the Marcoses and the PCGG reatve to the
Marcoses -gotten weath.
3ELD
+rocedural:
1. Yes. When the ssue concerns a pubc rght and the ob|ect of
mandamus s to obtan the enforcement of a pubc duty, the
peope are regarded as the rea partes n nterest; and because t
s suffcent that pettoner s a ctzen and as such s nterested
n the executon of the aws, he need not show that he has
any ega or speca nterest n the resut of the acton.
2. Yes. Secton 5, Artce VIII of the Consttuton expressy confers
upon the Supreme Court or#g#nal |ursdcton over pettons for
certorar, )roh#/#t#on, man&am$s, quo warranto and habeas
corpus. The argument of respondent that pettoner shoud have
propery sought reef before the Sandganbayan n whch
enforcement of the compromse agreements was pendng
resouton seems to have mert, f pettoner was merey seekng
to en|on the enforcement of the compromse and/or to compe the
PCGG to dscose to the pubc the terms contaned n sad
Agreements. However, pettoner s here seekng the pubc
dscosure of "a negotatons and agreement, be they ongong or
perfected, and documents reated or reatng to such negotatons
and agreement between the PCGG and the Marcos hers". In
other words, the petton s not merey confned to the
Agreements that have aready been drawn, but kewse to any
other ongong or future undertakng towards any settement on the
aeged Marcos oot. The core ssue bos down to the precse
nterpretaton, n terms of scope, of the twn consttutona
provsons on "pubc transactons".
.ubstantive:
1. Yes. There s no doubt that the recovery of the Marcoses aeged
-gotten weath s a matter of pubc concern and mbued wth
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(7
pubc nterest. "I-gotten weath", by ts very nature, assumes a
pubc character. The assets and propertes referred to supposedy
orgnated from the government tsef. To a ntents and purposes,
therefore, they beong to the peope. Consderng the ntent of the
framers of the Consttuton that "transactons" contempates
ncuson of negotatons eadng to the consummaton of a
transacton, t s ncumbent upon the PCGG and ts offcers, as we
as other government representatves, to dscose suffcent pubc
nformaton on any proposed settement they have decded to take
up wth the ostensbe owners and hoders of -gotten weath.
2. Yes. A cursory perusa of the Genera and Suppementa
Agreements between the PCGG and the Marcos hers reveas
serous ega faws.
) Whe a compromse n cv suts s expressy authorzed by aw,
there s no smar genera sancton as regards crmna abty. The
authorty must be specfcay conferred. In the present case, the
power to grant crmna mmunty was conferred on PCGG by
Secton 5 of EO No. 14 as amended by EO No. 14-A. However, the
Agreements do not conform to the requrements of EO Nos. 14 and
14-A. Crmna mmunty cannot be granted to the Marcoses, who
are the )r#n%#)al &efen&ants n the spate of -gotten weath cases
now pendng before the Sandganbayan. The provson s appcabe
many to .#tnesses who provde nformaton or testfy aganst a
respondent, defendant or accused n an -gotten weath case.
) Under Item No. 2 of the Genera Agreement, the PCGG commts
to exempt from a forms of taxes the property to be retaned by
the Marcos hers. Ths s a cear voaton of the Consttuton. The
power to tax and to grant tax exemptons s vested n Congress
and, to a certan extent, n the oca egsatve bodes. The PCGG
has absoutey no power to grant tax exemptons, even under the
cover of ts authorty to compromse -gotten weath cases. Even
grantng that Congress enacts the aw exemptng the Marcoses
from payng taxes on ther propertes, such aw w defntey
not pass the test of the equa protecton cause under the B of
Rghts. Any speca grant of exempton n favor ony of the Marcos
hers w consttute cass egsaton. It w aso voate the
consttutona rue that "taxaton sha be unform and equtabe".
) The government bnds tsef under the Genera Agreement to
cause the dsmssa of a cases aganst the Marcos hers, pendng
before the Sandganbayan and other courts. Ths s a drect
encroachment on |udca powers, partcuary n regard to
crmna |ursdcton. We setted s the doctrne that once a case
has been fed before a court of competent |ursdcton, the matter
of ts dsmssa or pursuance es wthn the fu dscreton and
contro of the |udge. |ursdcton, once acqured by the tra court, s
not ost despte a resouton, even by the |ustce secretary, to
wthdraw the nformaton or to dsmss the compant. Thus, the
PCGG cannot guarantee the dsmssa of a such crmna cases
aganst the Marcoses pendng n the courts, for sad dsmssa s not
wthn ts soe power and dscreton.
v) The government aso waves a cams and countercams,
"whether past, present, or future, matured or nchoate," aganst
the Marcoses. Ths a-encompassng stpuaton s contrary to aw.
Under the Cv Code, an acton for future fraud may not be waved.
Ths s a papabe voaton of the due process and equa protecton
guarantees of the Consttuton. It effectvey ensconces the
Marcoses beyond the reach of the aw.
v) The Agreements do not provde for a defnte or determnabe
perod wthn whch the partes sha fuf ther respectve
prestatons. It may take a fetme before the Marcoses submt an
nventory of ther tota assets.
v) The Agreements do not state wth specfcty the standards for
determnng whch assets sha be forfeted by the government and
whch sha be retaned by the Marcoses. Whe the Suppementa
Agreement provdes that the Marcoses sha be entted to 25 per
cent of the $356 mon Swss deposts (ess government recovery
expenses), such sharng arrangement pertans ony to the sad
depost. No smar spttng scheme s defned wth respect to the
other propertes. Nether s there, anywhere n the Agreements, a
statement of the bass for the 25-75 percent sharng rato.
v) The absence of then-Presdent Fde Ramos approva of the
prncpa Agreement, an express condton theren, renders the
compromse ncompete and unenforceabe. Nevertheess, even f
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1('
such approva were obtaned, the Agreements woud st not be
vad.
E(OL%#IO!
PANGANIBAN; May 19, 1999
'&C#(
Ma. Imeda Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdnand R. Marcos II and Irene
Marcos-Araneta fed before the court a moton for eave to
ntervene and a moton for parta reconsderaton, aegng that
they were partes and sgnatores to the Genera and Suppementa
Agreements whch ths Court decared "NULL AND VOID for beng
contrary to aw and the Constuton." They cam to "have a ega
nterest n the matter n tgaton, or n the success of ether of the
partes or an nterest aganst both as to warrant ther nterventon."
They add that ther excuson from the nstant case resuted n a
dena of ther consttutona rghts to due process and to equa
protecton. They aso the rase the "prncpe of herarchca
admnstraton of |ustce" to mpugn the Courts cognzance of
pettoners drect acton before t.
I((%E(
+rocedural:
WON the Moton for Leave to Intervene shoud be aowed.
.ubstantive:
1. WON the excuson of the movants from the proceedngs
regardng the Agreements to whch they were partes and
sgnatores was a dena of "ther property rght to contract wthout
due process of aw";
2. WON the Court voated the prncpe of herarchca
admnstraton of |ustce by rung upon the vadty of the
Agreements;
3. WON the ssue of rght to nformaton rased by pettoner was
rendered moot and academc by the submsson by the movants of
the Moton for Approva of Compromse Agreements to the
Sandganbayan;
4. WON there was ratfcaton of the Agreements by parta
mpementaton; and
5. WON the ssue rased by pettoner presented an actua case and
a |ustcabe queston.
3ELD
+rocedural:
No. Secton 2, Rue 19 of the Rues of Court, provdes that a moton
to ntervene shoud be fed before rendton of |udgment.
Interventon can no onger be aowed n a case aready termnated
by fna |udgment.
.ubstantive:
1. No. A contract that voates the Consttuton and the aw s nu
and vod a/ #n#t#o and vests no rghts and creates no obgatons. In
ega terms, the movants have reay no nterest to protect or rght
to assert n ths proceedng. Moreover, the movants are merey
ncdenta, not #n&#s)ensa/le, partes to the nstant case. The
petton of Francsco I. Chavez sought to enforce a consttutona
rght aganst the PCGG and to determne whether the atter has
been actng wthn the bounds of ts authorty.
2. No. The prncpe of herarchy of the courts generay appes to
cases nvovng factua questons, s#n%e the S$)reme Co$rt #s
not a tr#er of fa%ts. Inasmuch as the petton at bar nvoves ony
consttutona and ega questons concernng pubc nterest, the
Court resoved to exercse prmary |ursdcton on the matter.
3. No. The Chavez petton was not confned to the concuded
terms contaned n the Agreements, but kewse concerned other
ongong and future negotatons and agreements, perfected or not.
It was therefore not rendered moot and academc smpy by the
pubc dscosure of the sub|ect Agreements.
4. No. The PCGGs grant to the camants mother of access rghts
to one of ther sequestered propertes cannot ratfy the
Agreements. Beng nu and vod, they are not sub|ect to
ratfcaton.
5. Yes. Mandamus, over whch ths Court has orgna |ursdcton, s
a proper recourse for a ctzen to enforce a pubc rght. There s
no potca queston nvoved. The power and authorty of the PCGG
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(9
to compromse s not the ssue. But, ceary, by voatng the
Consttuton and the aws, the PCGG gravey abused ts dscreton.
.&GO!G &L2&!(&!G "&)&.&2&! (.&2&!) V 4&"O&
BUENA; October 10, 2000
'&C#(
- Ths s a consodaton of 5 pettons assang the consttutonaty
of the Vstng Forces Agreement. ("r#*#a@ S# Prof "e ang %o$nsel
)ara sa #/ang )et#t#oners!
- March 14, 1947 - The Phppnes and USA forged a Mtary Bases
Agreement, formazng, among others, the use of nstaatons n
the Phppne terrtory by US mtary personne.
- August 30, 1951 - The Phppnes and USA entered nto a Mutua
Defense Treaty. Under the treaty, the partes agreed to respond to
any externa armed attack on ther terrtory, armed forces, pubc
vesses and arcraft.
- 1991- RP-US Mtary Base Agreement expred. Senate re|ected
proposed RP-US Treaty of Frendshp, Cooperaton and Securty.
(9oo&/+eI /$t M$t$al :efense "reat+ st#ll #n effe%t.!
- February 10, 1998 - Presdent Ramos approved Vstng Forces
Agreement, after a seres of conferences and negotatons.
- October 5, 1998 - Presdent Estrada, through Secretary of Foregn
affars, ratfed VFA.
- May 27, 1999- Senate passed Resouton No. 18, concurrng wth
the ratfcaton of the VFA. (Aho %on%$rre&@ ;ernan, 2)le, :r#lon,
-#a6on, "ata&, Ca+etano, 04$#no-2reta, -ar/ers, 1a.ors=#,
Magsa+sa+ 1r, 2smeMa, ;la*#er, :efensor-Sant#ago, Pon%e-Enr#le,
Sotto, >e*#lla, Coseteng, 8onasan. "otalN17. Aho re3e%te&@
9$#ngona, >o%o, 2smeMa 777, P#mentel, 5egar&a-5e*#ste. "otalN!
- The VFA provdes for the mechansm for reguatng crcumstances
and condtons under whch US Armed Forces and defense
personne may be present n the Phppnes. The VFA s an
agreement whch defnes treatment of US troops and personne
vstng the Phppnes. It also de9ines t&e ri;&ts o9 t&e 5. and
t&e +&il ;overnment in t&e matter o9 criminal 'urisdiction,
movement o9 vessel and aircra9t, importation and
e)portation o9 eBuipment, materials and supplies.
I((%E(
1. WON the pettoners have ega standng as concerned ctzens,
taxpayers, or egsators to queston the consttutonaty of the
VFA.
2. WON the VFA s governed by the provsons of Sec 21, Artce VII
(%on%$rren%e of 2C( of the mem/ers of the Senate! or Sec 25 Art
XVIII of the Consttuton (fore#gn m#l#tar+ /ases, troo)s, or fa%#l#t#es
not allo.e& #n the Ph#ls e,%e)t $n&er a treat+ &$l+ %on%$rre& #n /+
Senate, an& .hen Congress re4$#res, rat#f#%at#on /+ a ma3or#t+ of
*otes %ast /+ the )eo)le #n a nat#onal referen&$m, an& re%ogn#6e&
as a treat+ /+ the other %ontra%t#ng State!
3. WON VFA consttute an abdcaton of Phppne soveregnty.
a. WON the Phppne Courts w be deprved of ther
|ursdcton to hear and try offenses commtted by the US
Mtary personne.
b. WON the Supreme Court w be deprved of ts |ursdcton
over offenses punshabe by recuson perpetua or hgher.
4. Was there grave abuse of dscreton on the part of the Presdent,
and of the Senate n ratfyng/concurrng wth the VFA?
5. WON the VFA voates Sec 1 Artce III (e4$al )rote%t#on %la$se!,
Sec 8 Artce II ()roh#/#t#on aga#nst n$%lear .ea)ons!, and Sec 28(4)
Artce VI (ta,at#on! of the 1987 Consttuton.
3ELD
1. No (and Yes). As taxpayers, pettoners have NO ega standng
as there are no pubc funds rased by taxaton n the case. Aso,
pettoner-egsators do not possess the requste lo%$s stan&# as
there s absence of cear showng of any drect n|ury to ther
person or to the nsttuton to whch they beong. HOWEVER, the
ssues rased n the pettons are of paramount mportance and of
consttutona sgnfcance. It s of TRANSCENDENTAL mportance,
so the Court brushes asde procedura barrers and takes
cognzance of the pettons.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.140
2. It s governed by .O#3 provsons. (e0tion I5 &rti0le BVIII
appes as t specfcay deas wth treates nvovng foregn
mtary bases, troops, or factes. ("he OorG #s #m)ortant to ta=e
note as #t s#gn#f#es #n&e)en&en%e of one th#ng from the others.
"h$s, #t %an 3$st /e an agreement %o*er#ng onl+ troo)s P not /ases
Ql#=e the V;0. 0lso, Se%t#on 2 0rt#%le RV777 ma=es no &#st#n%t#on
.hether the troo)s or fa%#l#t#es .#ll /e Htrans#entJ or H)ermanentJ,
so the V;0 #s %o*ere& /+ th#s )ro*#s#on!. On the other hand,
(e0tion I1 &rti0le VII fnd appcabty wth regard to the ssue
and for the soe purpose of determnng the number of votes
requred to obtan the vad concurrence of the Senate (Se% 21 0rt
V77 re4$#res 2C( of the mem/ers of the Senate, .h#le Se% 2 0rt
RV777 3$st sa+s H&$l+ %on%$rre& #n /+ the SenateJ .#th no s)e%#f#e&
n$m/er!.
- Were the requrements of Secton 25 Art XVIII comped wth?
Secton 25 Art XVIII requres the foowng condtons:
a) t must be under a treaty. -- Comped wth. We treat
VFA as a treaty.
b) the treaty must be duy concurred n by the Senate,
and so requred by the Congress, ratfed by a ma|orty of the
votes cast by the peope n a natona referendum. -- Comped
wth. 17 of 23 Senators concurred (Senator 9lor#a 0rro+o .as
ele%te& VP!. Requrement of ratfcaton n a natona
referendum unnecessary snce Congress has not requred t.
c) recognzed as a treaty by the other contractng State
(US).-- Comped wth. Ambassador Hubbards etter states that
t*e V'& is 6in+ing on t*e %( govAt and that n nternatona
ega terms such agreement s a treaty.
- A treaty, as defned by the Venna Conventon on the Law of
Treates, s an "nternatona nstrument concuded between States
n wrtten form and governed by the nternatona aw, whether
emboded n a snge nstrument or n two or more reated
nstruments."
- In nternatona aw, there s no dfference between treates and
executve agreements n ther bndng effect upon states
concerned, as ong as the negotatng functonares have remaned
wthn ther powers.
3. Secton 2 Artce II of the Consttuton decares that the "xxx
Phppnes adopts the generay accepted prncpes of nternatona
aw as part of the aw of the and xxx" (th#s &oesnGt reall+ ans.er
the #ss$e a/o*e, /$t the )onente &#&nGt reall+ &#s%$ss an ans.er
A2N the V;0 #s an a/&#%at#on of so*ere#gnt+.. oh .ellI here
goesI)
- Wth the ratfcaton of the VFA, t becomes obgatory and
ncumbent on our part to be bound by the terms of the agreement.
As a member of the famy of natons, the Phppnes agrees to be
bound by generay accepted rues for the conduct of ts
nternatona reatons. We cannot ready pead the Consttuton as
a convenent excuse for non-compance wth our obgatons,
dutes and responsbtes under nternatona aw.
- Artce 13 of the Decaraton of Rghts and Dutes of States
adopted by the Internatona Law Commson 1949 provdes that
every state has a duty to carry out n good fath ts obgatons.
Artce 26 of the Conventon: )a%ta s$nt ser*an&a.
4. Was there grave abuse of dscreton on the part of the Presdent,
and of the Senate n ratfyng/concurrng wth the VFA? !o.
- Grave abuse of dscreton mpes such caprcous and whmsca
exercse of |udgment as s equvaent to ack of |ursdcton, or,
when the power s exercsed n an arbtrary or despostc manner.
- The Consttuton vests the power to enter nto treates or
Internatona agreements n the Presdent, sub|ect ony to the
concurrence of the members of Senate. The negotaton of the VFA
and the ratfcaton of the agreement are excusve acts of the the
Presdent, n the awfu exercse of hs vast executve and
dpomatc powers granted by the Consttuton.
- As to the power to concur wth treates, the Consttuton odges
the same wth the Senate aone. Thus once the Senate performs
that power, or exercses ts prerogatve wthn the boundares
prescrbed by the Consttuton, the concurrence cannot be vewed
to consttute an abuse of power.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.141
0ecision Pettons Dsmssed
11 concurrng, 3 dssentng, 1 take no part.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P%!O D+issentE
- Most sgnfcant ssue s whether the VFA voates Sec 25 Art XVIII
of the Consttuton (see re4$#rements a/o*e!.
- POINT 1: Respondents cam that the requrements do not appy
as the VFA contempates a temporary vst of the troops, whe the
provson appes to a permanent presence of foregn troops.
The sad temporary nature of the VFA cannot stand. Nether the
VFA nor the Mutua Defense Treaty between RP and US provdes
the sghtest suggeston on the duraton of the vsts. VFA does not
provde for a specfc and mted perod of effectvty.
- POINT 2: The requrement that t be "recognzed as a treaty by the
other contractng state" s crysta cear and was put there by the
framers norder not to repeat the anomaous asymmetry of the
1947 Mtary bases agreement where we recognzed t as a treaty
but the US treated t as an executve agreement.
- The VFA s equvaent to a soe executve agreement n the US.
The Court w be standng on unstabe ground f t paces a soe
executve agreement ke the VFA on the same consttutona
pateau as a treaty, as there are st questons on the consttutona
bass and ega effects of soe executve agreements under the US
aw.
- "Wth the coud of uncertanty st hangng on the exact ega
force of soe executve agreements under the US consttutona aw,
ths Court must strke a bow for the soveregnty of our country by
drawng a brght ne between the dgnty and status of a treaty n
contrast wth a soe executve agreement. However we may wsh t,
The VFA as a soe executve agreement cannot cmb to the same
ofty heght that the dgnty of a treaty can reach. Consequenty, t
fas short of the requrement set by Sec 25 Art XVIII of the 1987
Consttuton that the agreement aowng the presence of foregn
mtary troops on Ph so must be recognzed as a treaty by the
other contractng state. I vote to grant the pettons."
)ILO(.&2&!5 I!C. V G%I!GO!&5 $.
DAVIDE; May 5, 1994
'&C#(
Nature: Speca cv acton for prohbton and n|uncton, prayng
for a TRO and premnary n|uncton, to prohbt and restran
mpementaton of "Contract of Lease" between PCSO and PGMC n
connecton wth on-ne ottery system a.k.a. "otto".
1. Pursuant to Secton 1 of ts charter (RA 1169), PCSO decded
to estabsh an onne ottery system for the purpose of
ncreasng ts revenue base and dversfyng ts sources of
funds. Sometme before March 1993, after earnng that PCSO
was nterested n operatng an on-ne ottery system, .er<a1a
Group .er*a+, a mutnatona company n Maaysa, /e%ame
#ntereste& to offer #ts ser*#%es an& reso$r%es to PCS2 and
organzed wth some Fpno nvestors n March 1993 a
corporaton known as the Phppne Gamng Management
Corporaton (PGMC).
2. Before August 1993, PCSO fnay formay ssued a Request
for Proposa (RFP) for the Lease of Contract of an on-ne ottery
system for PCSO. Consderng the ctzenshp requrement n the
RFP ("Lessor sha be a domestc corporaton, wth at east 60%
of ts shares owned by Fpno sharehoders"), PGMC cams that
Ber|aya Group undertook to reduce ts equty stakes n PGMC to
40%, by seng 35% out of the orgna 75% foregn
stockhodngs to oca nvestors.
3. Aug. 15, 1993, PGMC submtted ts bd to PCSO. The bds
were evauated by the Speca Pre-Ouafcaton Bds and
Awards commttee (SPBAC) for the on-ne ottery and ts Bd
Report was thereafter submtted to the Offce of the Presdent.
(Ths was preceded by compants from the Commtte's
Charperson, Dr. Mta Pardo de Tavera.)
4. Oct. 21, 1993, the Offce of the Presdent announced that t
had gven PGMC the go-sgna to operate the countr's on-ne
ottery system. Announcement was pubshed n Mana Tmes,
PDI, and Mana Standard on Oct. 29.
5. Nov. 4, 1993, KILOSBAYAN sent an open etter to Presdent
Ramos strongy opposng the settng up of an on-ne otttery
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.142
system on the bass of serous mora and ethca consderatons.
KILOSBAYAN reterated ts vgorous opposton to "otto" at the
meetng of the Commttee on Games and Amusements of the
Senate on Nov. 12, 1993
6. Nov. 19, 1993, the meda announced that despte the
opposton, Maacanang w push through wth operaton of
otto, that t s actuay PCSO whch w operate the ottery whe
wnnng corporate bdders merey essors.
7. Dec. 1, 1993, KILOSBAYAN requested copes of a
documents pertanng to the ottery award from Executve
Secretary Teofsto Gungona, |r., who nformed KILOSBAYAN
that the documents w be transmtted before the end of the
month. However on the same date, an agreement denomnated
as "Contract of Lease" was fnay executed by PCSO and PGMC.
8. Consderng the dena by the Offce of the Presdent of ts
protest and the statement of Assstant Executve Secretary
Renato Corona that "ony a court n|uncton can stop
Maacaang," and the mmnent mpementaton of the Contract
of Lease n February 1994, KILOSBAYAN, wth ts co-pettoners,
fed on 28 |anuary 1994 ths petton.
PETITIONERS' CLAIM
- Pettoners cam that PCSO cannot vady enter nto the assaed
Contract of Lease wth the PGMC because t s an arrangement
wheren the PCSO woud hod and conduct the on-ne ottery
system n "coaboraton" or "assocaton" wth the PGMC, n
voaton of Secton 1(B) of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Bg.
42, whch prohbts the PCSO from hodng and conductng charty
sweepstakes races, otteres, and other smar actvtes "n
coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture wth any person,
assocaton, company or entty, foregn or domestc." And that
there are terms and condtons of the Contract "showng that
respondent PGMC s the actua otto operator and not respondent
PCSO."

- The pettoners aso pont out that the Contract of Lease requres
or authorzes PGMC to estabsh a teecommuncatons network that
w connect a the muncpates and ctes n the terrtory.
However, PGMC cannot do that because t has no franchse from
Congress to construct, nsta, estabsh, or operate the network
pursuant to Secton 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended.
- Moreover, PGMC s a 75% foregn-owned or controed corporaton
and cannot, therefore, be granted a franchse for that purpose
because of Secton 11, Artce XII of the 1987 Consttuton.
Furthermore, snce "the subscrbed foregn capta" of the PGMC
"comes to about 75%, as shown by paragraph EIGHT of ts Artces
of Incorporaton," t cannot awfuy enter nto the contract n
queston because a forms of gambng - and ottery s one of
them - are ncuded n the so-caed foregn nvestments negatve
st under the Foregn Investments Act (R.A. No. 7042) where ony
up to 40% foregn capta s aowed.
- Fnay, the pettoners nsst that the Artces of Incorporaton of
PGMC do not authorze t to estabsh and operate an on-ne ottery
and teecommuncatons systems.
RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS
- Prvate respondent PGMC asserts that "(1) |t| s merey an
ndependent contractor for a pece of work and (2) as such
ndependent contractor, PGMC s not a co-operator of the ottery
franchse wth PCSO, nor s PCSO sharng ts franchse, 'n
coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture' wth PGM.
- Fnay, t states that the executon and mpementaton of the
contract does not voate the Consttuton and the aws; that the
ssue on the "moraty" of the ottery franchse granted to the PCSO
s potca and not |udca or ega, whch shoud be ventated n
another forum; and that the "pettoners do not appear to have the
ega standng or rea nterest n the sub|ect contract and n
obtanng the reefs sought."
- Executve Secretary Teofsto Gungona, |r., Assstant Executve
Secretary Renato Corona, and the PCSO mantan that the contract
of ease n queston does not voate Secton 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as
amended by B.P. Bg. 42, and that the pettoner's nterpretaton of
the phrase "n coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture" n Secton
1 s "much too narrow, straned and uttery devod of ogc" for t
"gnores the reaty that PCSO, as a corporate entty, s vested wth
the basc and essenta prerogatve to enter nto a knds of
transactons or contracts as may be necessary for the attanment of
ts purposes and ob|ectves." What the PCSO charter "seeks to
prohbt s that arrangement akn to a "|ont venture" or partnershp
where there s "communty of nterest n the busness, sharng of
profts and osses, and a mutua rght of contro," a characterstc
whch does not obtan n a contract of ease." They further cam
that the estabshment of the teecommuncatons system
stpuated n the Contract of Lease does not requre a congressona
franchse because PGMC w not operate a pubc utty
- They aso argue that the contract does not voate the Foregn
Investment Act of 1991; that the Artces of Incorporaton of PGMC
authorze t to enter nto the Contract of Lease; and that the ssues
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.14(
of "wsdom, moraty and proprety of acts of the executve
department are beyond the ambt of |udca revew."
Fnay, they aege that the pettoners have no standng to
mantan the nstant sut.
I((%E(
+rocedural: WON the pettoners have ocus stand.
.ubstantive: WON the Contract of Lease s ega and vad n ght
of RA 1169 as amended by BP Bg. 42, whch prohbts PCSO from
hodng and conductng otteres "n coaboraton, assocaton, or
|ont venture wth any person, assocaton, company, or entty,
whether domestc or foregn."
3ELD
1. The premnary ssue on the lo%$s stan&# of the pettoners
shoud, ndeed, be resoved n ther favor. A party's standng before
ths Court s a procedura techncaty whch t may, n the exercse
of ts dscreton, set asde n vew of the mportance of the ssues
rased. In the andmark Emergen%+ Po.ers Cases, ths Court
brushed asde ths techncaty because "the transcendenta
mportance to the pubc of these cases demands that they be
setted prompty and defntey, brushng asde, f we must,
techncates of procedure.'
- The Court found the nstant petton to be of transcendenta
mportance to the pubc. The ramfcatons of such ssues
mmeasuraby affect the soca, economc, and mora we-beng of
the peope even n the remotest barangays of the country and the
counter-productve and retrogressve effects of the envsoned on-
ne ottery system are as staggerng as the bons n pesos t s
expected to rase. The ega standng then of the pettoners
deserves recognton and, n the exercse of ts sound dscreton,
ths Court hereby brushes asde the procedura barrer whch the
respondents tred to take advantage of
2. Contract of Lease s vod for beng contrary to aw. PGMC s not
ony a Lessor, PCSO n the east w be conductng otteres " n
coaboraton or assocaton" and n the most "n |ont vernture"
wth PGMC. The manegera and technca expertse of PGMC are
ndespensbe to the operaton of the on-ne ottery system,
whereas PCSO ony has ts franchse to offer.
- By the excepton expcty made n paragraph B, Secton 1 of ts
charter, the PCSO cannot share ts franchse wth another by way of
coaboraton, assocaton or |ont venture. Nether can t assgn,
transfer, or ease such franchse.
- It s a setted rue that "n a grants by the government to
ndvduas or corporatons of rghts, prveges and franchses, the
words are to be taken most strongy aganst the grantee .... |o|ne
who cams a franchse or prvege n derogaton of the common
rghts of the pubc must prove hs tte thereto by a grant whch s
ceary and defntey expressed, and he cannot enarge t by
equvoca or doubtfu provsons or by probabe nferences.
Whatever s not unequvocay granted s wthhed. Nothng passes
by mere mpcaton."
- Whether the contract n queston s one of ease or whether the
PGMC s merey an ndependent contractor shoud not be decded
on the bass of the t#tle or &es#gnat#on of the contract but by the
ntent of the partes, whch may be gathered from the provisions
of the contract tsef. 0n#m$s hom#n#s est an#ma s%r#)t#. The
ntenton of the party s the sou of the nstrument.
- A carefu anayss and evauaton of the provsons of the contract
and a consderaton of the contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and
PGMC ndubtaby dscose that the contract s not n reaty a
contract of ease under whch the PGMC s merey an ndependent
contractor for a pece of work, but one where the statutory
proscrbed %olla/orat#on or asso%#at#on, n the east, or 3o#nt
*ent$re, at the most, exsts between the contractng partes.
(Collaboration #s &ef#ne& as the a%ts of .or=#ng together #n a 3o#nt
)ro3e%t. #ssociation means the a%t of a n$m/er of )ersons #n
$n#t#ng together for some s)e%#al )$r)ose or /$s#ness. 1oint
venture #s &ef#ne& as an asso%#at#on of )ersons or %om)an#es
3o#ntl+ $n&erta=#ng some %ommer%#al enter)r#seK ;enerall( all
contribute assets and s&are ris@s. !
- The contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and the PGMC revea that
the PCSO had nether funds of ts own nor the expertse to operate
and manage an on-ne ottery system, and that athough t wshed
to have the system, t woud have t "at no expense or rsks to the
government." Because of these serous constrants and
unwngness to bear expenses and assume rsks, the PCSO was
candd enough to state n ts RFP that t s seekng for "a sutabe
contractor whch sha bud, at ts own expense, a the factes
needed to operate and mantan" the system; excusvey bear "a
capta, operatng expenses and expanson expenses and rsks."
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.144
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D0on0urringE
- PGMC s pany a partner of PCSO n voaton of the aw no
matter how the assstance s caed or the contract denomnated.
P&DILL& D0on0urringE
- Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC s a |ont venture
because each part contrbutes ts share n the enterprse pro|ect.
PGMC contrbutes the factes, technoogy and expertse, whe
PCSO contrbutes the market through the deaers and n the totaty
the mass of Fpno gambng eements. PGMC w get ts 4.9% of
gross recepts; the resdue of the whoe exercse w go to PCSO,
ths s a |ont venture pan and smpe.
"ELO D+issentingE
- Ths case does not nvove a chaenge on the vadty of a statute
nor an attempt to restran expendture of pubc funds. The contract
nvoves strcty corporate money.
- By consderng ths case as a taxpayer's sut coud not cure the
ack of ocus stand on the part of the pettoners. The contract does
not nvove an ega dsbursement of pubc funds. No pubc fund
rased by taxaton s nvoved.
P%!O D+issentingE
- Courts are nether free to decde a knds of cases dumped nto
ther aps nor are they free to open ther doors to a partes or
enttes camng a grevance.
- It s cear that the requrement of ocus stand has not been
|ettsoned by the Consttuton for t st commands courts n no
uncertan terms to sette onl+ Ha%t$al %ontro*ers#es #n*ol*#ng r#ghts
.h#%h are legall+ &eman&a/le an& enfor%ea/leJC
- Ratonae for the standard of ocus stand s to assure a vgorous
adversary presentaton of the case, and perhaps more mportanty
to warrant the |udcary's overrung the determnaton of a
coordnate, democratcay eected organ of government.
)ILO(.&2&!5 I!C.5 E# &L. V(. "O&#O
MENDOZA; |uy 17, 1995

'&C#(
- As a resut of our decson n G.R. No. 113375 (Kosbayan,
Incorporated v. Gungona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994) nvadatng the
Contract of Lease between the Phppne Charty Sweepstakes
Offce (PCSO) and the Phppne Gamng Management Corp.
(PGMC) on the ground that t had been made n voaton of the
charter of the PCSO, the partes entered nto negotatons for a new
agreement that woud be "consstent wth the atter's |PCSO|
charter . . . and conformabe to ths Honorabe Court's aforesad
Decson."
- On |anuary 25, 1195 the partes sgned an Equpment Lease
Agreement (thereafter caed ELA) whereby the PGMC eased on-
ne ottery equpment and accessores to the PCSO n consderaton
of a renta equvaent to 4.3 % of the gross amount of tcket sae
derved by the PCSO from the operaton of the ottery whch n no
case sha be ess than an annua renta computed at P35,000.00
per termna n Commerca Operaton. The renta s to be computed
and pad b-weeky. In the event the b-weeky rentas n any year
fa short of the annua mnmum fxed renta thus computed, the
PCSO agrees to pay the defcency out of the proceeds of ts current
tcket saes. (Pars. 1-2)
Under the aw, 30% of the net recepts from the sae of tckets s
aoted to charty. (R.A. 1169, (B) )
The term of the eases s eght (8) years, commencng from the
start of commerca operaton of the ottery equpment frst
devered to the essee pursuant to the agreed schedue. (Par. 3)
- In the operaton of the ottery, the PCSO s to empoy ts own
personne. (Par. 5) It s responsbe for the oss of, or damage to,
the equpment from any cause and for the cost of ther
mantenance and repar. (Pars. 7-8) Upon the expraton of the
eases, the PCSO has the opton to purchase the equpment for the
sum of P25 mon.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.14
- A copy of the ELA was submtted to the Court by the PGMC n
accordance wth ts manfestaton n the pror case. On February 21,
1995 ths sut was fed seekng to decare the ELA nvad on the
ground as the Contract of Leases nufed n the frst case.
Pettoners seek the decaraton of the amended ELA as nu and
vod.
- The PCSO and PGMC fed a separate comments n whch they
queston the pettoners' standng to brng sut. The Kosbayan, In.
s an organzaton descrbed n ts petton as "composed of cvc-
sprted ctzens, pastors, prests, nuns and ay eaders who are
commtted to the cause of truth, |ustce, and natona renewa." Its
trustees are aso sung n ther ndvdua and coectve capactes
as "taxpayers and concerned ctzens." The other pettoners (Sen.
Fredde Webb, Sen. Wgberto Taada and Rep. |oker P. Arroyo) are
members of the Congress sung as such and as "taxpayer and
concerned ctzens."
- Respondents queston the rght of pettoners to brng ths sut on
the ground that, not beng partes to the contract of ease whch
they seek to nufy, they have no persona and substanta nterest
key to be n|ured by the enforcement of the contract. Pettoners
on the other hand contend that the rung n the prevous case
sustanng ther standng to chaenge the vadty of the frst
contract for the operaton of ottery s now the "aw of the case".
and therefore the queston of ther standng can no onger be
reopened.
- Pettoners kewse nvoke the foowng Prncpes and State
Poces set forth n Art. II of the Consttuton:
The mantenance of peace and order, the protecton of fe, berty,
and property, and the promoton of the genera wefare are
essenta for the empoyment by a the peope of the bessngs of
democracy. (5)|
The natura and prmary rght and duty of the parents n the rearng
of the youth for cvc effcency and the deveopment of mora
character sha receve the support of the Government. (12)
The State recognzes the vta roe of the youth n naton budng
and sha promote ther physca, mora, sprtua, nteectua, and
soca we-beng. It sha ncucate n the youth patrotsm and
naconasm, and encourage ther nvovement n pubc and cvc
affars.
The state sha gve prorty to educaton, scence and technoogy,
arts, cuture, and sports to foster patrotsm and natonasm,
acceerate soca progress, and promote tota human beraton and
deveopment. (17)
(Memorandum for Pettoners, p. 7)
I((%E(
1. Does Kosbayan et. a. have standng to sue?
2. Does the decson n Kosbayan v. Gungona consttute the "aw
of the case", thus precudng respondents from assang the ega
standng of pettoners?
3. May the provsons under the Decaraton of Prncpes and State
Poces be ready nvoked by any person n the absence of
Congressona egsaton (.e., sef-executng)?
3ELD
atio
1. A rung n a prevous case s bndng ony nsofar as the specfc
ssue n that case s concerned. Partes may be the same but cases
are not.
2. Provsons under the Decaraton of Prncpes and States are not
sef-executng.
4eneral easonin;
- Nether the doctrne of stare decss nor that of "aw of the case",
nor that of concusve of |udgment poses a barrer to a
determnaton of pettoners' rght to mantan ths sut.
- Stare decss s usuay the wse pocy. But n ths case, concern
for stabty n decsona aw does not ca for adherence to what
has recenty been ad down as the rue. The prevous rung
sustanng pettoners' nterventon may tsef be consdered a
departure from setted rungs on "rea partes n nterest" because
no consttutona ssues were actuay nvoved. |ust fve years
before that rung ths Court had dened standng to a party who, n
questonng the vadty of another form of ottery, camed the rght
to sue n the capacty of taxpayer, ctzen and member of the Bar.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.146
(Vamonte v. Phppne Charty Sweepstakes, G.R. No. 78716, Sept .
22, 1987) Ony recenty ths Court hed that members of Congress
have standng to queston the vadty of presdenta veto on the
ground that, f t true, the egaty of the veto woud mpar ther
prerogatve as members of Congress. Conversey f the compant s
not grounded on the mparment of the powers of Congress,
egsators do not have stndng the queston the vadty of any aw
or offca acton (Phppne Consttuton Assocaton v Enrquez, 235
SCRA 506 (1994))
- There s an addtona reason for a reexamnaton of the rung on
standng. The votng on pettoners' standng n the prevous case
was a narrow one, wth seven (7) members sustanng pettoners'
standng and sx (6) denyng pettoners' rght to brng the sut. The
ma|orty was thus a tenuous one that s not key to be mantaned
n any subsequent tgaton. In addton, there have been changes
n the members of the Court, wth the retrement of |ustces Cruz
and Bdn and the appontment of the wrter of ths opnon and
|ustce Francsco. Gven ths fact t s hardy tenabe to nsst on the
mantenance of the rung as to pettoners' standng.
.peci9ic easonin;
1. NO. The queston whether the pettoners have standng to
queston the Equpment or ELA s a ega queston. As w presenty
be shown, the ELA, whch the pettoners seek to decare nvad n
ths proceedng, s essentay dfferent from the 1993 Contract of
ease entered nto by the PCSO wth the PGMC. Hence the
determnaton n the pror case (G.R. No. 113375) that the
pettoner had standng to chaenge the vadty of the 1993
Contract of Lease of the partes does not precude determnaton of
ther standng n the present sut.
- Not ony s pettoners' standng a ega ssue that may be
determned agan n ths case. It s, strcty speakng, not even the
ssue n ths case, SINCE STANDING IS A CONCEPT IN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HERE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OUESTION
IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED.
32
The ssue n ths case s whether
32
CO""E!# O' .2&!R($- #*e logi0 o/ t*e Court in t*is 0ase now 6e0omes 0learer- #*e 0on0ept o/
legal stan+ing is a 0onstitutional law 0on0ept w*i0* is I!&PPLIC&.LE I! C&(E( 73EE #3EE &E
!O CO!(#I#%#IO!&L I((%E( &I(ED. In 0ases w*ere no 0onstitutional issues are raise+ t*e
governing prin0iple s*oul+ 6e t*e 0on0ept o/ >real part1 in interest? in t*e ules o/ Court.
pettoners are the "rea partes n nterest" wthn the meanng of
Rue 3, 2 of the Rues of Court whch requres that "Every acton
may be prosecuted and defended n the name of the rea party n
nterest."
- Notng ths dstncton, pettoners have not shown that they are
the rea party n nterest. They have not demonstrated that the
Contract entered nto by the PCSO woud drecty n|ure or affect
ther rghts.
2. NO. Pettoners argue that nqury nto ther rght to brng ths
sut s barred by the doctrne of "aw of the case." We do not thnk
ths doctrne s appcabe consderng the fact that whe ths case
s a seque to G.R. No. 113375, t s not ts contnuaton: The
doctrne appes ony when a case s before a court a second tme
after a rung by an appeate court.
- The aw of the case, as apped to a former decson of an
appeate court, ,merey expresses the practce of the courts n
refusng to reopen what has been decded. It dffers from res
|udcata n that the concusve of the frst |udgment s not
dependent upon ts fnaty. The frst |udgment s generay, f not
unversay, not fna, It reates entrey to questons of aw, and s
confned n ts questons of aw, and s confned n ts operaton to
subsequent proceedngs n the same case . . . ." (Muncpaty of
Daet v. Court of Appeas, 93 SCRA 503, 521 (1979) )
- It foows that snce the present case s not the same one tgated
by he partes before n G.R. No. 113375, the rung there cannot n
any sense be regarded as "the aw of ths case." The partes are the
same but the cases are not.
- Nor s nqury nto pettoners; rght to mantan ths sut forecosed
by the reated doctrne of "concusveness of |udgment." Accordng
to the doctrne, an ssue actuay and drecty passed upon the and
determned n a former sut cannot agan be drawn n queston n
any future acton between the same partes nvovng a dfferent of
acton. (Peaosa v. Tuason , 22 Ph. 303, 313 (1912); Hers of
Roxas v. Gado, 108. 582 (1960))
- It has been hed that the rue on concusveness of |udgment or
precuson of ssues or coatera estoppe does not appy to ssues
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.147
of aw, at east when substantay unreated cams are nvoved.
(Montana v. Unted States, 440 U.S. 147, 162, 59 L. Ed. 2d 210 ,
222 (1979); BATOR, MELTZER, MISHKIN AND SHAPIRO, THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 1058, n. 2 (3rd Ed.,
1988)) Foowng ths rung t was hed n Commssoner v. Sunnen,
333 U.S. 591, 92 L. Ed. 898 (1947) that where a taxpayer assgned
to hs wfe nterest n a patent n 1928 and n a sut t was
determned that the money pad to hs wfe for the years 1929-
1931 under the 1928 assgnment was not part of hs taxabe
ncome, ths determnaton s not precusve n a second acton for
coecton of taxes on amounts to hs wfe under another deed of
assgnment for other years (1937 to 1941). For ncome tax
purposes what s decded wth respect to one contract s not
concusve as to any other contract whch was not then n ssue,
however smar or dentca t may be. The rue on coatera
estoppe. t was hed, "must be confned to stuatons where the
matter rased n the second sut s dentca n a respects wth that
decded n the frst precedng and where the controng facts and
appcabe ega rues reman unchanged." (333 U.S. at 599-600, 92
L. Ed. at 907) Consequenty, "f the reevant facts n the two cases
are separate even though they may be smar or dentca,
coatera estoppe does not govern the ega ssues whch occur n
the second case. Thus the second proceedng may nvove an
nstrument or transacton dentca wth but n a form separabe
form, the one deat wth n the frst proceedng. In that stuaton a
court s free n the second proceedng to make an ndependent
examnaton of the ega matters at ssue. . . ." (333 U.S. at 601, 92
L. Ed. at 908)
3. NO. These are not, however, sef executng provsons, the
dsregard whch can gve rse to a cause of acton n the courts.
- They do not embody |udcay enforceabe consttutona rghts
but gudenes for egsaton. Thus, whe consttutona poces are
nvoked, ths case nvoves bascay questons of contract aw.
More specfcay, the queston s whether pettoners have ega
rght whch has been voated.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'ELICI&!O D+issentE
- I fnd mysef regretfuy qute unabe to |on the ma|orty opnon
wrtten by my dstngushed brother n the Court, Mendoza, |.
- I |on the penetratng dssentng opnons wrtten by my esteemed
brothers Regaado and Davde, |r., ||. In respect of the matter of
ocus stand, I woud aso reterate the concurrng opnon I wrote on
that sub|ect n the frst Kosbayan case.1 A the factors whch, to
my mnd, pressed for recognton of ocus stand on the part of
pettoners n the frst Kosbayan case, st exst and demand, wth
equa weght and nsstence, such recognton n the present or
second Kosbayan case, I fear that the Court may we have
occason n the future profoundy to regret the doctrna ba and
chan that we have today camped on our own mbs.
P&DILL& D0on0urE
- I |on the ma|orty n votng for the dsmssa of the petton n ths
case. It s the duty of the Supreme Court to appy the aws enacted
by Congress and approved by the Presdent, (uness they are
voatve of the Consttuton) even f such aws run counter to a
Member's persona convcton that gambng shoud be totay
prohbted by aw.
- In my separate concurrng opnon n the frst otto case (G.R. No.
113375), expressed the vew that the rue on ocus stand, beng
merey a procedura rue, shoud be reaxed, as the ssue then was
of paramount natona nterest and mportance, namey, the egaty
of a ease contract nto by PCSO wth PGMC whereby the former
sought an "on-ne hgh-tech" ottery, undenaby a form of
gambng, the terms of whch ceary ponted to an "assocaton,
coaboraton or |ont venture" wth PGMC.
EG&L&DO D+issentE
- Be that as t may, snce the ma|orty opnon has now evoved
other ad|ectve theores whch are represented to be ether
dfferent from or ramfcatons of the orgna "standng to sue"
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.14'
ob|ecton rased n the frst otto case. I w hazard my own humbe
observatons thereon.
1. There s, ntay, the savo aganst the adopton of the "aw of
the case" doctrne n the orgna ma|orty ponenca. It s contended
that ths doctrne requres, for ts appcabty, an ssue nvoved n
a case orgnatng from a ower court whch s frst resoved by an
appeate court, that case beng then remanded to the court of
orgn for further proceedngs and wth the pror resouton by the
hgher court of that ssue beng the "aw of the case" n any other
proceedng n or a subsequent appea from the same case. It s
nsnuated that sad doctrne exsts ony under such a scenaro.
- It may be conceded that, n the context of the cted cases wheren
ths doctrne was apped, two "appeas" are generay nvoved and
the ssue resoved n the frst appea cannot be reexamned n the
second appea. If so, then what s necessary chaenged n the frst
recourse to the hgher court s ether an nterocutory order of the
court a quo eevated on an orgna acton for certorar or an
appeaabe ad|udcaton whch nonetheess dd not dspose of the
entre case beow because t was ether a speca proceedng or an
acton admttng of mutpe appeas.
- That s the present regementary stuaton n the Phppnes
whch, unfortunatey, does not appear to have been taken nto
account when the doube-appea procedure nvoved n one
partcuar Amercan concept was cted as authorty n the ma|orty
opnon. No attempt was made to ascertan whether n the
Amercan cases cted the ex for provded for dentca or even
substanta counterparts of our procedura remedes of revew by a
hgher court on ether an appea by certorar or wrt of error, or
through an orgna acton of certorar, prohbton or mandamus.
Yet on such unverfed premses, and wthout a showng that the
stuatons are n par matera, we are tod that snce the case at bar
does not posses the formatted sequence of an ntatory acton n a
ower court, an appea to a hgher court, a remand to the ower
court, and then a second appea to the hgher court, the "aw of the
case" doctrne cannot appy. I have perforce to re|ect that
submsson as I cannot nduge n the uxury of absoute espoused
by ths ma|orty vew.
- I fear that ths ma|orty rue, has unduy constrcted the factua
and procedura stuatons where such doctrne may appy, through
ts undue nsstence on the remeda procedure nvoved n the
proceedngs rather than the |urdca effect of the pronouncement
of the hgher court. Even n Amercan aw, the "aw of the case"
doctrne was essentay desgned to express the practce of courts
generay to refuse to reopen what has been decded 5 and,
thereby, to emphasze the rue that the fna |udgment of the
hghest court s a fna determnaton of the rghts of the partes. 6
That s the actua and basc roe that t was conceved to pay n
|udca determnatons, |ust ke the ratonae for the doctrnes of
res |udcata and concusveness of |udgment.
- Accordngy, the "aw of the case" may aso arse from an orgna
hodng of a hgher court on a wrt of certorar, 7 and s bndng not
ony n subsequent appeas or proceedngs n the same case, but
aso n a subsequent sut between the same partes. 8 What I wsh
to underscore s that where, as n the nstant case, the hodng of
ths hghest Court on a specfc ssue was handed down n an
orgna acton for certorar, t has the same bndng effect as t
woud have had f promugated n a case on appea, Furthermore,
snce n our |ursdcton an orgna acton for certorar to contro
and set asde a grave abuse of offca dscreton can be
commenced n the Supreme Court tsef, t woud be absurd that for
ts rung theren to consttute the aw of the case, there must frst
be a remand to a ower court whch naturay coud not be the court
of orgn from whch the postuated second appea shoud be taken.
2. Obvousy reazng that contnued reance on the ocus stand
bar to pettoner's sut s not an roncad guaranty aganst t, the
ma|orty poston has taken a dfferent tack. It now nvoked the
concept of and the rues on a rght of acton n ordnary cv actons
and, prescndng from ts prevous postons, nssts that what s
supposedy determnatve of the ssue of representaton s contract
aw and not consttutona aw. On the predcate that pettoners are
not partes to the contract, prmary or subsdary, they then are
rea partes n nterest, and for ack of cause of acton on ther part
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.149
they have no rght of acton. Ergo, they, cannot mantan the
present petton.
As a matter of a conventona rue of procedure, the syogsm of
the ma|orty can cam the mert of ogc but, even so, ony on
assumed premses. More mportanty, however, the bemsh n ts
new bueprnt s that the defense of ack of a rght of acton s
effectvey the same as ack of ocus stand, that s, the absence of
the remeda rght to sue. As the commentators of Caste woud
say, the ob|ecton under the new termnoogy s "o msmo perro
con dstnto coar." That re-chrstened ground, as we sha ater
see, has aready been forecosed by the |udgment of the Court n
the frst otto case.
It s true that a rght of acton s the rght or standng to enforce a
cause of acton. For ts purposes, the ma|orty urges the adopton of
the standard concept of a rea party n nterest based on hs
possesson of a cause of acton. It coud not have faed to perceve,
but nonetheess refuses to concede, that the concept of a cause of
acton n pubc nterest cases shoud not be strat|acketed wthn ts
usua narrow confnes n prvate nterest tgatons.
Thus, advertng agan to Amercan |ursprudence, there s the
caveat that "the adopton of provson requrng that an acton be
prosecuted n the name of the rea party n nterest does not sove
a questons as to the proper person or persons to nsttute sut,
athough t obvousy smpfes procedures n actons at aw. . .
There s no ceary defned rue by whch one may determne who s
or s not rea party n nterest, nor has there been found any
concse defnton of the term. Who s the rea party n nterest
depends on the pecuar facts of each separate case, and one may
be a party n nterest and yet not be the soe rea party n nterest."
9 (Emphass supped.)
The ma|orty opnon quotes the vew of a foregn author but
unfortunatey fas to put the proper emphass on the porton
thereof whch I beeve shoud be that whch shoud correcty be
stressed, and whch I correspondngy reproduce:
It s mportant to note. . . that standng because of ts consttutona
and pubc pocy underspnnngs, s very dfferent from questons
reatng to whether a partcuar pantff s the rea party n nterest
or has the capacty to sue. Athough a three requrements are
drected towards ensurng that ony certan partes can mantan an
acton, standng restrctons requre a parta consderaton of the
merts, as we as of broader pocy concerns reatng to the proper
roe of the |udcary n certan areas. 10 Indeed, f the ma|orty
woud have ts way n ths case, there woud be no avaabe |udca
remedy aganst rreguartes or excesses n government contracts
for ack of a party wth ega standng or capacty to sue. Ths ega
demma or vacuum s supposedy remedabe under a suggestons
submtted n the ma|orty opnon, to wt:
Dena to pettoners of the rght to ntervene w not eave wthout
remedy any perceved egaty n the executon of government
contracts. Ouestons as to the nature or vadty of pubc contracts
or the necessty for a pubc bddng before they may be made can
be rased n an approprate compant before the Commsson on
Audt or before the Ombudsman. . . In addton, the Soctor
Genera s authorzed to brng an acton for quo warranto f t shoud
be thought that a government corporaton . . . has offended aganst
ts corporate charter or msused ts franchse. . .
- The ma|orty has apparenty forgotten ts own argument that n
the present case pettoners are not the rea partes, hence they
cannot ava of any remeda rght to fe a compant or sut. It s,
therefore, hghy mprobabe that the Commsson on Audt woud
degn to dea wth those whom the ma|orty says are strangers to
the contract. Agan, shoud ths Court now sustan the assaed
contract, of what ava woud be the suggested recourse to the
Ombudsman? Fnay, t s a perpexng suggeston that pettoners
ask the Soctor Genera to brng a quo warranto sut, ether n
propra persona or ex reatone, not ony because one has to
contend wth that offca's own vews or persona nterests but
because he s hmsef the counse for respondents n ths case. Any
proposed remedy must take nto account not ony the egates n
the case but aso the reates of fe.
3. The ma|orty beeves that n vew of the retrement and
repacement of two members of the Court, t s tme to reexamne
the rung n the frst otto case. A prevous |udgment of the Court
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.10
may, of course, be revsted but f the ostensbe bass s the
change of membershp and known postons of the new members
anent an ssue pendng n a case n the Court, t may not st we
wth the pubc as a |udcous pocy. Ths woud be smar to the
stuaton where a |udgment promugated by the Court s hed up by
a moton for reconsderaton and whch moton, |ust because the
present Rues do not provde a tme mt for the resouton thereof,
stays unresoved unt the appontment of members sympathetc
thereto. Thus, the unknd crtcsms of "magstrate shoppng" or
"court packng" eveed by dsgrunted tgants s not unknown to
ths Court.
- I hod the vew that the matter of the rght of pettoners to fe
and mantan ths acton - whether the ob|ecton thereto s
premsed on ack of ocus stand or rght of acton - has aready
been forecosed by our |udgment n the frst otto case, G.R. No.
113375. If the ma|orty refuses to recognze such rght under the
"aw of the case" prncpe, I see no reason why that partcuar ssue
can st be ventated now as a survvor of the doctrna effects of
res |udcata. 11
It s undenabe that n that case and the one at bar. there s
dentty of partes, sub|ect matter and cause of acton. Evdenty,
the |udgment n G.R. No. 113375 was rendered by a court of
competent |ursdcton, t was an ad|udcaton on the merts, and
has ong become fna and executory. There s, to be sure, an
attempt to show that the sub|ect matter n the frst acton s
dfferent from that n the nstant case, snce the former was the
orgna contract and the atter s the supposed expanded contract.
I am not persuaded by the proffered dstncton.
The remova and repacement of some ob|ectonabe terms of a
contract, whch nevertheess contnues to operate under the same
bass, wth on the property, fore the same purpose, and the same
contractng partes does not suffce to extngush the dentty of the
sub|ect matter n both cases,. Ths woud be to exat form over
substance. Furthermore, respondents themseves admtted that the
new contract s actuay the same as the orgna one, wth |ust
some varants n the terms of the atter to emnate those whch
were ob|ected to. The contrary assumpton now beng foated by
respondents woud create chaos n our remeda and contractua
aws, open the door to fraud, and subvert the rues on the fnaty of
|udgments.
- Yet, even assumng purey ex hypothes that the amended terms
n the expanded ease agreement created a dscrete set of tgabe
voatons of the statutory charter of the Phppnes Charty
Sweepstakes Offce, thereby coectvey resutng n a dsparate
actonabe wrong or dect, that woud merey consttute at most a
dfference n the causes of acton n the former and the present
cases. Under Secton 49(c). Rue 39 of the Rues of Court, we woud
st have a stuaton of coatera estoppe, better known n ths
|ursdcton as concusveness of |udgment. Hence, a reevant
ssues fnay ad|udged n the pror |udgment sha be concusve
between the partes n the case now before us and that defntey
ncudes at the very east the ad|udgment theren that pettoners
have the ocus stand or the rght to sue respondents on the
contracts concerned.
In ther case - whether of res |udcata, on whch I nsst, or of
concusveness of |udgment, whch I assume arguendo - what s
now beng prmary ressted s the rght of pettoners to sue, asde
from the postuated nvadty of the contract for the government-
sponsored ottery system. It does seem odd, f not arcane, that
pettoners were hed to have the requste ocos stand or rght of
acton on sad G.R. No. 113375 and, for that matter, were kewse
so recognzed n the expanded vaue added tax (EVAT) case, 12 but
are now mysterousy dvested of the "pace of standng" aegedy
due to, for ega purposes, a compeng need for reexamnaton of
the doctrne, and, for economc reasons, an obsesson for autarky
of the naton.
4. I repeat what I sad at the outset that ths case shoud be
decded on the merts and on substantve consderatons, not on
dubous techncates ntended to prevent on nqury nto the
vadty of the supposed amended ease contract. The peope are
entted to the beneft of a duy carfed and transucent
transacton, |ust as respondent deserve the opportunty, and shoud
even by themseves prmary seek, to be ceaned of any suspcons
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.11
or ngerng doubts arsng from the fact that the sponsors for |a
aa and, now, of otto are dfferent.
- On the merts, to obvate unnecessary repcaton I reterate my
concurrence wth the fndngs and concusons of Mr. |ustce Davde
n ths dssentng opnon, the presentaton whereof s competey
devod of straned or specuatve premses, and moreover has the
vrtue of beng based on hs frst-hand knowedge as a egsator of
the very provsons of the aw now n dspute. In ths nstance and
absent any other operatve data. I fnd the same to be an ampy
suffcent and hghy mertorous anayss of the controversy on the
contract.
- One concudng pont. I am not mpressed by ther stance of the
ma|orty that our takng cognzance of ths case and resovng t on
the merts w hereafter nvte others to unduy overburden ths
Court wth avodabe mportuntes. Ths sounds ke a tongue-n-
rposte snce the Court has ceary ndcated that t sets asde
ob|ectons grounded on |udge-made consttutona theores ony
under cogent reasons of substanta |ustce and paramount pubc
nterest.
On the contrary, to pay unquafed obedence to the begung
ocos stand or rght of acton doctrnes posted by the ma|orty n
ths case woud ony not be an abdcaton of a cear |udca duty. It
coud concevaby resut n deprvng the peope of recourse to us
from dubous government contracts through consttutonay
outdated or proceduray nspd theores for such stutfcaton. Ths
s a contngency whch s not ony possbe, but probabe under our
ogarchc socety n esse; and not ony undesrabe, but repugnant
wthn a |ust regme of aw st n posse.
D&VIDE D+issentE
- I regster a dssentng vote.
- I am dsturbed by the sudden reversa of our rungs n Kosbayan,
Inc., et a. vs. Gungona, et a. 1 referred to as the frst otto case)
regardng the appcaton or nterpretaton of the excepton cause
n paragraph B, Secton 1 of the Charter of the PCSO (R.A. No.
1169), as amended by B.P. Bg. 442, and on the ssue of ocus
stand of the pettoners to queston the contract of ease nvovng
the on-ne ottery system entered nto between the Phppne
Charty Sweepstakes Offce (PCSO) and the Phppne Gamng
Management Corporaton (PGMC). Such reversa upsets the
sautary doctrnes of the aw of the case, res |udcata, and stare
decss. It puts to |eopardy the fath and confdence of the peope,
specay the awyers and tgants, n the certany and stabty of
the pronouncements of ths Court. It opens the foodgates to
endess tgatons for re-examnaton of such pronouncements and
weakens ths Court's |udca and mora authorty to demand from
ower courts obedence thereto and to mpse sanctons for ther
opposte conduct.
- It must be noted that the decson n the frst otto case was
uncondtonay accepted by the PCSO and the PGMC, as can be
geaned from ther separate manfestatons that they woud not ask
for ts reconsderaton but woud, nstead, negotate a new
equpment ease agreement consstent wth the decson and the
PCSO's charter and that they woud furnsh the Court a copy of the
new agreement. The decson has, thus, become fna on 23 May
1994. 2
- As the wrter of the sad decson and as the author of the
excepton to paragraph B, Secton 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended,
I cannot accept the straned and tenuous arguments adduced n
the ma|orty opnon t |usty the reversa of our rungs n the frst
otto case. Whe there are exceptons to the aforementoned
doctrnes and I am not nexoraby opposed to upsettng pror
decsons f warranted by overwhemng consderatons of |ustce
and rresstbe desre to rectfy an error, none of such
consderatons and nothng of substance or weght can brng ths
case wthn any of the exceptons.
- In the sad case, we sustaned the ocus stand of the pettoners,
and n no uncertan terms decared:
We fnd the nstant petton to be of transcendenta mportance to
the pubc. The ssues t rased are of paramount pubc nterest and
of a category even hgher than those nvoved n many of the
aforected cases. The ramfcatons of such ssues mmeasuraby
affect the soca, economc, and mora we-beng of the peope
even n the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.12
productve and retrogressve effects of the envsoned on-ne
ottery system are as staggerng as the bons of pesos t s
expected to rase. The ega standng than of the pettoners
deserves recognton and, n the exercse of ts sound dscreton,
ths Court hereby brushes asde the procedura barrer whch the
respondents tred to take advantage of.
- In ths concurrng opnon, Mr. |ustce Forentno P. Fecano
further showed substantve grounds or consderatons of
mportance whch strengthened the ega standng of the
pettoners to brng and mantan the acton, namey: (a) the pubc
character of the funds or other assets nvoved n the contract of
ease; (b) the presence of a cear case of dsregard of a
consttutona or ega provson by the pubc respondent agency;
(c) the ack of any other party wth a more drect and specfed
nterest n rasng the questons nvoved theren; and (d) the wde
range of mpact of the contract of ease and of ts mpementaton.
Ony ast 6 Apr 1995, n the decson n Tatad vs. Garca, 3 ths
Court, speakng through Mr. |ustce Camo D. Ouason who had
|oned n the dssentng opnons n the frst otto case the
pettoners, ocus stand theren, nvoked and apped the rung on
ocus stand n the frst otto case. He stated:
The prevang doctrnes n taxpayer's suts are to aow taxpayers
to queston contracts entered nto by the natona government or
government-owned or controed corporatons aegedy n
contraventon of the aw (Kosbayan, Inc. v. Gungona, 232 SCRA
110 |1994| and to dsaow the same when ony muncpa contracts
are nvoved (Bugnay Constructon and Deveopment Corporaton v.
Laron, 176 SCRA 240 |1989|.
For as ong as the rung n Kosbayan on ocus stand s not
reversed, we have no choce but to foow t and uphod the ega
standng of pettoners as taxpayers to nsttute the present acton.
- Mr. |ustce Santago M. Kapunan, who had aso dssented n the
frst otto case on the ssue of ocus stand; unquafedy concurred
wth the ma|orty opnon n Tatad. Mr. |ustce Vcente V. Mendoza,
the wrter of the ponenca n ths case, aso nvoked the ocus stand
rung n the frst otto case to deny ega standng to Tatad, et a.
He sad:
- Nor do pettoners have standng to brng ths sut as ctzens. In
the cases n whch ctzens were authorzed to sue, ths Court found
standng because t though the consttutona cams pressed for
decson to be of "transcendenta mportance," as n fact t
subsequenty granted reef to pettoners by nvadatng the
chaenged statutes or governmenta actons. Thus n the Lotto case
|Kosbayan, Inc. vs. Gungona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994)| reef by the
ma|orty for uphodng pettoner's standng, ths Court took nto
account the "paramount pubc nterest" nvoved whch
"mmeasuraby affect|ed| the soca, economc, and mora we-
beng of the peope . . . and the counter-productve and
retrogressve effects of the envsoned on-ne ottery system."
Accordngy, the Court nvadated the contract for the operaton of
the ottery.
- Chef |ustce Andres R. Narvasa and Assocate |ustce Abduwahd
A Bdn, |ose A.R. Meo, Reynato S. Puno, |ose C. Vtug, and Rcardo
|. Francsco, |oned hm n hs concurrng opnon. Except for the
Chef |ustce who took part n the frst otto case and |ustce
Francsco who was not yet a member of ths Court at the tme, the
rest of the |ustce who |oned the concurrng opnon of |ustce
Mendoza had dssented n the otto case on the sad ssue.
- Under the prncpe of ether the aw of the case of res |udcata,
the PCSO and the PGMC are bound by the rung n the frst otto
case on the ocus stand of the pettoners and the appcaton or
nterpretaton of the excepton cause n paragraph B, Secton 1 of
R.A. No. 1169, as amended. Moreover, that appcaton or
nterpretaton has been ad to rest under the doctrne of stare
decss and has aso become part of our ega system pursuant to
Artce 8 of the Cv Code whch provdes: '|udca decsons
appyng nterpretng the aws or the consttuton sha from part of
the system of the Phppnes."
- These doctrnes were not adopted whmscay or caprcousy.
They are based on pubc pocy and other consderatons of great
mportance and shoud not be dscarded or |ettsoned n a cavaer
fashon. Yet, they are now put to naught n ths case.
- The prncpe of the aw of the case "s necessary as a matter of
pocy to end tgaton. There woud be no end to a sut f every
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1(
obstnate tgant coud, by repeated appeas, compe a court to
sten to crtcsm on ther opnons, or specuate on chances from
changes n ts members." 7
- It s, however, contended that the aw of the case s nappcabe
that doctrne appes ony when a case s before an appeate court
a second tme after ts remand to a ower court. Whe ndeed the
statement may be correct, t dsregards the fact that the case s
nothng but a seque to and s, therefore, for a ntents and
purposes, a contnuaton of the frst otto case. By ther conduct,
the partes admtted that t s, for whch reason the PGMC and the
PCSO submtted n the frst otto case a copy of the ELA n queston,
and the pettoners commenced the nstant petton aso n the sad
case. Our resouton that the vadty of the ELA coud not be
decded n the sad case because the decson theren had became
fna does not detract from the fact that ths case s but a
contnuaton of the frst otto case or a new chapter n the rapng
controversy between the pettoners, on the one hand, and the
PCSO and the PGMC, on the other, on the operaton of the on-ne
ottery system.
Equay unacceptabe s the ma|orty opnon's re|ecton of the
reated doctrne of concusveness of |udgment of the ground that
the queston of standng s a queston, as ths case nvoves a
dfferent or unreated contract. The ega queston of ocus stand
whch was resoved n favor of the pettoners n the frst otto case
s the same n ths case and n every subsequent case whch woud
nvove contracts reatng or ncdenta to the contract or hodng of
otteres by the PCSO n coaboraton, assocaton; or |ont venture
wth any person, assocaton, company or entty. And, the contract
n queston s not dfferent from or unreated to the frst nufed
contract, for t n nothng but a substtute for the atter. Respondent
Morato was even candd enough to admt that no new and separate
pubc bddng was conducted for the ELA n queston because the
PCSO was of the beef that the pubc bddng for the nufed
contract was suffcent.
Its reance on the rung n Montana vs. Unted States 8 that
precuson or coatera estoppe does not appy to ssues of aw, at
east when substantay unreated cams are nvoved, s
mspaced. For one thng, the queston of the pettoners' ega
standng n the frst otto case and n ths case s one and the same
ssue of aw. For another, these cases nvove the same and not
substantay unreated sub|ect matter, vz., the second contract
between the PCSO and the PGMC on the operaton of the on-ne
ottery system.
The ma|orty opnon kewse faed to consder that n the very
authorty t cted regardng the excepton to the rue of ssue
precuson (Testament of the Law, 2d |udgments $ 28), the second
ustraton stated theren s sub|ect to ths NOTE: "The doctrne of
the stare decss may ead the court to refuse to reconsder the
queston of soveregn mmunty," whch smpy means that stare
decss s an effectve bar to a re-examnaton of a pror |udgment.
The doctrne of stare decss embodes the ega maxm that a
prncpe or rue of aw whch has been estabshed by the decson
of a court of controng |ursdcton w be foowed n other cases
nvovng a smar stuaton. It s founded on the necessty for
securng certanty and stabty n the aw and does not requre
dentty or prvty of partes. 9 Ths s expcty feshed out n Artce
8 of the Cv Code whch provdes that decsons appyng or
nterpretng the aws or the consttuton sha form part of the ega
system. Such decsons "assume the same authorty as the statute
tsef and, unt authortatvey abandoned, necessary become, to
the extent that they are appcabe, the crtera whch must contro
the actuatons not ony of those caed upon to asde thereby but
aso of those n duty bound to enforce obedence thereto."10
Abandonment thereof must be based ony on strong and
compeng reasons - whch I do not fnd n ths case - otherwse, the
becomng vrtue of predctabty whch s expected from ths Court
woud be mmeasuraby affected and the pubc's confdence n the
stabty of ts soemn pronouncements dmnshed.
The doctrne of res |udcata aso bars a retgaton of the ssue of
ocus stand and a re-examnaton of the appcaton or
nterpretaton of the excepton cause n paragraph B, Secton 1 of
R.A. No. 1169, as amended. Secton 49 (b), Rue 39 of the Rues of
Court on effects of |udgment expressy provdes:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.14
(b)In a other cases the |udgment or order s, wth respect to the
matter cases the |udgment or order s, wth respect to the matter
drecty ad|udged or as to other matter that coud have been
partes and ther successors n nterest by tte subsequent to the
commencement of the acton or speca proceedngs, tgatng for
the same thng n the same tte and n the same capacty.
Ths doctrne has dua aspects: (1) as a bar to the prosecuton of a
second acton upon the same cam, demand, or cause of acton;
and (2) as precuson to the retgaton of partcuar facts of ssues
n acton between the same partes on a dfferent cam or cause of
acton. 11 Pubc pocy, |udca orderness, economy of |udca
tme, and the nterest of tgants as we as the peace and order of
socety, a requre that stabty shoud be accorded |udgments:
that controverses once decded on ther merts sha reman n
repose; that nconsstent |udca decsons sha not be made on the
same set of facts; and that there be an end to tgaton whch,
wthout the sad doctrne, woud be endess. It not ony puts an end
to strfe, but recognzes that certanty n ega reatons must be
mantaned. It produces certanty as to ndvdua rghts and gves
and respect to |udca proceedngs. 12 The |ustfcatons gven n
the ma|orty opnon to underrate the rung ocus stand and to
utmatey dscard t are unconvncng. It s not at a true, as the
ma|orty opnon contends, that "|t|he prevous sustanng
pettoners nterventon may n fact be consdered a departure from
setted rung on rea party n nterest because no consttutona
ssues were actuay nvoved."
It must be ponted out that the rue n ordnary cv procedure on
rea party n nterest was never put n ssue n the prevous case. It
was the cear understandng of the Members of the Court that n
the ght of the ssues rased and the arguments adduced theren,
ony ocus stand deserved consderaton. Accordngy, the ma|orty
opnon and the separate dssentng opnons theren dwet engthy
on ocus stand and brought n the process a vast array of
authortes on the ssue. Moreover, as expcty stressed n the
concurrng opnon of |ustce Fecano, both consttutona and ega
ssues were nvoved theren. Fnay, as sha hereafter be
dscussed, n pubc aw the rue of rea party n nterest s
subordnate to the doctrne of ocus stand.
- Equay unconvncng s the ma|orty opnon's contenton that the
rung ocus stand n the frst otto case may not be preserved
because the ma|orty vote sustanng the pettoners' standng was
a "tenuous one" that may not be mantaned n a subsequent
tgaton, and that there had been changes n the membershp of
the Court due to the retrement of |ustces Isagan A. Cruz and
Abduwahd A. Bdn and the appontment of |ustces Vcente V.
Mendoza and Rcardo |. Francsco. It has forgotten that, as earer
stated, the rung was reterated n Tatad vs. Garca. Addtonay,
when n hs concurrng opnon n the Tatad case, |ustce Mendoza
dened ocus stand to Tatad, et a., because ther case dd not have
the same mportance as the otto case, he thereby accepted the
concesson of standng to the pettoners n the otto case. I wsh to
stress the fact that a the |ustces who had dssented n the frst
otto case on the ssue of ocus stand were ether for the ma|orty
opnon or for the concurrng opnon n the Tatad case. Hence, I can
say that the Tatad case has gven vgor and strength to the
"tenuous" ma|orty n the frst otto case.
The ma|orty opnon decares that the rea ssue n ths case s not
whether the pettoners have ocus stand but whether they are the
rea partes-n-nterest. Ths proposton s a bod move to set up a
bar to taxpayer's suts or cases nvested wth pubc nterest by
requrng strct compance wth the rue on rea party n nterest n
ordnary cv actons, thereby effectvey subordnatng to that rue
the doctrne of ocus stand. I am not prepared to be a party to that
proposton.
- The downgradng of ocus stand and ts subordnaton to the
restrctve rue on rea party n nterest cannot be |ustfed by the
cam that s nvoved here s contract aw, not consttutona aw.
True, contract aw s nvoved. We are not, however, deang here
wth an ordnary contract between prvate partes, but a contract
between a corporaton whoy owned by the government - hence,
an nstrumentaty of the government - and a prvate corporaton
for the contract of the otto, whch s nvested wth paramount and
transcendenta pubc nterest and other pubc pocy
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1
consderatons because the otto has counter - productve and
retrogressve effects whch are as staggerng as the bons of
pesos t s expected to rase and provokes ssues that
mmeasuraby affect the soca, economc, and mora we-beng of
the peope. We sad so n the frst otto case.
G&CI& V .O&D O' I!VE(#"E!#(
GUTIERREZ; November 9, 1990
'&C#(
- A petton to annu and set asde the decson of the Board of
Investments (BOI)/ Department of Trade and Industry approvng the
transfer of ste of the proposed petrochemca pant from Bataan to
Batangas and the shft of feedstock for that pant from naphtha
ony to naphtha and/or quefed petroeum gas (LPG).
- P.D. No. 1803 reserved 576 hectares of pubc doman n Lamao,
Lbay, Bataan for the Petrochemca Industra Zone under the
admnstraton, management and ownershp of the Phppne
Natona O Company (PNOC).
- Tawanese nvestors n a petrochemca pro|ect formed the Bataan
Petrochemca Corporaton (BPC) and apped wth BOI for
regstraton as a new domestc producer of petrochemcas. It
specfed Bataan as pant ste, and one of the terms and condtons
for regstraton was the use of naphtha cracker and naphtha as
feedstock for fue for ts pant, whch was to be a |ont venture wth
PNOC. BPC was ssued a certfcate of regstraton on Feb. 24, 1988.
- BPC was gven poneer status ands accorded fsca and other
ncentves, ke, (1) exempton from taxes on raw materas, (2)
emnatng the 48% ad vaorem tax on naphtha f and when t s
used as raw materas for the petrochemca pant.
- In February 1989, A.T. Chong, Charman of USI Far East
Corporaton, the ma|or nvestor n BPC expressed to DTI Secretary
hs desre to amend the orgna regstraton certfcaton of ts
pro|ect by changng the |ob ste from Bataan to Batangas because
of the nsurgency and unstabe abor stuaton n Bataan and the
presence n Batangas of a huge LPG depot owned by Phppne
She Corporaton. Other requested amendments are as foows: (1)
ncreasng the nvestment amount from $220 mon to $320
mon; (2) ncreasng the producton capacty of ts naphtha
cracker, poythyene pant and poypropyene pant; (3) changng
the feedstock from naphtha ony to naphtha and/or LPG.
- On May 25, 1989, BOI approved the revson statng that, "he -27
re%ogn#6es an& res)e%ts the )r#n%#)le that the f#nal %ho#%e #s st#ll
.#th the )ro)onent .ho .o$l& #n the f#nal anal+s#s )ro*#&e the
f$n&#ng or r#s= %a)#tal for the )ro3e%t.
- In the petton entted "Congressman Enrque T. Garca v. The
Board of Investments", ths court ordered BOI as foows: (1) to
pubsh the amended appcaton for regstraton of the Bataan
Petrochemca Corporaton, (2) to aow the pettoner to have
access to ts records on the orgna and amended appcatons for
regstraton, as a petrochemca manufacturer, of the respondent
Bataan Petrochemca Corporaton, excudng, however, prveged
papers contanng ts trade secrets and other busness and fnanca
nformaton, (3) to set for hearng the pettoners opposton to the
amended appcaton n order that he may present at such hearng
a the evdence n hs possesson n support of hs opposton to the
transfer of the ste of the BPC petrochemca pant to Batangas.
- Garca fed moton for reconsderaton askng the Court to rue on
whether or not the nvestor gven the nta nducements and other
crcumstances surroundng ts frst choce of pant ste may change
smpy because t has the fna choce on the matter. The Court
merey rued that the pettoner appears to have ost nterest n the
case by hs faure to appear n the hearng that was set by BOI.
- A moton for reconsderaton of sad resouton was fed, askng
that the Court resove whether or not the foregn nvestor has the
rght of fna choce of pant ste; that the non-attendance of the
pettoner at the hearng was because the decson was not yet fna
and executory, and therefore pettoner has not waved hs rght.
Court resouton stated that BOI, not the nvestor has fna choce
on the matter and that even a choce approved by BOI may not be
fna for supervenng crcumstances and changes n the condtons
of a pace may dctate a correspondng change n the choce of
pant ste n order that the pro|ect w not fa. However, petton
was dened.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.16
- Instant petton rees on the rung that nvestor has no rght of
fna choce.
I((%E(
1. WON the petrochemca pant shoud reman n Bataan or shoud
be transferred to Batangas
2. WON ts feedstock orgnay of naphtha ony shoud be changed
to naphtha and/or LPG the approved amended appcaton of the
BPC, now Luzon Petrochemca Corporaton (LPC)
3. WON the categorca admsson of the BOI that t s the nvestor
who has the fna choce of the ste and the decson on the
feedstock consttutes a grave abuse of dscreton for the BOI to
yed to the wshes of the nvestor, natona nterest
notwthstandng
3ELD
1. 2n 1$st#%#a/l#t+: There s an actua controversy. The Court has
consttutona duty to step nto ths controversy to determne the
paramount ssue.
2. The decson to transfer to Batangas and to shft the use of
feedstock s un|ustfed.
- The Bataan ste s dea, the resut of carefu study.
- The respondents have not shown nor reterated that the aeged
peace and order stuaton n Bataan or unstabe abor stuaton
warrant a transfer to the pant ste n Batangas.
- The Bataan Refnng Corporaton, a government owned Fpno
corporaton, can provde the feedstock requrement of the pant n
Bataan, whereas the country s short of LPG and there s a need to
mport for the use of the pant n Batangas. Transfer w dvert
scarce doars unnecessary.
- R.A. 6767 exempted naphtha as feedstock from ad vaorem tax
but excuded LPG from the exempton. Ths aw was specfcay for
the petrochemca ndustry. Nether BOI nor a foregn nvestor
shoud dsregard or contravene expressed pocy by shftng the
feedstock from naphtha to LPG.
- Capta requrements woud be greaty mnmzed f LPC does not
have to buy the and for the pro|ect and ts feedstock sha be
mted to naphtha.
- Wth the pant ste n Bataan, the PNOC sha be a partner, thus
gvng the government partcpaton n the management of the
pro|ect nstead of a frm whch s a huge mutnatona corporaton.
3. BOI commtted a grave abuse of dscreton n approvng the
transfer of the petrochemca pant from Bataan to Batangas and
authorzng the change of feedstock from naphtha ony to naphtha
and/or LPG for the man reason that the fna say s n the nvestor
a other crcumstances to the contrary not wthstandng.
- The government has aready granted ncentves for ths partcuar
venture. Through the BOI decson, t surrenders even the power to
make a company abde by ts nta choce, a %ho#%e free from an+
s$s)#%#on of $ns%r$)$lo$s ma%h#nat#ons an& a %ho#%e .h#%h #s
$n&o$/te&l+ #n the /est #nterests of the ;#l#)#no )eo)le.
- Ths s a repudaton of the ndependent pocy of the government
expressed n numerous aws (.e. Art. 2, 1987 Omnbus Investments
Code) and the Consttuton (Sec. 1 and 10, Art. XII; Sec. 19, Art. II)
to run ts own affars the way t deems best for the natona
nterest.
0isposition: Pet#t#on grante&. :e%#s#on set as#&e as n$ll an& *o#&.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
GI!O-&@%I!O D+issentingE
- There s no provson n the 1987 Investments Code prohbtng
the amendment of the nvestors appcaton for regstraton of ts
pro|ect, nether does the aw prohbt the BOI from approvng the
amended appcaton.
- The matter of choosng an approprate ste for the nvestors
pro|ect s a potca and economc decson whch ony the
executve branch, as mpementer of pocy formuated by the
egsature, s empowered to make. It s not for ths Court to
determne what s, or shoud be, the BOIs "fna choce" of pant
ste and feedstock.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.17
- The pettoners recourse aganst the BOIs acton s by an appea
to the Presdent (Sec. 36, 1987 Investments Code), not to ths
Court.
"ELE!CIO-3EE& D+issentingE
- |The ma|orty Decson| has made a sweepng pocy
determnaton and has unwttngy transformed tsef nto what
mght be termed a "government by the |udcary," somethng never
ntended by the framers of the Consttuton when they provded for
separaton of powers among the three co-equa branches of
government and excuded the |udcary from pocy-makng.
#/ 2I: -,4I.-#/5,
#OLE!#I!O V (ECE#&2 O' 'I!&!CE
MENDOZA; August 25, 1994
'&C#(
- These are orgna actons n SC. Certorar and prohbton,
chaengng the consttutonaty of RA 7716.
- RA 7716 seeks to wden the tax base of the exstng VAT system
by amendng Natona Interna Revenue Code.
- Bet |u 22, 1992 and Aug 31, 1993, bs were ntroduced n House
of Reps to amend NIRC reatve to VAT. These were referred to
House Ways and Means Commttee w/c recommended for approva
H No 11197.
- H No. 11197 was consdered on second rdg and was approved by
House of Reps after thrd and fna rdg.
- It was sent to Senate and was referred to the Senate Commttee
on Ways and Means. The Commttee submtted report
recommendng approva of S No 1630, submtted n substtuton of
S No 1129, takng nto consderaton PS Res No 734 and H No
11197
- Senate approved S No 1630 on second rdg, and on thrd rdg by
affrmatve votes of 13 and 1 abstenton.
- H No 11197 and S No 1630 were referred to conference
commttee w/c after meetng 4 tmes, recommended that HB n
consodaton w/ SB be approved n accordance w/ b as reconced
and approved by the conferees.
- The Conference Commttee B was approved by House of Reps
and Senate. The enroed b was presented to Presdent who, on
May 5, 1994 sgned t. It became RA 7716. On May 12, t was
pubshed n 2 newspapers of gen crcuaton and t took effect on
May 28.
- RA 7716 amended 103 and made prnt meda sub|ect to VAT n
a aspect of operatons. However, Sec of Fnance ssued Revenue
Reguatons No. 11-94 exemptng crcuaton ncome of prnt meda.
Income fr advertsements are st sub|ect to VAT.
- Impementaton was suspended unt |un 30 to aow tme for
regstraton of busnesses. Impementaton was stopped by TRO fr
Court, by vote of 11 to 4.
- Pettoners contend:
Re: Art VI Sec 24
1. Athough H No 11197 orgnated fr House of Reps, t was not
passed by Senate but was consodated w/ Senate verson n the
Conference Commttee to produce the b. The verb "sha
orgnate" s quafed by the word "excusvey".
2. The consttutona desgn s to mt Senates power n revenue
bs to compensate for the grant to the Senate of treaty-ratfyng
power.
3. S No 1630 was passed no n substtuton of H No 11197 but of
another Senate b (S No 1129). Senate merey took H No 11197
nto consderaton n enactng S No 1630.
Re: Art VI Sec 26(2)
1. The second and thrd rdgs were on the same day, Mar 24,
1994.
2. The certfcaton of urgency was nvad bec there was no
emergency. The growng budget defct was not an unusua
condton n ths country.
3. Aso, t was S No 1630 that was certfed urgent, not H No
11197.
Re: BCC acted wthn ts power
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'
1. RA 7716 s the b whch the BCC prepared. BCC ncuded
provsons not found n the HB or SB and these were
"surrepttousy" nserted. BCC met behnd cosed doors.
2. Incompete remarks of members are marked n the
stenographc notes by epses.
3. The Rues of the two chambers were dsregarded n
preparaton of BCC Report because Report ddnt contan
"detaed and expct statement of changes"
4. It s requred that the Commttees report undergo three rdgs
n the two houses.
- Pettoner Phppne Arnes Inc contends:
Re: Art VI Sec 26(1)
1. Nether H No 11197 nor S No 1630 provded for remova of
exempton of PAL transactons fr payment of VAT and ths was
made ony by the BCC. Ths was not refected n the tte.
2. Besdes, amendment of PALs franchse may be made ony by
speca aw whch w expressy amend the franchse (24 of PD
1590).
- Pettoner Cooperatve Unon of the Phppnes contends:
Re: Art III Sec 1
1. Wthdrawa of exempton of some cooperatves whe
mantanng that granted to eectrc cooperatves not ony goes
aganst pocy to promote cooperatves but aso voate equa
protecton of aw.
Pettoner Chamber of Rea Estate and Buders Assocaton
contends:
2. VAT w reduce mark up of ts members by as much as 90%.
Pettoner Phppne Press Insttute contends:
3. VAT w drve some of ts members out of crcuaton.
- Pettoner Phppne Press Insttute contends:
Re: Art III Sec 4
1. It questons aw bec exempton prevousy granted to press
under NIRC was wthdrawn. Athough exempton was
subsequenty restored, PPI says theres possbty that
exempton may st be removed by mere revocaton by Secretary
of Fnance.
Aso, there s st unconsttutona abrdgment of press freedom
because of VAT on gross recepts on advertsements.
2. RA 7716 snged out press for dscrmnatory treatment, gvng
broadcast meda favored treatment.
3. Imposng VAT ony on prnt meda whose gross saes exceeds
P480,000 but not more than P750,000 s dscrmnatory.
4. The regstraton provson of the aw s nvad when apped to
the press.
- Pettoner Phppne Bbe Socety contends:
Re: Art III Sec 5
1. Secretary of Fnance has no power to grant tax exempton
because that power s vested n Congress and the Secretarys
duty s to execute the aw and the remova of exempton of
regous artces voates freedom of thought/conscence.
- Pettoner Chamber of Rea Estate and Buders Assocaton
contends:
Re: Art III Sec 10
1. Imposton of VAT voates consttutona provson on no aw
mparng obgaton of contracts
- Pettoner Phppne Educatona Pubshers Assocaton contends:
Re: Art II Sec 17
1. Increase n prce of books and educ materas w voate govt
mandate to prortze educaton
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON theres voaton of Art VI 24 of Const (revenue b
orgnatng excusvey fr House of Reps)
2. WON theres voaton of Art VI 26(2) of Const (three readngs
on separate days)
3. WON the Bcamera Conference Commttee acted wthn ts
power
4. WON theres voaton of Art VI 26(1) of Const (ony one
sub|ect whch s expressed n tte) / WON amendment of 103 of
NIRC s fary embraced n tte of RA 7716 athough no menton s
made theren
S$/stant#*e:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.19
5. WON Art III 1 (deprvaton of fe/berty/property; equa
protecton) s voated
6. WON Art III 4 (freedom of speech/expresson/press) s voated
7. WON Art III 5 (free exercse of regon) s voated
8. WON Art III 10 (no aw mparng obgaton of contracts) s
voated
9. WON Art VI 28(1) (unform/equtabe; evove progressve
system of taxaton) s voated
10. WON Art VI 28(3) (church/parsonage etc. for regous
purpose exempt) s voated
11. WON Art II 17 (govt prorty on educaton, scence and tech)
s voated
3ELD
- Not a are |udcay cognzabe, bec not a Const provsons are
sef executng. Other govt depts. are aso charged w/ enforcement
of Const.
Pro%e&$ral
Whatever doubts there may be as to the forma vadty of the RA
must be resoved n ts favor. An enroed copy of a b s
concusve not ony of ts provsons but aso of ts due enactment.
Ths s not to say that the enroed b doctrne s absoute. But
where aegatons are nothng more than "surrepttousy" nsertng
provsons, SC decnes gong behnd enroed copy of b. SC gves
due respect to other branches of govt.
1. NO there s no voaton of Art VI Sec 24
a. Its not the aw but the revenue b whch s requred to orgnate
excusvey n the House of Reps. A b orgnatng n House may
undergo extensve changes n Senate. To nsst that a revenue
statute (and not the b) must be the same as the House b woud
deny the Senates power to concur wth and propose amendments.
It woud voate coequaty of the egsatve power of the two
houses.
b. Legsatve power s ssue here. Treaty-ratfyng power s not
egsatve power but an exercse of check on executve power.
c. Theres no dfference bet Senate preservng house b then
wrtng ts own verson on one hand and on the other hand,
separatey presentng a b of ts own on the sub|ect matter. Const
smpy says that ts the ntatve for fng the b that must come fr
House of Reps. The Reps are expected to be more senstve to the
oca needs.
Nor does Const prohbt fng n Senate of substtute b n
antcpaton of ts recept of b fr House so ong as acton by
Senate s wthhed pendng recept of House b. It was ony after
Senate rcvd H No 11197 that egsaton n respect of t began w/
referra to Senate Commttee on Ways and Means.
2. NO there s no voaton of Art VI Sec 26(2)
a. It was because Pres certfed S No 1630 as urgent. Ths
certfcaton dspensed w/ prntng and rdg the b on separate
days. The phrase "except when the Presdent certfes to the
necessty." quafes two stated condtons: (1) the b has passed
3 rdgs on separate days and (2) t has been prnted n fna form
and dstrbuted 3 days before fnay approved. To construe that
the "except" cause dspenses ony wth prntng woud voate
grammar rues and woud aso negate the necessty of the
mmedate enactment of the b.
Exampe s RA 5440 whch had 2
nd
and 3
rd
rdgs on the same day
after b had been certfed urgent.
b. No Senator controverted factua bass of the certfcaton and ths
shoud not be rvwd by the Court.
c. It was S No 1630 that Senate was consderng. When matter was
before the House, Pres kewse certfed H No 9210 then pendng.
3. YES the BCC acted wthn ts power
a. "Gve and take" often marks the proceedngs of BCC. There was
aso nothng unusua n the executve sessons of the BCC.
Under congressona rues, BCCs are not expected to make matera
changes but ths s a dffcut provson to enforce. The resut coud
be a thrd verson, consdered an amendment n nature of
substtute, the ony requrement that the 3
rd
verson be germane to
sub|ect of the HB and SB. It s w/n power of BCC to ncude an
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.160
entrey new provson. After a, report of BCC s not fna and st
needed approva of both houses to be vad.
b. Ths coud have been caused by stenographers mtatons or to
ncoherence that sometmes characterze conversatons.
c. Report used brackets and capta etters to ndcate the changes.
Ths s standard practce n b-draftng.
Aso, SC s not proper forum for these nterna rues.
d. If ths were the case, there woud be no end to negotaton snce
each house may seek modfcatons of the compromse b. That
requrement must be construed ony to mean bs ntroduced for
the frst tme n ether house, not the BCC report.
4. NO, there s no voaton of Art VI Sec 26(1)
a. Snce the tte states that the purpose s to expand the VAT
system, one way s to wden the base by wthdrawng some
exemptons. To nsst that PD 1590 n addton to 103 of NIRC be
mentoned n tte, woud be to nsst that tte of a b be a
compete ndex of ts content.
b. That was |ust to prevent amendment by an nconsstent statute.
And under Const, grant of franchse for operaton of pubc utty s
sub|ect to amendment, ateraton, repea by Congress when
common good requres.
S$/stant#*e
- as RA 7716 merey expands base of VAT as provded n the org
VAT aw, debate on wsdom of aw shoud be n Congress.
5. NO there s no cear showng that Art III Sec 1 s voated
- When freedom of the mnd s mpered by aw, t s freedom that
commands respect; when property s mpered, awmakers
|udgment prevas.
a. Ths s actuay a pocy argument.
b. Ths s a mere aegaton.
c. Ths s aso short of evdence.
6. NO Art III Sec a s not voated
a. Theres no voaton of press freedom. The press s not
mmune fr genera reguaton by the State.
b. Its not that t s beng snged out, but ony because of remova
of exempton prevousy granted to t by aw. Aso, the aw woud
be dscrmnatory f the ony prvege wthdrawn s that to the
press. But that s not the case. The statute appes to a wde
range of goods and servces.
c. It has not been shown that the cass sub|ect to tax has been
unreasonaby narrowed. Ths mt does not appy to press aone
but to a saes.
d. The fxed amount of P1000 s for defrayng part of the cost of
regstraton. Regstraton s a centra feature of the VAT system.
It s a mere admnstratve fee, not a fee on exercse of prvege
or rght.
7. NO Art III Sec 5 s not voated
a. Const does not prohbt mposng generay appcabe saes
and use tax on sae of regous materas by regous org.
8. NO Art III Sec 10 s not voated
a. Partes to a contract cant fetter exercse of taxng power of
State. Essenta attrbutes of soveregn s read nto contracts as a
basc postuate of ega order.
9. VAT dstrbutes tax burden to as many goods and svcs as
possbe, partcuary to those w/n reach of hgher ncome grps.
Busness estabshments wth annua gross saes of < P500,000 are
exempted.
Aso, regressvty s not a negatve standard. What s requred s
that we "evove" a progressve taxaton system.
10. Const does not prohbt mposng generay appcabe saes
and use tax on sae of regous materas by regous org.
11. NO there s no voaton of Art II Sec 17
a. Same reason/rato under ssues on free speech/press.
0ecision Pettons are dsmssed.
Notes VAT s eved on sae, barter/exchange of goods and svcs.
Then, ts equa to 10% of gross seng prce
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.161
Nar*asa, Se)arate 2)#n#on
Cr$6, Se)arate 2)#n#on
Pa&#lla, Se)arate 2)#n#on
V#t$g, Se)arate 2)#n#on
>egala&o, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
:a*#&e, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
>omero, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
-ellos#llo, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
P$no, :#ssent#ng 2)#n#on
&.&)&D& G%O P&#2 LI(# V E"I#&
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; September 1, 2005
'&C#(
- The ncreasng budget probems of the government n the form of
fsca probems, revenue generaton, and fsca aocaton
nadequacy prompted the congress to create a aw to address such
probems. Ths gave way to the Expanded Vat Law (E-Vat Law)
otherwse known as Repubc Act No. 9337. The case revoves
around the consttutonaty of the Repubc Act 9337 that ncreased
the Vaue-Added Tax percentage from 10% to 12%. In ths case
there were 4 dfferent pettoners: Abakada Guro Party Lst,
Assocaton of Ppnas She Deaers/Petron/Catex, Senators
Pmente/ Estrada, L./ Estrada, |. / Lacson/ Lm/ Madrga/ Osmea,
Congressman Escudero, and Governor Garca. A of them queston
the consttutonaty of RA 9337.
- Backgrounder on Vaue-Added Tax (VAT):
> VAT s a tax on spendng or consumpton. It s eved on the
sae, barter, exchange, or ease of goods or propertes and
servces.
> It s an ndrect tax on expendture. The seer of goods or
servces may pass on the amount of tax pad to the buyer. VAT s
ntended to fa on the mmedate buyers and end-consumers.
- RA 9337s egsatve hstory s as foows:
It orgnated from House B 3555 that was approved on the 27
th
of
|anuary 2005 and House B 3705 that was approved on the 28
th
of
February 2005 and Senate B 1950 that was approved on the 13
th
of Apr 2005. Ths was ater consodated the Bcamera Conference
Commttee. The Bcamera Conference Commttee nserted and
deeted some of the orgna provsons. The B was approved on
the 11
th
of May 2005 by the Senate and 10
th
of May 2005 by the
House of Representatves.
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON the Bcamera Conference Commttee has strcty comped
wth the rues of both houses thereby remanng wthn the
|ursdcton conferred upon t by congress.
2. WON the Bcamera Conference Commttee voated Artce VI
Sec 26 that states that no amendment woud be done after three
readngs.
3. WON there was a voaton of the Orgnaton Cause as stated n
Art VI Sec 24.
S$/stant#*e
4. WON there was undue deegaton to the Presdent and Secretary
of Fnance.
5. WON a VAT aw such as that of RA 9337 s n voaton of the
Consttutona provson Art VI Sec 28 (1) that requres taxaton to
be unform, equtabe and that the Congress sha evove a
progressve system of taxaton.
3ELD
1. The Supreme Court decded that t woud not rue on the
voaton of the senate and house rues uness there s a showng
that t s n cear voaton of a consttutona provson or of the
rghts of prvate ndvduas. (favorte rato )
2. No, because the amendment rue refers ony to the procedure to
be foowed by each house of Congress wth regard to bs n each
of the sad respectve houses before the b s transmtted to the
other house for ts concurrence and amendment.
3. No, the Senate wthn the sad provson ony proposed
amendments after the House Bs were approved. The B st
orgnated through the House of Representatves.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.162
4. No, because the Presdent s |ust executng the aw and s st
workng wthn the standard and pocy of the aw. The Secretary of
Fnance s aso not gven undue deegaton as he s consdered as
an ater ego of the presdent thus foowng the same ogc, he s
ony executng the aw.
5. Whe the VAT s currenty not yet progressve t st s drected
towards a goa of a progressve taxaton.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&!G&!I.&!
Sectons 1, 2, and 3 of RA 9337 s unconsttutona as 1) the
ncrease of tax rates on domestc, resdent foregn and nonresdent
foregn corporatons, 2) the ncrease of tax credt aganst taxes due
from nonresdent foregn corporatons on ntercorporate dvdends,
and 3) the reducton of the aowabe deducton for nterest
expense were not reay part of the House verson of the E-VAT Law
therefore n voaton of the orgnaton cause n Artce VI Secton
24.
.E!G4O! V (E!&#E .L%E I..O! CO""I##EE
PADILLA; November 20, 1991
'&C#(
- Petton for prohbton to revew the decson of the Senate Bue
Rbbon Commttee
- 7/30/1987: RP, represented by the Presdenta Commsson on
Good Government (PCGG), fed w/ the Sandganbayan the cv
case no. 0035, "RP vs. Ben|amn Kokoy Romuadez, et a."
-The compant aeges that defendants Ben|amn and |uette
Romuadez took advantage of ther reatonshp w/ Defendants
Ferdnand and Imeda Marcos to engage n schemes to enrch
themseves at the expense of the
Pantff and the Fpno Peope, among others:
-obtanng contro over Meraco, Benguet Mnng Co., She, PCI
Bank, etc., seng nterests to PNI Hodngs, Inc. (corporators,
Bengzon Law Offces), the conceament of the assets sub|ect to the
compant from the PCGG under the ve of corporate dentty, etc.
8/2-6/1988: reports crcuate of the sae of the Romuadez
companes for 5M (far beow market vaue) wthout PCGG approva
to the Rcardo Lopa Group, owned by Pres. Aqunos brother-n-aw,
Rcardo Lopa
-Sen. Enre caed upon the Senate to nvestgate a possbe
voaton of S5 of RA 3019 or the 0nt#-9raft an& Corr$)t Pra%t#%es
0%t w/c prohbts any reatve of the Presdent by affnty or
consangunty up to the 3
rd
cv degree, to ntervene n any
transacton w/ the government
-the matter was referred to the Senate Commttee on
Accountabty of Pubc Offcers (Bue Rbbon Commttee)
-the Commttee subpoenaed the pettoners and Rcardo Lopa to
testfy on "what they know" about the sae of the 36 Romuadez
corporatons
-at the hearng, Lopa and Bengzon decned to testfy, the former
nvokng the due process cause, and both averrng that such
testmones woud "unduy pre|udce" the defendants of cv case
no.0035
-pettoners thus fed the present petton for prohbton, prayng
for a temporary restranng order and/or n|unctve reef, camng
that the Commttee acted n excess of ts |ursdcton and egsatve
purpose
-the Commttee cams that the Court cannot en|on the Congress or
ts commttees from makng nqures n ad of egsaton, under the
doctrne of separaton of powers (quotng 0ngara *. Comele%)
-the Court fnds ths contenton untenabe and s of the vew that t
has the |ursdcton to demt consttutona boundares and
determne the scope and extent of the power of the Bue Rbbon
Commttee
I((%E(
1. WON the Bue Rbbon Commttees nqury s n ad of
egsaton.
2. WON Congress s encroachng on the excusve doman of
another branch of government.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.16(
3. WON the nqury voates the pettoners rght to due
process.
3ELD
1. NO Bue Rbbon Commttees nqury s not n ad of egsaton
- Sen. Enres nqury merey ntended to fnd out WON Rcardo
Lopa had any part n the aeged sae of the Romuadez
corporatons-there was no ntended egsaton as requred by A6
S21 of the consttuton. As hed n 1ean 5. 0rna$lt *. 5eon Na6areno
et al., the nqury must be matera or necessary to the exercse of
a power vested n the Commttee by the Consttuton. In Aat=#ns *.
ES t was hed that Congress power of nqury s broad but mted,
that s, t may not pry nto prvate affars f such actons are not n
furtherance of a egtmate task of congress-no nqury s an end n
tsef.
2. YES Congress s encroachng on the excusve doman of another
branch of government
- Snce the ssue had been pre-empted by the Sandganbayan, any
further nvestgaton by Congress woud ony serve to compcate
matters and produce confctng opnons-as hed n -arem/latt *.
ES, Congress cannot nqure nto matters w/c are excusvey the
concern of the |udcary.
3. YES the nqury voates the pettoners rght to due process
- It has been hed that "a congressona commttees rght to nqure
s sub|ect to a reevant mtatons paced by the Consttuton on
governmenta acton, ncudng.the B of Rghts". As hed n
8$t%heson *. ES, t cant be assumed that egsatve purpose s
aways |ustfed by pubc need; Congress cannot tread on prvate
rghts. The doctrne n Ca/al *. ?a)$nan states that the
Consttutona rght aganst sef-ncrmnaton extends to a
proceedngs sanctoned by aw and n cases n w/c the wtness s an
accused.
0isposition the pettoners may not be compeed by the
Commttee to appear, testfy, and produce evdence before t
because such nqures woud not be n ad of egsaton and f
pursued, woud be voatve of the prncpe separaton of powers
between the egsatve and the |udca departments, as ordaned
by the Consttuton. The petton s GRANTED.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
G%#IEE4 D+issentE
e- 7O! t*e .lue i66on CommitteeAs inLuir1 is in ai+ o/
legislation.
-the power of Congress to conduct nvestgatons s nherent and
needs no textua grant-even so, t s expressy granted by A6 S21.
-ars=+ *. ES: the possbty that nvad as we as vad egsaton
mght ensue from an nqury does not mt the power of nqury
ES *. :e$t%h: Congress has the rght to secure nformaton n order
to determne WON to egsate on a partcuar sub|ect matter on w/c
t s w/n ts consttutona powers to act.
ES *. 2rman: where the nformaton sought concerns what
Congress can egsate, a egtmate egsatve purpose must be
presumed.
-the requrement that an nqury be "n ad of egsaton" s easer
to estabsh here where Congress egsatve fed s unmted
unke n the US. Aso, t s not necessary that every queston be
matera to the proposed egsaton, but drecty reated to the
sub|ect of the nqury.
-the egsatve purpose s dstncty dfferent from the |udca
purpose; Congress may nvestgate for ts own purposes even
thought the sub|ects of the nvestgaton are currenty under tra.
e- 7O! t*e inLuir1 violates t*e petitionersA rig*t to +ue
pro0ess.
-A6 S21 provdes that "the rghts of persons appearng n or
affected by such nqures sha be respected."
However, such a restrcton does not ca for the compete
prohbton of such nvestgatons where a voaton of a basc rght
s camed, but rather ony requres that such rghts be res)e%te&.
-the rght aganst sef-ncrmnaton may ony be nvoked when
ncrmnatng questons are posed, but the wtness may not refuse
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.164
to take the wtness stand competey. In the case at bar, no
ncrmnatng questons had been asked, hence the aegaton of
voaton of rghts s premature.
C%4 D+issentE
e- 7O! t*e .lue i66on CommitteeAs inLuir1 is in ai+ o/
legislation.
0rna$lt *. Na6areno: the Court s bound to presume that an acton
of a egsatve body s w/ egtmate ob|ect f t s capabe of beng
so construed, and It has no rght to assume the contrary.
-an nqury nto the expendture of a pubc money, n ths case,
the possbe voaton of RA 3019 n the dsposton of the
Romuadez corporatons, s an ndspensabe duty of the egsature
M%gra#n *. :a$ghert+: t s not necessary that the resouton
orderng an nvestgaton .expressy state that the ob|ect of the
nqury s to obtan data n ad of proposed egsaton
e- 7O! t*e inLuir1 violates t*e petitionersA rig*t to +ue
pro0ess.
-the pettoners are not facng crmna charges; as ordnary
wtnesses, they may ony nvoke the rght aganst sef-ncrmnaton
ony when such a queston s posed, and cannot refuse takng the
wtness stand outrght.
(E!&#E V E"I#&
CARPIO-MORALES;
'&C#(
- ths s a consodaton of varous pettons for certorar and
prohbton chaengng the consttutonaty of E.O. no. 464
33
ssued
Sept. 28, 2005
- Const# Pro*#s#ons allege&l+ *#olate&- Art. VI Sec. 1, 21, 22,; Art. III
Sec. 4, 7; Art. II Sec. 28; Art. XI Sec 1; Art. XIII Sec. 16
33
E.O. 464 "Ensurng observance of the prncpe of separaton of powers, adherence to the rue on e:e0utive
privilege and respect for the rghts of pubc offcas appearng n egsatve nqures n ad of egsaton under
the Consttuton, and for other purposes."
- Between Sept. of 2005 to Feb. 2006, varous Senate Investgaton
Commttees ssued nvtatons to varous offcas of the Executve
Dept. ncudng the AFP and PNP for them to appear n pubc
hearngs on nqures concernng many: (A) The aeged
overprcng n the NorthRa Pro|ect (B) the Wre-Tappng actvty (C)
the Fertzer scam (D) the Venabe contract
- The respectve offcas of the Executve Dept. fed requests for
postponement of hearngs for varyng reasons such as exstence of
urgent operatona matters, more tme to prepare a more
comprehensve report, etc. Sen. Dron, however, dd not accede to
ther requests because the requests were sent beatedy and that
preparatons and arrangements have aready been competed.
- On Sept. 28, 2005, Pres. Arroyo ssued E.O. 464 whch took effect
mmedatey. Ctng E.O. 464, the Executve Dept. offcas sub|ect
to Senate nvestgatons camed that they were not aowed to
appear before any Senate or Congressona hearngs wthout
consent (wrtten approva) from the Presdent, whch had not been
granted unto them; ther nabty to attend due to ack of
approprate cearance from the Pres. pursuant to E.O. 464.
Thereafter, severa cases were fed chaengng E.O. 464 and
prayng for the ssuance of a TRO en|onng respondents from
mpementng, enforcng, and observng the assaed order.
Respondent Executve Secretary Ermta et a., prayed for dsmssa
of pettons for ack of mert.
I((%E(
Pr#mar+ 7ss$e
1. WON E.O. 464 contravenes the power of nqury vested n the
Congress
Se%on&ar+ 7ss$es
2. |ustcabty of the case:
a. Lega standng of pettoners:
G.R. 169777 Senate of the Phs.
G.R. 169659 BAYANMUNA, COURAGE, CODAL
G.R. 169660 Francsco Chavez
G.R. 169667 Aternatve Law Groups (ALG)
G.R. 169834 PDP-Laban
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.16
G.R. 121246 Integrated Bar of the Phs. (IBP)
b. Actua Case or Controversy
3. WON E.O. 464 voates the rght of the peope to nformaton on
matters of pubc concern.
4. WON respondents have commtted grave abuse of dscreton
when they mpemented E.O. 464 pror to ts pubcaton n a
newspaper of genera crcuaton.

3ELD
Pr#mar+ 7ss$e
1. atio It s mpermssbe to aow the executve branch to
wthhod nformaton sought by the Congress n ad of egsaton,
wthout t assertng a rght to do so, and wthout statng reasons
therefor.
- 0ltho$gh the e,e%$t#*e :e)t. en3o+s the )o.er of e,e%$t#*e
)r#*#lege, Congress nonetheless has the r#ght to =no. .h+ the
e,e%$t#*e &e)t. %ons#&ers re4$este& #nformat#on )r#*#lege&. E.2.
464 allo.s the e,e%$t#*e /ran%h to e*a&e %ongress#onal re4$ests
for #nformat#on .#tho$t the nee& of %learl+ assert#ng a r#ght to &o
so an&Cor )roffer#ng #ts reasons therefor. -+ mere e,)e&#ent of
#n*o=#ng )ro*#s#ons of E.2. 464, the )o.er of Congress #s
fr$strate&. >esort to an+ means /+ .h#%h off#%#als of the e,e%$t#*e
/ran%h %o$l& ref$se to &#*$lge #nformat#on %annot /e )res$me& to
/e *al#&.
easonin;
Executve Prvege
-The power of the Presdent and other hgh-eve executve branch
offcers to wthhod certan types of nformaton of a senstve
character from Congress, the courts and the pubc.
- The Power of Inqury (n ad of egsaton) Art. VI Sec.21
Ths s the power of the Legsature to make nvestgatons and
exact testmony that t may exercse ts egsatve functons
advsedy and effectvey. It gves the Congress the power to
compe the appearance of executve offcas to compy wth ts
demands for nformaton.
- Inqury n Art. VI Sec. 22 (queston hour)
As determned from the deberatons of the Consttutona
Commsson, ths provson was ntended to be dstngushed from
#n4$#r#es #n a#& of leg#slat#on, n that attendance here s merey
dscretonary on the part of the department heads.
- Sec. 1 of E.O. 464
Its requrement to secure presdenta consent, mted ony to
executve dept. heads and to appearances n the queston hour
(because of ts specfc reference to sec. 22 of art VI) makes t vad
on ts face.
- Sec. 2 (a) of E.O. 464
It merey provdes gudenes bndng ony on the heads of offce
mentoned n secton 2(b), on what s covered by the executve
prvege. It does not purport to be concusve on the other
branches of government. It may be construed as a mere expresson
of opnon by the Pres. regardng the nature and scope of executve
prvege.
- Sec. 2 (b) of E.O. 464
Provdes that once the head of offce determnes that a certan nfo.
s prveged, such determnaton s presumed to bear the
Presdents authorty and has the effect of prohbtng the offca
from appearng before Congress, ony to the express
pronouncement of the Pres. that t s aowng the appearance of
such offca. It aows the Pres. to authorze cams of prvege by
mere sence, and such presumptve authorzaton s contrary to the
exceptona nature of the prvege. Due to the fact that executve
prvege s of extraordnary power, the Pres. may not authorze ts
subordnates to exercse t. Such power must be weded ony by
the hghest offca n the executve herarchy.
- Sec. 3 of E.O. 464
Requres a pubc offcas enumerated n secton 2(b) to secure
the consent of the Presdent pror to appearng before ether house
of Congress. The enumeraton s broad. It s nvad per se. In so far
as t does not assert but merey mpes the cam of executve
prvege. It does not provde precse and certan reasons for the
cam. Mere nvocaton of E.O. 464 couped wth an announcement
that the Presdent has not gven her consent, s woefuy nsuffcent
for Congress to determne whether the wthhodng of nformaton s
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.166
|ustfed under the crcumstances of each case, severey frustratng
ts power of nqury.
Se%on&ar+ 7ss$es
2. a. Regardng Lega Standng of pettoners:
Rue 1: Legsators have standng to mantan nvoate the
prerogatve, powers and prveges vested by the Consttuton n
ther offce and are aowed to sue to queston the vadty of
any offca acton whch they cam nfrnges upon ther
prerogatves as egsators.
Rue 2: To be accorded standng on the ground of
transcendenta mportance there must be a showng of: 1. the
character of the funds (pubc)/assets nvoved 2. a cear case of
dsregard of a consttutona or statutory prohbton 3. ack of a
party wth a more drect and specfc nterest n rasng the
questons rased.
#*e (enate o/ t*e P*ilippines
- The Senate, ncudng ts ndvdua members, by vrtue of ther
fundamenta rght for ntegent pubc decson-makng and sound
egsaton s the proper party to assa an executve order whch
aegedy stfes the abty of the members of Congress to access
nformaton cruca to aw-makng. It has a substanta and drect
nterest over the outcome of such a controversy.
Part1 List (.a1an"una5 CO%&GE5 COD&L)
- The party-st representatves have standng, t s suffcent that a
cam s made that E.O. 464 nfrnges on ther consttutona rghts
and dutes as members of Congress to conduct nvestgatons n ad
of egsaton and conduct oversght functons n the
mpementaton of aws.
I.P5 C*ave,5 &LG (nvokng rght to nfo. on matters of pubc
concern)
- When sung as a ctzen, the nterest of the pettoner n assang
the consttutonaty of aws must be drect and persona. The Court
hed n Francsco v. Francsco that when a proceedng nvoves
asserton of a pubc rght, the mere fact that the person fng s a
ctzen satsfes the requrement of persona nterest.
PDP-La6an (camng standng due to the transcendenta
mportance of ssue)
- There beng no pubc funds nvoved and there beng partes wth
more drect and specfc nterest n the controversy (the Senate and
BayanMuna), gves PDP-Laban no standng.
b. Actua case or controversy (was not taken up by the Court)
- A chaenged order whch has aready produced resuts
consequent to ts mpementaton and where such resuts are the
sub|ect of questons of consttutonaty, s rpe for ad|udcaton.
- The mpementaton of E.O. 464 has resuted n the offcas
excusng themseves from attendng the Senate hearngs. It woud
be sheer abandonment of duty f the Court woud refran from
passng upon the consttutonaty of E.O. 464.
3. Yes. Congressona nvestgatons n ad of egsaton are
presumed to be a matter of pubc concern, therefore, t foows
that any executve ssuance tendng to unduy mt dscosures of
nformaton n such nvestgatons deprves the peope of
nformaton.
4. Yes. Athough E.O. 464 appes ony to offcas of the executve
branch, t has a drect effect on the rght of the peope to
nformaton on matters of pubc concern therefore t s not exempt
from the need of pubcaton. Due process requres that the peope
shoud have been apprsed of the ssuance of E.O. 464 before t was
mpemented.
0ecision Pettons are P&#L2 G&!#ED. Sectons 2(b) and 3 of
E.O. 464 are decared vod whe sectons 1 and 2(a) are VALID.
G%I!GO!& V C&&G%E
GANCAYCO; Apr 22, 1991
'&C#(
- The 1990 budget conssted of P98.4B n automatc appropraton
(86.8 gong to debt servce) and P155.3 from the Genera
Appropratons Act or a tota of P233.5B; ony P27B was aotted for
DECS. Pettoners, as members of the Senate, queston the
consttutonaty of the automatc appropraton for debt servce n
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.167
the sad budget as provded for by Presdenta Decrees 81, 117,
and 1967.
- Pettoners aege that the aotted budget runs contrary to Sec.
5(5), Art. XIV of the Consttuton. And as provded by Art. 7 of the
Cv Code, when statutes run contrary to the Consttuton, t sha
be vod.
- They further contend that the Presdenta Decrees are no onger
operatve snce they became f$n%t$s of#%#o after Presdent Marcos
was ousted. Wth a new congress repacng the one man-
egsature, new egsaton regardng appropraton shoud be
passed. Current appropraton, operatng on no aws therefore,
woud be unenforceabe.
- Moreover, they contend that assumng arguendo that the sad
decrees dd not expre wth the ouster of Marcos, after adopton of
the 1987 Consttuton, sad decrees were nconsstent wth Sec. 24,
Artce VI of the Consttuton whch stated that:
Sec. 24. A appropraton, revenue or tarff bs, bs
authorzng ncrease of the pubc debt, bs of oca
appcaton, and prvate bs sha orgnate excusvey n the
House of Representatves, but the Senate may propose or
concur wth amendments.
whereby bs have to be approved by the Presdent, then a aw
must be passed by Congress to authorze sad automatc
appropraton. Further, pettoners state sad decrees voate
Secton 29(1) of Artce VI of the Consttuton whch provdes as
foows
Sec. 29(1). No money sha be pad out of the Treasury
except n pursuance of an appropraton made by aw.
They assert that there must be defnteness, certanty and
exactness n an appropraton, otherwse t s an undue deegaton
of egsatve power to the Presdent who determnes n advance
the amount approprated for the debt servce.
- SoGen argues, on the other hand, that automatc appropraton
provdes fexbty: ". . . Frst, for exampe, t enabes the
Government to take advantage of a favorabe turn of market
condtons by redeemng hgh nterest securtes and borrowng at
ower rates, or to shft from short-term to ong-term nstruments, or
to enter nto arrangements that coud ghten our outstandng debt
burden debt-to-equty, debt-to-asset, debt-to-debt or other such
schemes. Second, the automatc appropraton obvates the serous
dffcutes n debt servcng arsng from any devaton from what
has been prevousy programmed. The annua debt servce
estmates, whch are usuay made one year n advance, are based
on a mathematca set or matrx or, n ayman's parance, `basket'
of foregn exchange and nterest rate assumpton's whch may
sgnfcanty dffer from actua rates not even n proporton to
changes on the bass of the assumptons. Absent an automatc
appropraton cause, the Phppne Government has to awat and
depend upon Congressona acton, whch by the tme ths comes,
may no onger be responsve to the ntended condtons whch n
the meantme may have aready drastcay changed. In the
meantme, aso, deayed payments and arrearages may have
supervened, ony to worsen our debt servce-to-tota expendture
rato n the budget due to penates and/or demand for mmedate-
payment even before due dates.
- Ceary, the cam that payment of the oans and ndebtedness s
condtoned upon the contnuance of the person of Presdent
Marcos and hs egsatve power goes aganst the ntent and
purpose of the aw. The purpose s foreseen to subsst wth or
wthout the person of Marcos."
I((%E(
1. WON appropraton of P86.8B for debt servce as compared to ts
appropraton of P27.7B for educaton n voaton of Sec. 5(5),
Artce XIV of the Consttuton.
The State sha assgn the hghest budgetary prorty to
educaton and ensure that teachng w attract and retan ts
rghtfu share of the best avaabe taents through adequate
remuneraton and other means of |ob satsfacton and
fufment.
2. WON the Presdenta Decrees are st operatve, and f they are,
do they voate Sec. 29 (1), Artce VI of the Consttutona.
3. WON there was undue deegaton of egsatve power by
automatc appropraton.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.16'
3ELD
1. The Court dsagrees that Congress hands are hamstrung
by the provson provded. There are other mperatves of
natona nterest that t must attend to; the amount aotted to
educaton, 27.8B, s the hghest n a department budgets
thereby compyng wth the mandate of havng the hghest
prorty as stated above. The enormous natona debt,
ncurred by the prevous admnstraton, however, st needs
to be pad. Not ony for the sake of honor but because the
natona economy s tsef at stake. Thus, f Congress aotted
more for debt servce such an appropraton cannot be
consdered by ths Court as unconsttutona.
2. Yes, they are st operatve. The transtory provson provded n
Sec. 3, Artce XVIII of the Consttuton recognzes that:
A exstng aws, decrees, executve orders,
procamatons, etters of nstructons and other executve
ssuances not nconsstent wth the Consttuton sha
reman operatve unt amended, repeaed or revoked.
- Ths transtory provson of the Consttuton has precsey been
adopted by ts framers to preserve the soca order so that
egsaton by the then Presdent Marcos may be recognzed. Such
aws are to reman n force and effect uness they are nconsstent
wth the Consttuton or are otherwse amended, repeaed or
revoked.
- We-known s the rue that repea or amendment by mpcaton s
frowned upon. Equay fundamenta s the prncpe that
constructon of the Consttuton and aw s generay apped
prospectvey and not retrospectvey uness t s so ceary stated.
3. No. The egsatve ntenton n R.A. No. 4860, as amended,
Secton 31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 s that the amount
needed shoud be automatcay set asde n order to enabe the
Repubc of the Phppnes to pay the prncpa, nterest, taxes and
other norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or ndebtedness
ncurred as guaranteed by t when they sha become due wthout
the need to enact a separate aw appropratng funds therefore as
the need arses. The purpose of these aws s to enabe the
government to make prompt payment and/or advances for a oans
to protect and mantan the credt standng of the country.
- Athough the sub|ect presdenta decrees do not state specfc
amounts to be pad, necesstated by the very nature of the probem
beng addressed, the amounts nevertheess are made certan by
the egsatve parameters provded n the decrees. The Executve s
not of unmted dscreton as to the amounts to be dsbursed for
debt servcng. The mandate s to pay ony the prncpa, nterest,
taxes and other norma bankng charges on the oans, credts or
ndebtedness, or on the bonds, debentures or securty or other
evdences of ndebtedness sod n nternatona markets ncurred by
vrtue of the aw, as and when they sha become due. No
uncertanty arses n executve mpementaton as the mt w be
the exact amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
C%4 D+issentE
He sees that an essenta requrement for vad appropraton s that
the sum authorzed for reease shoud be determnate or
determnabe. The Presdenta Decrees do not satsfy ths
requrement. As to the ponencas reference to "egsatve
parameters provded by aw", Cruz says no such reguatory
boundares exst.
P&DILL& D+issentE
- He agrees wth Cruz but furthers the argument by sayng that Sec.
29(1)Artce VI mpes that a aw enacted by Congress (and
approved by the Presdent) appropratng a partcuar sum or sums
must be made before payment from the Treasury can be made.
Laws shoud be construed n ght of current aws and not those
made by a one-man egsatve branch.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.169
- Besdes, these decrees ssued by Presdent Marcos reatve to
debt servce were taored for the perods covered by sad decrees.
Today t s Congress that shoud determne and approve the proper
appropratons for debt servcng, as ths s a matter of pocy that,
n hs opnon, pertans to the egsatve department, as the pocy-
determnng body of the Government.
P3ILIPPI!E CO!(#I#%#IO! &((OCI&#IO! V E!I@%E4
OUIASON; August 19, 1994
'&C#(
- House B No. 10900, the Genera Appropraton B of 1994 (GAB
of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on
December 17, 1993.
- On December 30, 1993, the Presdent sgned the b nto aw, and
decared the same to have become Repubc Act No. 7663
34
, the
Genera Appropraton Act (GAA) of 1994. On the same day, the
Presdent devered hs Presdenta Veto Message, specfyng the
provsons of the b he vetoed and on whch he mposed certan
condtons. No step was taken n ether House of Congress to
overrde the vetoes.
- In G.. !o. 11M1J5, Phppne Consttuton Assocaton
(PHILCONSA) et a. prayed for a wrt of prohbton to decare as
unconsttutona and vod: (a) Artce 41 on the Countrywde
Deveopment Fund or "pork barres," the speca provson n Artce
I entted Reagnment of Aocaton for Operatona Expenses, (b)
Artce 48 on the Appropraton for Debt Servce or the amount
approprated under sad Artce 48 n excess of the P37.9 B
aocated for the DECS; and (c) the veto of the Presdent of the
Speca Provson of Artce 48 of the GAA of 1994
- In G.. !o. 11M1HG, 16 Senators queston: (1) the
consttutonaty of the condtons mposed by the Presdent n the
tems of the GAA of 1994: (a) for the Supreme Court, (b)
Commsson on Audt (COA), (c) Ombudsman, (d) Commsson on
Human Rghts, (CHR), (e) Ctzen Armed Forces Geographca Unts
34
Entted "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
FROM |ANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES"
(CAFGU's) and (f) State Unverstes and Coeges (SUC's); and (2)
the consttutonaty of the veto of the speca provson n the
appropraton for debt servce.
- In G.. !o. 11MH88, Senators Romuo and Taada together wth
the Freedom from Debt Coaton, a non-stock domestc
corporaton, sued as taxpayers, chaengng the consttutonaty of
the Presdenta veto of the speca provson n the appropratons
for debt servce and the automatc appropraton of funds therefor.
- In G.. !o. 11M;;;, Senators Romuo and Taada contest the
consttutonaty of: (1) the veto on four speca provsons added to
tems n the GAA of 1994 for the Armed Forces of the Phppnes
(AFP) and the Department of Pubc Works and Hghways (DPWH);
and (2) the condtons mposed by the Presdent n the
mpementaton of certan appropratons for the CAFGU's, the
DPWH, and the Natona Housng Authorty (NHA).
- In vew of the mportance and novety of most of the ssues rased
n the four pettons, the Court nvted former Chef |ustce Enrque
M. Fernando and former Assocate |ustce Irene Cortes as Amcus
Curae.
G.. !o. 11M1J5
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON the pettoners have ega standng
35
S$/stant#*e
2. WON the Countrywde Deveopment Fund (CDF) or "pork barres"
s an encroachment by the egsature on executve power, snce
sad power n an appropraton act s n mpementaton of a aw
3. WON the act of Congress gvng debt servce and not educaton
36
as the hghest prorty n the aocaton of budget unconsttutona
4. WON the speca provson aowng a member of Congress to
reagn hs aocaton for operatona expenses to any other expense
35
Whe the Soctor Genera dd not queston the ocus stand of pettoners n G.R. No. 113105, he camed that
the remedy of the Senators n the other pettons s potca (.e., to overrde the vetoes) n effect sayng that
they do not have the requste ega standng to brng the suts.
36
Artce XIV Secton 5(5) of the 1987 Consttuton states that: "The State sha assgn the h#ghest /$&getar+
)r#or#t+ to e&$%at#on and ensure that teachng w attract and retan ts rghtfu share of the best avaabe
taents through adequate remuneraton and other means of |ob satsfacton and fufment."
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.170
category s unconsttutona, as t s contrary to Artce VI Secton
25(5) of the 1987 Consttuton
37
3ELD
Pro%e&$ral
1. A member of Congress has the ega standng to queston the
vadty of a presdenta veto or any other act of the Executve
whch n|ures the nsttuton of Congress.
easonin;: Ponenca reed on precedent (9on6ales *. Ma%ara#g!
and a US case (En#te& States *. 0mer#%an "el. S "el. Co! as
secondary source to recognze ega standng. Then n formng the
rato decdend, t agan reed on US cases as secondary sources
(Coeman v. Mer, Hotzman v. Schesnger) as we as the opnon
of |ustce Fernando as Amcus Curae.
S$/stant#*e
2. The power of appropraton odged n Congress carres wth t the
power to specfy the pro|ect or actvty to be funded under the
appropraton aw. It can be as detaed and as broad as Congress
wants t to be.
easonin;: The CDF s expct that t sha be used "for
nfrastructure, purchase of ambuances and computers and other
prorty pro|ects and actvtes and credt factes to quafed
benefcares." It was Congress tsef that determned the purposes
for the appropraton. Executve functon under the CDF nvoves
mpementaton of the prorty pro|ects specfed n the aw. The
authorty gven to the members of Congress s ony to propose and
dentfy pro|ects to be mpemented by the Presdent. Hence, under
Artce 48 of the GAA of 1994, f the proposed pro|ects quafy for
fundng under the CDF, t s the Presdent who sha mpement
them. In short, the proposas and dentfcatons made by the
members of Congress are merey recommendatory.
3. The consttutona provson whch drects the State sha assgn
the hghest budgetary prorty to educaton s merey drectory.
3<
"No aw sha be passed authorzng any transfer of appropratons; however, the Presdent, the Presdent of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatves, the Chef |ustce of the Supreme Court, and the heads
of Consttutona Commssons may, by aw, be authorzed to augment any tem n the genera appropratons aw
for ther respectve offces from savngs n other tems of ther respectve appropratons."
easonin;: It reed on precedence, 9$#ngona, 1r. *. Carag$e.
Whe t s true that under Secton 5(5), Artce XIV of the
Consttuton, Congress s mandated to "assgn the hghest
budgetary prorty to educaton" t does not thereby foow that
Congress s deprved of ts power to respond to the mperatves of
the natona nterest and for the attanment of other state poces
or ob|ectves.
4. The members ony determne the necessty of the reagnment of
the savngs n the aotments for ther operatng expenses but t s
the Senate Presdent and the Speaker of the House of
Representatves who sha approve the reagnment.
0ecision
Pro%e&$ral
1. Pettoners, as members of Congress have ocus stand
S$/stant#*e
2. No. The CDF s not an encroachment by the egsature on
executve power, hence consttutona
3. No. Congress act s not unconsttutona. It smpy exercses ts
power to respond to the mperatves of the natona nterest and for
the attanment of other state poces or ob|ectves.
4. No. It s not unconsttutona.
G.. !o. 11M1J5
G.. !o. 11M1HG
I((%E
WON veto of the speca provson of Artce 48 of the GAA of 1994
n the appropraton for debt servce wthout vetong the entre
P86.3 B for sad purpose s unconsttutona
2r, s#m)l+ )$t@ WON the Presdent exceeded the tem-veto power
accorded by the Consttuton
38
3ELD
38
Artce VI Secton 27(2) of the 1987 Consttuton states that: "The Presdent sha have the power to veto any
partcuar tem or tems n an appropraton, revenue, or tarff b, but veto sha mot affect the tem or tems to
whch he does not ob|ect."
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.171
Any provson whch does not reate to any partcuar tem, or whch
extends n ts operaton beyond an tem of appropraton, s
consdered "an napproprate provson"
39
whch can be vetoed
separatey from an tem.
easonin;: The ssue, accordng to the ponenca s a mere rehash
of the one put to rest n 9on6ales *. Ma%ara#g, 1r. Hence, t used
ths case as precedent. It aso cted another case, 8enr+ *. E&.ar&s
to support ts rato. Ctng 9on6ales@ As the Consttuton s expct
that the provson whch Congress can ncude n an appropratons
b must "reate specfcay to some partcuar appropraton
theren" and "be mted n ts operaton to the appropraton to
whch t reates," t foows that any provson whch does not reate
to any partcuar tem, or whch extends n ts operaton beyond an
tem of appropraton, s consdered "an napproprate provson"
whch can be vetoed separatey from an tem. Ctng 8enr+ *.
E&.ar&s: When the egsature nserts napproprate provsons n a
genera appropraton b, such provsons must be treated as
'tems' for purposes of the Governor's (Presdents) tem veto power
over genera appropraton bs.
0ecision
Yes. The Presdent vetoed the entre paragraph 1 of the Speca
Provson of the tem on debt servce, ncudng the provsos that
the appropraton authorzed n sad tem "sha be used for
payment of the prncpa and nterest of foregn and domestc
ndebtedness" and that "n no case sha ths fund be used to pay
for the abtes of the Centra Bank Board of Lqudators." The sad
provsos, beng approprate provsons snce they germane to and
have a drect connecton wth the tem on debt servce, cannot be
vetoed separatey. Hence the tem veto of sad provsons s vod.
G.. !o. 11M1HG
G.. !o. 11MH88
G.. !o. 11M;;;
39
Aso ncuded n the category of "napproprate provsons" whch are ntended to amend our aws, because
ceary these aws have no pace n an appropratons b, and therefore unconsttutona.
I((%E(
1. WON the veto for revovng funds of State Unverstes and
Coeges (SUCs) s unconsttutona
2. WON the veto of the provson n the appropraton for the
Department of Pubc Works and Hghways on 70%
(admnstratve) / 30% (contract) rato for road mantenance s
unconsttutona
3. WON the veto of the provson on purchase of medcnes by AFP
s unconsttutona
4. WON the veto of speca provsons on pror approva of Congress
for purchase of mtary equpment s unconsttutona
5. WON the veto of provson on use of savngs to augment AFP
penson funds s unconsttutona
6. WON the Presdents drectve that the mpementaton of the
Speca Provson to the tem on the CAFGU's sha be sub|ect to
pror Presdenta approva s tantamount to an admnstratve
embargo of the congressona w to mpement the Consttuton's
command to dssove the CAFGU's, therefore unconsttutona
(Issue on Impoundment
40
)
7. WON veto of the Presdent settng condtons or gudenes n the
appropratons for the Supreme Court, Ombudsman, COA, DPWH
and CHR s unconsttutona
3ELD
|1| to |5| Any provson whch does not reate to any partcuar
tem, or whch extends n ts operaton beyond an tem of
appropraton, s consdered "an napproprate provson" whch can
be vetoed separatey from an tem
41
easonin;: Same rato decdend from the ssue n the prevous
secton s apped n the 5 ssues n ths secton. Hence the
reasonng for the rato s the same as we. (Notce how the rato s
apped n the rung or dspostve)
40
Ths s the frst case before ths Court where the power of the Presdent to mpound s put n ssue.
7m)o$n&ment refers to a refusa by the Presdent, for whatever reason, to spend funds made avaabe by
Congress. It s the faure to spend or obgate budget authorty of any type (Notes: Impoundment of Funds,
Harvard Law Revew)
41
Note that ths rato s aso apped n ssue |6| asde from the rato whch I formuated there. Ths can be
mped from, "Agan we state: a provson n an appropratons act cannot be used to repea or amend other
aws." Hence, ths s an "napproprate provson" whch can be vetoed separatey.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.172
6. Any provson bockng an admnstratve acton n mpementng
a aw requrng egsatve approva of executve acts must be
ncorporated n a separate substantve b.
easonin;: The ponenca smpy cted notes from |ournas
42
n
dscussng the ssue of Impoundment to support hs reasonng n
the present case.
7. The ssuance of admnstratve gudenes on the use of pubc
funds authorzed by Congress s smpy an exercse by the
Presdent of hs consttutona duty to see that aws are fathfuy
executed.
0ecision
1. No. There was no undue dscrmnaton when the Presdent
vetoed sad speca provsons.
2. Yes. The Speca Provson n queston s not an napproprate
provson whch can be the sub|ect of a veto. It s not aen to the
appropraton for road mantenance, and on the other hand, t
specfes how the sad tem sha be expended - 70% by
admnstratve and 30% by contract.
3. Yes. Beng drecty reated to and nseparabe from the
appropraton tem on purchases of medcnes by the AFP, the
speca provson cannot be vetoed by the Presdent wthout aso
vetong the sad tem.
4. No. Any provson bockng an admnstratve acton n
mpementng a aw or requrng egsatve approva of executve
acts must be ncorporated n a separate and substantve b.
Therefore, beng "napproprate" provsons, Speca Provsons Nos.
2 and 3 were propery vetoed.
5. No. The Speca Provson, whch aows the Chef of Staff to use
savngs to augment the penson fund for the AFP beng managed
by the AFP Retrement and Separaton Benefts System s voatve
42
Notes: Impoundment of Funds, Harvard Law Revew; Notes: Presdenta Impoundment Consttutona Theores
and Potca Reates, Georgetown Law |ourna; Notes Protectng the Fsc: Executve Impoundment and
Congressona Power, Yae Law |ourna
of Sectons 25(5)
43
and 29(1)
44
of the Artce VI of the Consttuton.
Thus veto s not unconsttutona.
6. No. The provson n an appropratons act cannot be used to
repea or amend other aws. Impedy, ths s an "napproprate
provson" whch can be vetoed separatey.
7. No. By settng gudenes or condtons n hs veto, the Presdent
s smpy exercsng hs consttutona duty to mpement the aws
fathfuy.
0ispositive
Pettons DISMISSED, except wth respect wth respect to |1| G.R.
Nos. 113105 and 113766 ony nsofar as they pray for the
annument of the veto of the speca provson on debt servce
specfyng that the fund theren approprated "sha be used for
payment of the prncpa and nterest of foregn and domestc
ndebtedness" prohbtng the use of the sad funds "to pay for the
abtes of the Centra Bank Board of Lqudators", and |2| G.R. No.
113888 ony nsofar as t prays for the annument of the veto of: (a)
the 2
nd
paragraph of Speca Provson No. 2 of the tem of
appropraton for the DPWH; and (b) Speca Provson No. 12 on the
purchase of medcnes by the AFP whch s GRANTED.
2otin;: 1= Concur, 1 0issent
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&DILL& D0on0ur an+ +issentE
- I concur wth the ponenca of Mr. |ustce Camo D. Ouason except
n so far as t re-affrms the Court's decson n 9on6ale6 *.
Ma%ara#g
- An napproprate provson s st as provson, not an tem and
therefore outsde the veto power of the Executve.
43
"No aw sha be passed authorzng any transfer of appropratons; however, the Presdent, the Presdent of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatves, the Chef |ustce of the Supreme Court, and the heads
of Consttutona Commssons may, by aw, be a$thor#6e& to a$gment an+ #tem #n the general a))ro)r#at#ons
la. for the#r res)e%t#*e off#%es from sa*#ngs #n other #tems of the#r res)e%t#*e a))ro)r#at#ons."
44
"No money sha be pad out of the Treasury except n pursuance of an appropraton made by aw"
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.17(
VI#%G D0on0urE
- I cannot debate the fact that the members of Congress, more than
the Presdent and hs coeagues, woud have the best fee on the
needs of ther own respectve consttuents. It s not ob|ectonabe
for Congress, by aw, to approprate funds for such specfc pro|ects
as t may be mnded; to gve that authorty, however, to the
ndvdua members of Congress n whatever guse, I am afrad,
woud be consttutonay mpermssbe.
GO!4&LE( V "&C&&IG
MELENCIO-HERRERA; November 19, 1990
'&C#(
- The Senate questoned the consttutonaty of the Presdenta
veto of speca and genera provsons, partcuary Sec. 55 of the
Genera Appropratons B for 1989
- The pettoners cam they have ocus stand on the ground of:
- beng member and ex-offco members of the Fnance
Commttee
- substanta taxpaers whose vta nterests mght be affected
- The respondents n ths case are member of the Cabnet who are
sued n ther offca capacty for the mpementaton of the Genera
Appropratons Act of 1989
- December 16, 1988 - The House of Representatves passed HB
19186 (GA B for 1989)
- emnated/decreased tems ncuded n the proposed Budget of
the Presdent
- presented to Presdent for approva
- December 29, 1988 - The b was sgned nto aw (became RA
6688)
- The Presdent vetoed 7 speca provsons and Sec. 55
- February 2, 1989- Senate expressed through Senate Resouton
No. 381 that the veto of Sec. 55 was unconsttutona
- Apr 11, 1989 - Petton for prohbton/mandamus was fed
- assaed the egaty of veto of Sec. 55
- en|oned the mpementaton of RA 6688
- No restranng order was mpemented by the Supreme Court
- September 7, 1989 - Court resoved to gve due course to the
petton
- |an. 17, 1990 - Moton for Leave to Fe and to Admt
Suppementary Petton whch rased the same ssue as the orgna
petton (questonng the presdenta veto)
- The vetoed provsons ncude:
- Sec. 55 of the Appropratons Act of 1989 - an tem submtted by
the Presdent whch has been reduced by Congress cannot be
restored/ncreased. An tem s deemed dsapproved f there s no
correspondng appropraton n the Act.
- Sec. 16 of the Appropratons Act of 1990 - smar to Sec. 55 of
the 1989 Appropratons Act except that ths was umped
together wth the use of savngs
- The basc dfference between both provsons s that n the 1989
Appropratons Act, the "use of savngs" s n Secton 12, apart
from Secton 55 whereas n the 1990 \Appropratons Act, "use of
savngs" and the vetoed provson are both n Sec. 16
- The reason for the veto:
- Voates Art. 6, Sec 25(5)
- Nufes the consttutona and statutory authroty of the
Presdent, the Senate Presdent, Speaker of the House of
Representatves, Chef |ustce of the Supreme Court and the
Heads of Con-Coms to augment any tem n the Genera
Appropratons aw
- If aowed, the Presdent and the other abovementoned offcas
cannot augment any tem and appropraton from ther savngs
even f speca crcumstances ke caamty
- Pettoners' arguments:
1) The presdent's ne veto power regardng the appropratons
b s mted to tem/s and does not cover provsons and
therefore exceeded her authorty (Sectons 55 and 16 are
provsons)
2) When the presdent ob|ects to provsons of an appropraton
b, t s not possbe to exercse the tem veto power but shoud
veto the whoe b as we
3) The tem veto power does not carry wth t the power to strke
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.174
out condtons or restrctons for that woud be egsaton aready
(voatve of separaton of powers)
4) Power of augmentaton n Artce 6, Sec. 25(5) s provded by
aw so Congress has prerogatve to mpose restrctons n the
exercse of that power
- SoGen's arguments:
1) The ssue s a potca queston and the pettoners have a
potca remedy whch s to overrde the veto.
2) Sec. 53 s a rder whch s extraneous to the Appropratons Act
and shoud mert a veto.
3) The power of the presdent to augment tems n appropratons
for the executve branches aready provded for n Budget Law
(specfcay Sec. 44 and 45 of PD 1177 as amended by RA 6670)
4) The Presdent s empowered to veto provsons of other dstnct
and severabe parts.
I((%E(
1. WON the ssue s |ustcabe
2. WON the veto by the Presdent of Sec. 55 of the 1989
Appropratons B and ts counterpart Sec. 16 of the 1990
Appropratons B s unconsttutona and wthout effect
3ELD
1. The ssue s |ustcabe, not potca.
a) There s an actua case or |ustcabe controversy between the
Senate and the Executve that the Supreme Court may take
cognzance of. The Demetra v. Aba case decared that the
Supreme Court has the duty to decare acts of a government
branch vod f beyond that branch's powers
b) |udca arbtraton needed because the pettoners stress the
mperatve need for defntve rung by the Court
c) The pettoners have ocus stand because the sut s a
taxpayer's sut. The Sandad rung (the Court may or may not
entertan a taxpayer's sut) and the Toentno v. COMELEC
rung (members of the Senate have personaty when a
Consttutona ssue s rased) were used. Ths s aso not the
frst tme that the veto power was dscussed.
) Bengzon v. Secretary of |ustce - Court uphed the veto but
reversed by the US Supreme Court because of the
Appropratons B was not nvoved.
) Bonao Eectroncs v. Vaenca - re|ected the veto n an
Appropratons B
2. NO the veto by the Presdent of Sec. 55 of the 1989
Appropratons B and ts counterpart Sec. 16 of the 1990
Appropratons B s consttutona
F"he e,tent of #tem *eto )o.er st#ll #n%l$&es the *eto#ng of
)ro*#s#ons.
- Art. 6 Sec. 27 - Veto power of the Presdent
Paragraph 1 - genera veto power of the Presdent and f
exercsed woud veto the entre b
Paragraph 2 - the tem-veto of ne-vbeto aows a veto over a
partcuar tem n an appropratons, revenue or tarff b. The
presdent may not veto ess than a of an tem (no authorty to
veto part of an tem and approve the remanng porton of that
tem).
- Orgnay referred to veto of tems of appropratons bs n the
Organc Act of Aug. 29, 1916
- 1935 Consttuton, Art. 6, Sec 11(2) - The veto was more
expansve snce t ncuded provsons and tems n revenue and
tarff bs
- 1973 Consttuton - more compact verson and refers to the Prme
Mnster as the ony offca who has the power
- 1987 Consttuton - verbatm reproducton of 1973 provson
except that a dfferent pubc offca (the Presdent) was now
nvoved and emnated the reference to a veto of a provson
- The Court hed that even f there was an emnaton of any
reference to the veto provson, the extent of the Presdent's veto
power as prevousy defned by the 1935 Consttuton has not
changed.
- An tem n a b reates to the partcuars, detas, dstnct and
severabe parts of the b whereas a provson s of a more genera
nature.
- A restrctve nterpretaton as espoused by the pettoners
dsregards the basc prncpe that a dstnct and severabe part of
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.17
the b may be the sub|ect of a separate veto but aso overooks
the Consttutona mandate that any provson n the genera
appropratons b sha reate specfcay to some partcuar
appropraton and that any such provson sha be mted n ts
operaton to the appropraton to whch t reates.
- A provson does not reate to the entre b.
- The exercse of veto power does not partake of a egsatve power
as stated n the Bengzon case:
- The egsature has the power to enact aws whe the Chef
Executve has the negatve power by the consttutona exercse
of whch he may defeat the w of the egsature.
- The Presdent fnds ts authorty n the Consttuton.
- The Courts nduge every ntendment n favor of the
consttutonaty of a veto n the same way that they presume
consttutonaty of an act passed by the Legsature.
F Se%s. an& 16 are #na))ro)r#atel+ %alle& )ro*#s#ons.
- Even f assumng that provsons are beyond the executve power
to veto, Sec. 55 and Sec. 16 are not provsons n the budgetary
sense.
- Based on Art. 6, Sec. 25(2), a provson shoud reate specfcay
to some partcuar appropraton theren. Secs. 55 and 16 do not ft
ths requrement.
a) no reaton to a partcuar or dstnctve requrement. They
appy generay to a tems dsapproved or reduced by Congress
n the Appropratons B.
b) dsapproved or reduced tems are nowhere to be found n the
B.
c) vetoed sectons are more of an expresson of Congressona
pocy n respect of augmentaton from savngs rather than a
budgetary appropraton. Secs. 55 and 16 are napproprate
provsons that shoud be treated as tems for the purpose of the
veto power.
FSe%t#ons an& 16 are #na))ro)r#ate %on&#t#ons an& are therefore
s$s%e)t#/le to a *eto.
- Pettoners argue that Congress s free to mpose condtons n an
Appropratons B and where condtons are attached, veto
powers do not have the power to strke them out.
- These rues are setted n the sense that Congress can mpose
condtons on expendture of funds and that the Executve cannot
veto a condton of an appropraton whe aowng the
appropraton tsef to stand.
- But for the rue to appy, restrctons shoud be n the rea sense of
the term. Restrctons shoud exhbt a connecton wth money
tems n a budgetary sense n the schedue of expendtures. The
test s approprateness.
- Secs. 55 and 16 are hed to be napproprate condtons.
- Actuay genera aw measures more approprate for substantve
and therefore separate egsaton.
- Nether shows the necessary connecton wth a schedue of
expendtures. Items reduced or dsapproved by Congress are not
on the enroed b and can ony be detected when compared wth
the orgna budgetary submttas of the Presdent.
* "he )o.er of a$gmentat#on an& the *al#&#t+ of the *eto
- The Presdent vetoed Sectons 55 and 16 because they nufed
the authorty of the Chef Executve and heads of dfferent
branches of government to augment any tem n the Genera
Appropratons Law for ther respectve offces from savngs n other
tems of ther respectve appropratons (wth reference to Art. 6,
Sec. 25(5)).
- The power to augment es dormant unt authorzed by aw.
- The consttuton aowed the transfer of funds for the purpose of
augmentng an tem from savngs n another tem n the
appropraton of a government branch so as to afford consderabe
fexbty n the use of pubc funds.
- Separaton of powers s endangered n no way.
- Secs. 55 and 16 prohbt ths augmentaton and mpar the
consttutona and statutory authorty of the Presdent n the
nterest of expedency and effcency.
- The speca power of augmentaton from savngs s merey
ncorporated n the GA B. The GA B s one of prmary and
specfc am to make appropraton of money from the pubc
treasury. The power of augmentaton from savngs s not
consdered a specfc appropraton of money. It s a non-
appropraton tem nserted n an appropraton measure.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.176
- To sancton ths practce woud wthhod the power from the
Executve and other offcas and put n |eopardy the exercse of
that power.
- If the egsature does beeve that the exercse of the veto powers
by the executve were unconsttutona, a veto may be overrden by
the votes of 2/3 of the members of Congress. But Congress made
no attempt to do so.
&#I#I7 V 4&"O&
TINGA; September 30, 2005
'&C#(
- Ths s a petton for prohbton, mandamus, and decaratory reef
as taxpayers, seekng the decaraton of nuty of paragraph 1 of
the S)e%#al Pro*#s#ons of RA 8760 (Genera Appropratons Act
(GAA) of 2000. Aso seekng the ssuance of a wrt of premnary
n|uncton or TRO to en|on mpementaton of the questoned
provson. However, the 2000 GAA has ong been mpemented, the
ssuance s aready moot and academc. But the Court sha pass
upon the consttutona ssues.
- Bref hstorca account of the Cordera Admnstratve Regon
(CAR):
- Presdent Aquno ntated a seres of peace taks to dea wth
nsurgency n the Corderas. These daogues focused on the
estabshment of an autonomous government n the Corderas.
- Secton 15, Artce X of the 1987 Consttuton ordans the
creaton of autonomous regons n Musm Mndanao and n the
Corderas, and Secton 18, Artce X mandates the congressona
enactment of the organc acts for each of the autonomous
regons.
- Presdent Aquno promugated E.O. No. 220 on |uy 15, 1987,
creatng the CAR, whch s the nterm and preparatory body
tasked to admnster the affars of government n the Corderas.
-Pursuant to the 1987 Consttuton, on October 23, 1989, Congress
enacted RA 6766 (0n 0%t Pro*#&#ng for an 2rgan#% 0%t for for the
Cor&#llera 0$tonomo$s >eg#on). A pebscte was hed where the
peope of the Corderas coud ratfy the Organc Act. However, the
creaton of an autonomous regon was overwhemngy re|ected n
a of the Corderas except for the Ifugao provnce. The Court rued
that Ifugao aone cannot vady consttute the CAR and uphed the
dsapprova of the Organc Act. The Court aso decared E.O. No.
220 to be st n force and effect.
-February 15, 2000: Presdent Estrada sgned nto aw the 2000
GAA whch ncudes the assaed S)e%#al Pro*#s#ons:
"1. Ese of ;$n&. The amounts heren approprated sha be used
to wnd up the actvtes and operatons of the CAR, ncudng the
payment of separaton and retrement benefts of a affected
offcas and empoyees."
-|uy 20, 2000: Presdent Estrada ssued E.O. No. 270 extendng the
mpementaton of the wndng up of operatons of the CAR.
I((%E(
1. WON the assaed Speca Provsons n RA 8760 s a rder and as
such s unconsttutona
2. WON the Phppne Government, through Congress, can
unateray amend/repea E.O. No. 220
3. WON the Repubc shoud be ordered to honor ts commtments
as speed out n EO 220.
3ELD
1. NO the assaed Speca Provsons n RA 8760 s not a rder TF t
s consttutona
a. A rder s a provsons whch s aen to or not germane to the
sub|ect of the b n whch t s ncorporated. 2 provsons of the
Consttuton prohbt them: Art VI: Sec 25(2) "No provsons or
enactment sha be embraced n the genera appropratons b
uness t reates specfcay to some partcuar appropraton
theren." and Sec 26(1) "Every b passed by the Congress sha
embrace ony one sub|ect whch sha be embraced n the tte
thereof"
- The rue shoud not be construed so strcty as to te the hands of
Congress: t smpy requres that a the provsons are ether
appropraton tems, or non-appropraton tems whch reate
specfcay to appropraton tems.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.177
- Test: It must be 1) Partcuar - f t reates specfcay to a dstnct
tem of appropraton; 2) Unambguous - when ts appcaton s
apparent on the face of the b and needs no reference to
detas/souces outsde the b; 3) Approprate - when ts sub|ect
does not necessary have to be treated n a separate egsaton.
- The assaed provson does not consttute a rder: t passes the
above test.
atio when a provson s partcuar, unambguous, and
approprate to the appropratons b to whch t beongs, t sha not
be consdered to be a rder
b. Pettoners aege:
- that nstead of provdng a budget for the CAR, t had
the effect of aboshng the CAR
- snce a speca aw created the CAR, the 2000 GAA s
not the pace for amendng or repeang a standng aw.
- However, the CAR was not aboshed. It has ony been
deactvated.
- Abosh - to do away wth, annu, abrogate, destroy competey,
offce ceases to exst;
- Deactvate - render nactve, break up by dschargng or
reassgnng personne, offce contnues to exst, abet dormant.
- But even f the mtaton of the CARs budget had the effect of
aboshng certan offces, the Congress has he power to do so.
- creaton of pubc offces s prmary a egsatve functon
- offce created by the egsature s whoy wthn the power of
that body, and t may abosh the offce f t sees ft.
c. The CAR created through EO 220 s not the autonomous regon
contempated n the Consttuton. EO 220 has not estabshed an
autonomous regona government; rather, t has ony created an
admnstratve regon. It can be consdered a regona coordnatng
agency of the Natona Government.
2, 3: Except for the contenton that the assaed paragraph s a
rder, the rest of the arguments ook nto the wsdom and effcacy
of sad provsons. Potca questons
.till
1. Contenton that Congress cant unateray amend or repea EO
220: Re|ected. There s no such thng as an rrepeaabe aw.
2. Impementaton of EO 220 s an executve prerogatve whe the
sourcng of funds to support CARs actvtes s egsatve. Absent
grave abuse of dscreton, the Court cannot correct the acts of the
Executve or Congress.
&O2O V 3O%(E O' EPE(E!#&#IVE( ELEC#O&L
#I.%!&L
FRANCISCO; |uy 14, 1995
'&C#(
- Petton for revew of the decson of the HRET
- 11 May 1992: Augusto L. Sy|uco, |r. (AS) & |oker P. Arroyo (|A) ran
for congressman for the one dstrct of Makat. Board of canvassers
procams A as wnner. AS fes an eecton protest before HRET,
seekng revson and recountng of baots n 75% of the precncts.
Hs grounds: aeged rreguartes/anomaes n the tabuaton and
entres of votes & massve fraud. |A fes counter-protest
questonng resdence quafcaton of AS; dsmssed by HRET.
- HRET undertakes revson of baots. Serous rreguartes found.
|ustce Gancaycos Report and Recommendaton confrm
rreguartes and anomaes engneered by some HRET offcas and
personne: 0rro+o *otes .ere %ons#stentl+ re&$%e& I .h#le S+3$%o
.as al.a+s %onstantIJ
- Revson competed. Recepton of evdence foowed. |A submts
certfed true copes of the Revson Reports and eecton returns.
AS submts over 200,000 pages of documentary evdence, "mere
photocopes and not certfed or authentcated by comparson wth
the orgna documents or dentfcaton by any wtness.."
- In hs memorandum cum addendum, AS changes hs orgna
posture (revson and recount of baots) to what he cas a "truy
nnovatve and NON-TRADITIONAL process" - the PRECINCT-LEVEL
DOCUMENT-BASED EVIDENCES.
- By reason of the new aegatons and substanta amendments
(whch broaden the scope of hs protest, change hs theory of the
case or ntroduce addtona causes of acton n voaton of Rue 28
Revsed Rues of the Trbuna), HRET ordered hm to show cause
why hs protest shoud not be dsmssed.
- 15 February 1994: by a 6-3 vote (the sx Congressmen-members
as aganst the three |ustces-members), HRET resoved not to
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.17'
dsmss the protest, to contnue wth the examnaton and
evauaton of the evdence on record, and thereafter to decde the
case on the merts.
- |A moved to dsmss the protest but to no ava. No hearngs were
conducted thereafter.
- 25 |anuary 1995: HRET, by the same 6-3 vote rendered ts now
assaed Decson annung |A's procamaton, & decarng AS as the
duy eected congressman. Sad decson aso refers the case to
COMELEC & the Offce of the speca Prosecutor for approprate
actons.
- Wthout fng MFR, |A fes the present case before SC.
I((%E(
1. WON HRET commtted grave abuse of dscreton n
a. proceedng to decde the protest based on AS "precnct eve
document based anomaes/evdence" theory;
b. renderng |udgment on the knd of evdence before t and the
manner n whch the evdence was procured; &
c. annung eecton resuts n some contested precncts.
2. WON Sy|uco shoud be cted for ndrect contempt
3ELD
1. YES HRET commtted grave abuse of dscreton
a. "he D)re%#n%t le*el &o%$ment /ase& anomal#esCe*#&en%eD theor+
- Ths nnovatve theory broadened the scope of the eecton
protest beyond what AS orgnay sought. Ths s ceary substanta
amendment of the eecton protest expressy proscrbed by Rue 28
of the HRET nterna rues. Improprety of prvate respondent's
beated shft of theory was sensed by ma|orty members of HRET
but they st resoved not to dsmss the protest.t*is a 0lear
in+i0ation o/ grave a6use o/ +is0retion. No further hearngs
were conducted.|A's rig*t to +ue pro0ess was 0learl1
violate+.
- Substanta amendments to the protest maybe aowed ony wthn
the same perod for the fng of the eecton protest
15
whch, under
Rue 16 of the HRET Rues, s ten (10) days after the procamaton
of the wnner. The rue n an eecton protest s that the protestant
or counterprotestant m$st stan& or fall $)on the #ss$es he ha&
ra#se& #n h#s or#g#nal or amen&e& )lea&#ng f#le& )r#or to the la)se of
the stat$tor+ )er#o& for the f#l#ng of )rotest or %o$nter
)rotest. A party s bound by the theory he adopts and by the cause
of acton he stands on and cannot be permtted after havng ost
thereon to repudate hs theory and cause of acton and adopt
another and seek to re-tgate the matter anew ether n the same
forum or on appea. Sprin0iple o/ estoppelT
b. "he =#n& of e*#&en%e $se& an& ho. the+ .ere )ro%$re&
- Photocopes voate the 6est evi+en0e rule: no evdence sha be
receved whch s merey substtutonary n ts nature so ong as the
orgna evdence can be had. Certan vta eecton documents
(such as certfed xerox copy of the number of regstered voters per
precnct and photocopes of statements of votes) were procured at
the soe nstance of the )onente of the ma|orty decson, never
offered n evdence by ether of the partes.
- Ma|orty congressmen-members of the Trbuna by themseves
wthout the partcpaton of any of the three (3) remanng |ustces-
members, decared that 10,484 of the contested sgnature are
fake. Ths grossy voates Rues 68 &5 of HRET Rues (a questons
sha be submtted to the Trbuna as a body; and presence of at
east one (1) |ustce-member s requred to consttute a vad
quorum).
c. N$ll#f#%at#on of ele%t#on res$lts
- HRET proceeded to annu votes wthout a dnt of compance wth
the 2 mandatory requstes for the annument of eecton returns
based on fraud, rreguartes or terrorsm:
. that more than ffty percent (50%) of the tota number of votes
n the precnct or precncts were nvoved, &
. that the votes must be shown to have been affected or vtated
by such fraud, rreguartes or terrorsm.
- Eectons shoud never be hed vod uness they are ceary ega;
t s the duty of the court to sustan an eecton authorzed by aw f
t has been so conducted as to gve a free and far expresson of
the popuar w, and the actua resut thereof s ceary ascertaned.
Absent fraud, mere rreguartes or omssons commtted by
eecton offcas whch do not subvert the expresson of popuar w
cannot countenance the nufcaton of eecton resuts. Coroary,
the msconduct of eecton offcers or rreguartes on ther part w
not |ustfy re|ectng the whoe vote of a precnct (as was done n
ths case) where t does not appear that the resut was affected
thereby, even though the crcumstances may be such as to sub|ect
the offcers to punshment.
MI
These omssons are not decsve
snce actua votng and eecton by regstered voters had taken
pace n the questoned precncts.

- Genera rue: a trbuna renderng a decson must be gven an
opportunty to rectfy ts error through a moton for reconsderaton.
BUT partaty of the ma|orty of the members of the Eectora
Trbuna havng been shown, recourse for a reconsderaton of ts
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.179
decson becomes nugatory and an mmedate recourse to ths
Court can be had based on the fundamenta prncpe of due
process. A pror moton for reconsderaton can be dspensed wth f
pettoner's fundamenta rght to due process was voated.
- Persstent and deberate voaton of the Trbuna's own governng
rues and of even the most basc rues of evdence cannot be
|ustfed by smpy nvokng that procedura rues shoud be beray
construed. Rue 80 of the very same nterna rues expressy makes
the Rues of Court, Supreme Court decsons, and Eectora Trbuna
decsons of suppetory appcaton.
- Unwaverng reverence to the rues of evdence as provded by the
Rues of Court and |ursprudence s because they have been tested
through years of experence as the most effectve means of
ferretng out the truth n any |udca controversy. Rues and
unformty of procedure are as essenta to procure truth and
exactness n eectons as n anythng ese.

- Thus, wth the patent nuty of the entre proceedngs before
HRET and ts ma|orty decson n the eecton protest fed by AS,
|oker Arroyos procamaton as the wnnng congressman of the
then one dstrct of Makat s deemed not to have been chaenged
at a.
2. YES Sy|uco shoud be cted for ndrect contempt
- Snce hs statements n hs Addendum whch he prepared wthout
ad of counse appear to serousy undermne the ntegrty of some
members of the Court
- Want of ntenton to undermne the ntegrty of the Court s no
excuse for the anguage empoyed by prvate respondent for t s a
we-known and estabshed rue that derogatory words are to be
taken n the ordnary meanng attached to them by mparta
observers
0ecision WHEREFORE, n vew of the foregong, the petton s
hereby GRANTED, and pubc respondent HRET's ma|orty decson
dated |anuary 25, 1995 s SET ASIDE. Prvate respondent Augusto L.
Sy|uco, |r., havng been found guty of ndrect contempt, s hereby
fned the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to be pad
wthn fve (5) days from recept of ths decson.
.O!DOC V PI!ED&
GRINO-AOUINO; September 26, 1991
'&C#(
- In the oca and congressona eectons hed on May 11, 1987,
Marcano M. Pneda of the Laban ng Demokratkong Ppno (LDP)
and Dr. Emgdo A. Bondoc of the Naconasta Party (NP) were rva
canddates for the poston of Representatve for the Fourth Dstrct
of the provnce of Pampanga.
- On May 19, 1987, Pneda was procamed wnner n the eecton
wth a ead of 3,300 votes. In due tme, Bondoc fed a protest
(HRET Case No. 25) n the House of Representatves Eectora
Trbuna (HRET) whch s composed of (9) members: 3 |ustces of
the Supreme Court and 6 members of the House of Representatves
chosen on the bass of proportona representaton from the
potca partes and the partes or organzatons regstered under
the party-st system represented theren (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987
Consttuton) as foows:
AMEURFINA M. HERRERA Charman
Assocate |ustce, SC
ISAGANI A. CRUZ Member
Assocate |ustce, SC
FLORENTINO P. FELICIANO Member
Assocate |ustce, SC
HONORATO Y. AOUINO Member
Cong, 1st Dst., Benguet, LDP
DAVID A. PONCE DE LEON Member
Cong, 1st Dst., Paawan, LDP
SIMEON E. GARCIA, |R. Member
Cong 2nd Dst., Nueva Ec|a, LDP
|UANITO G. CAMASURA, |R. Member
Cong, 1st Dst., Davao de Sur, LDP
|OSE E. CALINGASAN Member
Cong, 4th Dst., Batangas, LDP
ANTONIO H. CERILLES Member
Cong, 2nd Dst., Zamb de Sur, (GAD, now NP).
- |uy 1989 - Bondoc fed petton
- Oct 1990 - Bondoc won over Pneda by a margn of twenty-three
(23) votes. LDP members n the Trbuna nssted on a
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'0
reapprecaton and recount of the baots cast n some precncts,
deayng the fnazaton of the decson by at east (4) months. The
reexamnaton and re-apprecaton of the baots resuted n
#n%reas#ng Bondoc's ead over Pneda to 107 votes. Cong Camasura
voted wth the SC |ustces and Cong Ceres to procam Bondoc the
wnner of the contest.
- March 4, 1991 - Cong Camasura reveaed to Cong. |ose S.
Co|uangco, |r., LDP Sec Gen that he voted for Bondoc n the fna
tay n the case. Ths reveaton strred a hornets' nest n the LDP
whch went nto a furry of pottng approprate moves to neutraze
the pro-Bondoc ma|orty n the Trbuna.
- March 5, 1991 - 3E# issue+ a !oti0e o/ Promulgation o/
De0ision on "ar0* G5 1FF1 in 3E# Case !o. I5.
- March 13, 1991 - Cong. Co|uangco nformed Cong. Camasura by
etter that on 'e6 I;5 1FF1 LDP *a+ alrea+1 e:pelle+ *im and
Cong Ben|amn Bautsta for havng aegedy heped to organze the
Partdo Ppno of "Dandng" Co|uangco, and for havng nvted LDP
members n Davao de Sur to |on sad potca party. Cong
Co|uangco notfed Speaker Ramon V. Mtra about the ouster of the
two congressmen from the LDP, and asked the HoR, through the
Speaker, to take note of t especay n matters where party
membershp s a prerequste.
- March 14, 1991 - the Charman of the Trbuna, Mme. |us Herrera,
receved a etter dated March 13, 1991, from the Offce of the Sec
Gen of the HoR, nformng the Trbuna that on the bass of the
etter from the LDP, t*e 3o +e0i+e+ to wit*+raw t*e
nomination an+ res0in+ t*e ele0tion o/ Cong Camasura5 $r.
to t*e 3ouse o/ Ele0toral #ri6unal.
- |ustces Herrera, Cruz, and Fecano prompty apprsed the C| and
Assoc |us of the SC of ths "dstressng deveopment' and asked to
be reeved from ther assgnments n the HRET because
promugaton of the decson prevousy schedued for 14 March
1991, s sought to be aborted. The decson reached (5 to 4 vote)
may now be expected to be overturned on a moton for
reconsderaton by the party-tgant whch woud have been
defeated. It was aso sad that:
> Proportona representaton n the Trbuna (Art VI, Sec 17
Const) shoud be amended to provde nstead for a return to the
composton mandated n the 1935 Const: (3) members chosen
by the House or Senate upon nomnaton of the party havng the
argest number of votes and (3) of the party havng the second
argest number of votes: and a |udca component consstng of
three (3) |ustces from the SC
> Suggestons:
+ The Senate Eectora Trbuna coud st as the soe |udge of a
contests reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of
members of the HoR and vce versa. So that there woud be
esser chances of non-|udca eements payng a decsve roe
n the resouton of eecton contests.
+ There shoud aso be a provson n the Consttuton that upon
desgnaton to membershp n the Eectora Trbuna, those so
desgnated shoud dvest themseves of affaton wth ther
respectve potca partes, to nsure ther ndependence and
ob|ectvty. (ke thats possbe)
- Durng HRET open sesson, Trbuna ssued a resouton canceng
the promugaton of the decson n HRET Case No. 25 because the
decson acks the concurrence of the 5 members wthout Cong
Camasura's vote as requred by Sec 24 of the Rues of the Trbuna
and, therefore, cannot be vady promugated.
- March 19, 1991 - SC decned the request of the |ustces to be
reeved of ther membershp n the trbuna and drected them to
do ther dutes. The court even sad that a members of these
bodes are appropratey guded ony by purey ega consderatons
n the decson of the cases before them and that n the
contempaton of the Consttuton the members-egsators, st n
the Trbuna no onger as reps of ther potca partes but as
mparta |udges. The term of offce of every member thereof
shoud be consdered co-extensve wth the correspondng
egsatve term and may not be egay termnated except ony by
death, resgnaton, permanent dsabty, or remova for vad cause,
not ncudng potca dsoyaty.
- March 21, 1991 - petton for %ert#orar#, prohbton and mandamus
was fed by Dr. Bondoc aganst Reps Pneda, Paaco, Camasura, |r.,
or any other rep who may be apponted Vce Rep and HRET prayng
ths Court to:
1. Annu the decson of the HoR of March 13, 1991, 'to wthdraw
the nomnaton and to rescnd the nomnaton of Rep. Camasura,
|r. to HRET
2. Issue a wrt of prohbton restranng whomsoever may be
desgnated n pace of Camasura from assumng and dschargng
functons as a member of the HRET
3. Issue a wrt of mandamus orderng Camasura to mmedatey
reassume and dscharge hs functons as a member of the HRET;
and
4. Grant such other reef as may be |ust and equtabe.
- The Court requred the respondents to comment on the petton
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'1
> Cong |uanto G. Camasura, |r. dd not oppose the petton.
> Cong Marcano M. Pneda's pea for the dsmssa of the petton
as the Congress' s the soe authorty that nomnates and eects
from ts members. HRET aegedy has the soe power to remove
any member whenever the rato n the representaton of the
potca partes n the House or Senate s materay changed on
account of death, ncapacty, remo*al or e,)$ls#on from the
)ol#t#%al )art+K that a Trbuna member's term of offce s not co-
extensve wth hs egsatve term, for f a member of the Trbuna
who changes hs party affaton s not removed from the
Trbuna, the consttutona provson mandatng representaton
based on potca affaton woud be competey nufed;

and
that the expuson of Congressman Camasura from the LDP, s
"purey a party affar" of the LDP and the decson to rescnd hs
membershp n the House Eectora Trbuna s the soe
prerogatve of the House-of-Representatve Representatves,
hence, t s a purey potca queston beyond the reach of |udca
revew.
> Cong Magdaeno M. Paaco aeged that the pettoner has no
cause of acton aganst hm because he has not yet been
nomnated by the LDP for membershp n the HRET. Moreover, the
petton faed to mpead the House of Representatves as an
ndspensabe party for t was the House, not the HRET that
wthdrew and rescnded Congressman Camasura's membershp n
the HRET.
> So Gen aso argued that the ncuson of the HRET as a party
respondent s erroneous because the petton states no cause of
acton aganst the Trbuna. The pettoner does not queston any
act or order of the HRET n voaton of hs rghts. What he assas
s the act of the HoR of wthdrawng the nomnaton, and
rescndng the eecton, of Camasura as a member of the HRET.
- Bondoc reped that HRET acknowedged that decson by
canceng the promugaton of ts decson n HRET Case No. 25 to
hs pre|udce. Bondoc aso expaned that Cong Paaco was
mpeaded as one of the respondents because after the HoR had
announced the termnaton of Cong Camasura's membershp n the
HRET severa newspapers reported that the HoR woud nomnate
and eect Paaco to take Camasuras seat n the Trbuna.
I((%E
WON the HoR can nterfere wth the dsposton of an eecton
contest n the HRET through "reorganzng" the representaton n
the trbuna of the ma|orty party

3ELD
- Sec 17 reechoes Sec 11, Artce VI of the 1935 Consttuton,
except the provson on the representaton of the man potca
partes n the trbuna whch s now based on )ro)ort#onal
representaton from a the potca partes, nstead of e4$al
representaton of three members from each of the frst and second
argest potca aggrupatons n the Legsature.
- The use of the word "soe" n both Secton 17 of the 1987
Consttuton and Secton 11 of the 1935 Consttuton underscores
the e,%l$s#*e |ursdcton of the House Eectora Trbuna as |udge of
contests reatng to the eecton, returns and quafcatons of the
members of the House of Representatves (Robes vs. House of
Representatves Eectora Trbuna, G.R. No. 86647, February 5,
1990). The trbuna was created to functon as a non)art#san court.
It s a non-potca body n a sea of potcans.
- To be abe to exercse excusve |ursdcton, the HRET must be
#n&e)en&ent.
The Eectora Commsson, a consttutona organ created for the
specfc purpose of determnng contests reatng to eecton returns
and quafcatons of members of the Natona Assemby ma+ not /e
#nterfere& .#th /+ the 3$&#%#ar+ when and whe actng wthn the
mts of ts authorty, but the Supreme Court has |ursdcton over
the Eectora Commsson for the purpose of determnng the
character, scope and extent of the consttutona grant to the
commsson as soe |udge of a contests reatng to the eecton and
quafcatons of the members of the Natona Assemby. (Angara vs.
Eectora Commsson, 63 Ph. 139.)
T >esol$t#on of the 8o$se of >e)resentat#*es *#olates the
#n&e)en&en%e of the 8>E". Q
The resouton of the HoR s a cear mparment of the consttutona
prerogatve of the House Eectora Trbuna to be the sole 3$&ge of
the eecton contest between Pneda and Bondoc.
T :#slo+alt+ to )art+ #s not a *al#& %a$se for term#nat#on of
mem/ersh#) #n the 8>E". Q
As |udges, the members of the trbuna must be non-partsan. They
must dscharge ther functons wth compete detachment,
mpartaty, and ndependence even ndependence from the
potca party to whch they beong. Hence, "dsoyaty to party"
and "breach of party dscpne," are not vad grounds for the
expuson of a member of the trbuna.
T E,)$ls#on of Congressman Camas$ra *#olates h#s r#ght to se%$r#t+
of ten$re.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'2
Members of the HRET as "soe |udge" of congressona eecton
contests are entted to securty of tenure |ust as members of the
|udcary en|oy securty of tenure under our Consttuton (Sec. 2,
Art. VIII, 1987 Consttuton). Therefore, membershp n the House
Eectora Trbuna may not be termnated except for a |ust cause,
such as, the expraton of the term of offce, hs death, permanent
dsabty, resgnaton from the potca party he represents n the
trbuna, forma affaton wth another potca party, or remova
for other vad cause. A member may not be expeed by the House
of Representatves for "party dsoyaty" short of proof that he has
formay affated wth another potca group. As the records of
ths case fa to show that Congressman Camasura has become a
regstered member of another potca party, hs expuson from the
LDP and from the HRET was not for a vad cause; hence, t voated
hs rght to securty of tenure.
- Snce the expuson of Cong Camasura from the House Eectora
Trbuna by the House of Representatves was not for a awfu and
vad cause, but to un|usty nterfere wth the trbuna's dsposton
of the Bondoc case and to deprve Bondoc of the fruts of the
Trbuna's decson n hs favor, the acton of the House of
Representatves s ceary voatve of the consttutona mandate
(Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Consttuton)
- atio The House Eectora Trbuna, beng an agency ndependent
of the egsature, may not be nterfered wth by the House
0ecision WHEREFORE, the petton for %ert#orar#, prohbton and
mandamus s granted. The decson of the HoR wthdrawng the
nomnaton and rescndng the eecton of Cong |uanto G.
Camasura, |r. as a member of the House Eectora Trbuna s
hereby decared nu and vod a/ #n#t#o for beng voatve of the
Consttuton, and Cong |uanta G. Camasura, |r. s ordered
renstated to hs poston as a member of the HRET. The HRET
Resouton No. 91-0018 dated March 14, 1991, canceng the
promugaton of the decson n HRET Case No. 25 ("Dr. Emgdo
Bondoc vs. Marcano A. Pneda") s aso set asde. Consderng the
unconsconabe deay ncurred n the promugaton of that decson
to the pre|udce of the speedy resouton of eectora cases, the
Court, n the exercse of ts equty |ursdcton, and n the nterest of
|ustce, hereby decares the sad decson DULY PROMULGATED,
effectve upon servce of copes thereof on the partes, to be done
mmedatey by the Trbuna. Costs aganst respondent Marcano A.
Pneda.
Nar*asa, Paras, -#&#n, Me&#al&ea, >egala&o an& :a*#&e, 1r., 11.,
%on%$r.
9$t#erre6, 1r., 1., %on%$rs as %ert#f#e& to /+ the Ch#ef 1$st#%e.
;ernan, C.1., Melen%#o-8errera, Cr$6 an& ;el#%#ano, 11., too= no )art.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
P&DILL& D+issentE
-A fundamenta prncpe n our consttutona system s that the
powers of government are dstrbuted among three (3) great
departments. Each separate from, yet coordnate and co-equa wth
the others each one dervng ts authorty drecty from the
fundamenta aw.
- Ths does not extend to the pont that those n authorty n one
department can gnore and treat the acts of those n authorty n
the others, done pursuant to the authorty vested n them, as
nugatory and not bndng n every other department.
- The HoR has the power to nomnate the members of the House
Eectora Trbuna provded that the proportona representaton of
partes s mantaned.
- The power to appont or desgnate a member of the House of
Representatves to be a member of the House Eectora Trbuna
must necessary ncude the power to remove sad member.
- The queston that must be asked n testng the vadty of such
egsatve act s, does the House of Representatves have the
power to do what t has done and not whether the House of
Representatves shoud have done what t has done.
- The |udcary cannot queston a egsatve act done wthn the
consttutona authorty of the egsature The |udca department
has no power to revew even the most arbtrary and unfar acton of
the egsatve department, ta=en #n the e,er%#se of )o.er
%omm#tte& e,%l$s#*el+ to #t /+ the Const#t$t#on. To hod otherwse
woud be to nvadate the prncpe of separaton of powers.

(&"IE!#O D+issentE
- I beeve that the questons as |us Pada rased t - can the Court
annu an act of Congress, revampng ts House Eectora Trbuna?
- s a potca queston and a queston n whch the Court cannot
ntervene.
- The |ursdcton of ths Court ncudes the power to strke down
excesses of any agency of Government, but the Charter dd not
ater or dscard the prncpe of separaton of powers.
- Evdenty, Congressman Camasura's ouster from the Trbuna was
a resut of potca maneuvers wthn the ower house. Ths Court,
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'(
however, s above potcs and |ustces shoud be the ast persons to
get nvoved n the "drty" word of potcs. If they do, they rsk ther
ndependence.
LO4&D& V CO"ELEC
DE CASTRO; |anuary 27, 1983
'&C#(
- |ose Mar Euao Lozada and Romeo Igot fed a petton for
mandamus as a representatve sut
45
to compe the respondent
COMELEC to ca a speca eecton to f up exstng vacances
numberng tweve (12) n the Interm Batasan Pambansa. The
petton s based on Secton 5(2), Artce VIII of the 1973
Consttuton
46
.
- Lozada cams that he s a taxpayer and a bona fde eector of
Cebu Cty and a transent voter of Ouezon Cty, who desres to run
for the poston n the Batasan Pambansa; whe Igot aeges that,
as a taxpayer, he has standng to petton by mandamus the cang
of a speca eecton as mandated by the 1973 Consttuton. As
reason for ther petton, pettoners aege that they are deepy
concerned wth ther dutes as ctzens, and that they fed ths
petton n behaf of a other Fpnos snce sub|ects are of profound
and genera nterest.
I((%E(
1. WON pettoners had standng to fe for petton for
mandamus
2. WON SC has |ursdcton to entertan ths petton
3. WON Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) n the 1973 Consttuton appes to
the Interm Batasang Pambansa
3ELD
1. pettoners had no standng to fe for petton for mandamus
- As taxpayers, pettoners may not fe the nstant petton, for
nowhere theren s t aeged that tax money s beng egay spent.
45
for and n behaf of those who wsh to partcpate n the eecton rrespectve of party affaton
46
Artce VIII, Sec.5 (2): In case a vacancy arses n the Batasang Pambansa eghteen months or more before a
reguar eecton, the Commsson on Eecton sha ca a speca eecton to be hed wthn sxty (60) days after
the vacancy occurs to eect the Member to serve the unexpred term.
Acton companed of s the nacton of the COMELEC to ca a
speca eecton, and therefore nvoves no expendture of pubc
funds. It s ony when an act companed of, whch may ncude a
egsatve enactment or statute, nvoves the ega expendture of
pubc money that the so-caed taxpayer sut may be aowed.
- As voters, nether have pettoners the requste nterest or
personaty to quafy them to mantan and prosecute the present
petton, for to have ega standng s to have persona and
substanta nterest n the case, or sustan drect n|ury as a resut
of ts enforcement. Interest hed n common by a members of the
pubc s of abstract nature (as s the n|ury that w be sustaned)
and may not be used as standng to sue. Concrete n|ury, whether
actua or threatened, s that ndspensabe eement for one to have
personaty n a dspute.

2. SC has no |ursdcton to entertan ths petton
- The Supreme Court's |ursdcton over the COMELEC s ony to
revew by certorar the atter's decson, orders or rungs. Ths s as
ceary provded n Artce XII-C, Secton II of the 1973
Consttuton
47
. In ths case, there s no such decson, order or
rung. Even from the standpont of an acton for mandamus, wth
the tota absence of a showng that COMELEC has unawfuy
negected or refused the performance of a mnstera duty, t s not
shown that pettoners have a cear rght to the hodng of a speca
eecton whch s equay the cear and mnstera duty of COMELEC.
- Ony the Batasan Pambansa can make the necessary
appropraton for speca eectons, and ths power of the may
nether be sub|ect to mandamus by the courts much ess may
COMELEC compe the Batasan to exercse ts power of
appropraton. From the roe Batasan Pambansa has to pay n the
hodng of speca eectons, whch s to approprate the funds for
the expenses thereof, t woud seem that the ntatve on the
matter must come from sad body, not the COMELEC. The power to
approprate s the soe and excusve prerogatve of the egsatve
4<
Any decson, order or rung of the Commsson may be brought to the Supreme Court on certorar by the
aggreved party wthn thrty days from hs recept of a copy thereof.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'4
body, the exercse of whch may not be compeed through a
petton for mandamus.
4. Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) n the 1973 Consttuton does not appy to
the Interm Batasang Pambansa
- The cted provson of the 1973 Consttuton s not ntended to
appy to the Interm Batasang Pambansa.
- The strongest reason for ths s the fact that the Interm Batasang
Pambansa was to be composed by the deegates to the
Consttutona Conventon, as we as the then ncumbent Presdent
and Vce-Presdent, and the members or the Senate and House of
Representatves of Congress under the 1935 Consttuton. Wth
such number of representatves representng each congressona
dstrct, or a provnce, not to menton the Senators, there was fet
absoutey no need for fng vacances occurrng n the Interm
Natona Assemby, consderng the uncertanty of the duraton of
ts exstence.
- The provson s ntended to appy to the reguar Batasang
Pambansa, because a provnce or representatve dstrct woud
have ony one representatve n sad body. The need to f up the
Interm Batasang Pambansa s nether mperatve nor urgent, as
there woud aways be adequate representaton for every provnce
whch forms ony part of a certan regon, specay consderng that
the Body s ony transtory n character.
- That the provson s found n the man body of the Consttuton
and not n ncuded n Transtory Provsons adds to the ntenton
that the provson appes ony to the reguar, and not nterm,
Batasang Pambansa.
0ecision Petton dsmssed.
P&CE#E V (ECE#&2 O' CO""I((IO!
FERNANDO; |uy 23, 1971
'&C#(
Fezardo S. Pacete aeged that he was apponted by the then
Presdent of the Phppnes on August 31, 1964 as Muncpa |udge
of Pgcawayan, Cotabato. He assumed offce on September 11,
1964 and dscharged hs dutes as such. As hs appontment was
made durng recess of Congress, t was submtted to the
Commsson on Appontments at ts next sesson n 1965.
Appontment was unanmousy confrmed on May 20, 1965 (wth
Senate Presdent and Charman of Commsson on Appontments
Ferdnand Marcos even sendng hm a congratuatory teegram).
Nne months after hs confrmaton, on February 7, 1966, the then
Secretary of |ustce advsed pettoner to vacate hs poston as
muncpa |udge. Pettoner was nformed that on May 21, 1965,
Senator Rodofo Ganzon (a member of the Commsson on
Appontments) wrote to ts Charman statng that he was fng a
moton for reconsderaton of the appontment n vew of
derogatory nformaton whch he had receved.
I((%E(
1. WON the fng of a moton for reconsderaton wth the
Commsson on Appontments (CA), wthout beng acted on,
suffces to set at naught a confrmaton duy made of an a&
#nter#m appontment.
2. WON the ssue s a |ustcabe queston, wth the CA beng an
ndependent organ of the Consttuton.
3ELD
1. As per Atare|os v. Moo, t*e 0on/irmation stan+sP t must
be gven force and effect.
atio Pettoner buttresses hs pea for prohbton on the ground
that the etter of then Senator Ganzon, even on the assumpton
that t was a moton to reconsder an appontment duy confrmed,
was wthout force and effect as t was not approved by the body as
a whoe.
easonin;
a. The controng prncpe s supped by Atare|os v. Moo, whch
nterpreted Rue 21 of the Revsed Rues of the Commsson on
Appontments, whch reads: "Resouton of the Commsson on any
appontment may be reconsdered on moton by a member
presented not more than one (1) day after ther approva. If a
ma|orty of the members present concur to grant a reconsderaton,
the appontment may be ad on the tabe, ths sha be a fna
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'
dsposton of such a moton." 3ol+ing o/ t*e Court was t*at t*e
mere /iling o/ a re0onsi+eration +i+ not *ave t*e e//e0t o/
setting asi+e a 0on/irmation. In the case, Adeguers
(respondent n Atare|os case) theory woud gve to the mere f#l#ng
of a moton for reconsderaton the effect whch t woud have f the
moton a))ro*e&, and hence, woud dspense wth the necessty of
such approva, for whch the concurrence of a ma|orty of the
members present s necessary. Ths s nconsstent wth Rue 21 of
the Revsed Rues of the Commsson.
In 0ase o/ an a+<ournment sine die t*e perio+ /or /iling t*e
motion /or re0onsi+eration *aving e:pire+5 un+er (e0tion
II5 t*en t*e motion /or re0onsi+eration not *aving 6een
a0te+ upon is not approve+ an+ t*ere/ore5 *as no e//e0t
w*atsoever.
What s decsve s that a confrmaton duy made s not nufed
smpy by a moton of reconsderaton beng fed, wthout ts beng
voted upon and approved.
b. "The Presdent sha have the power to make appontments
durng the recess of the Congress, but such appontments sha be
effectve ony unt dsapprova by the CA or unt the next
ad|ournment of Congress."
- A dstncton s made between the exercse of such presdenta
prerogatve requrng confrmaton by the CA when Congress s n
sesson and when t s n recess. In the former, the Presdent
nomnates, and ony upon the consent of the CA may the person
assume offce. As wth a& #nter#m appontments, the appontment
takes effect at once. The appontment s effectve unt dsapprova
by the CA or unt the next ad|ournment n Congress. #*ere must
eit*er 6e a re<e0tion 61 t*e C& or nona0tion on its part.
2. The nsstence of respondent that the queston nvoved s
beyond the |ursdcton of ths Court s untenabe. It woud extend
the boundares of the potca queston doctrne beyond ts
egtmate mts. The courts are caed upon to see to t that prvate
rghts are not nvaded.
- Athough the CA s not a power n our trpartte system of
government, t s to a ntents and purposes, ke the Eectora
Trbunas, when actng wthn the mts of ts authorty, an
ndependent organ. Its actuaton n the exercse of ts power to
approve appontment submtted to t by the Presdent of the
Phppnes s exempt from |udca supervson and nterference,
except on a cear showng of such arbtrary and mprovdent use of
the powers as w consttute a dena of due process.
&VELI!O V C%E!CO
PER CURIAM; March 4, 1949
E(OL%#IO! on Original a0tion in t*e (C
'&C#(
- S$mmar+@ "he Aveno I %ase #ll$strates 3$&#%#al re*#e. of #nternal
affa#rs of the leg#slat$re. "he Co$rt ref$se& to loo= #nto the legal#t+
of the ele%t#on of a Senate Pres#&ent, #n *#e. of the se)arat#on of
)o.ers, the )ol#t#%al nat$re of the %ontro*ers+ an& the SenateGs
%onst#t$t#onal )o.er to ele%t #ts o.n )res#&ent
Before the openng of a mornng sesson of the Senate, Senators
Lorenzo Taada and Prospero Sandad prepared a resouton
enumeratng charges
48
aganst the then Senate Presdent |ose
Aveno. AVELINO presded the sesson and caed the meetng n
order, and except for a senator who was confned n a hospta and
another who s n the Unted States, a the Senators were present.
49
- TANADA sought to be recognzed, but AVELINO and hs foowers
prevented TANADA from deverng hs prvege speech. A
commoton ater ensued, upon whch AVELINO and 9 other senators
eft the sesson ha. Subsequenty, the Senate Presdent Pro-
tempore took the Char and proceeded wth the sesson. The
remanng senators unanmousy approved, among others, a
resouton "decarng vacant the poston of the Presdent of the
Senate and desgnatng. Marano |esus Cuenco Actng Presdent of
48
BRYAN S|: &mong w*i0* were a+vo0a01 o/ t*e gra/t an+ 0orruption in t*e government (parti0ularl1
t*ose 0ommitte+ 61 t*e Li6eral Part15 to w*i0* &VELI!O was a mem6er)P Luestiona6le possession
o/ 0*e09s totaling more t*an P5JJ5JJJ a/ter &VELI!OAs assumption o/ o//i0eP an+ <usti/i0ation o/
ele0toral /rau+.
49
(imilar to t*e 1F;H Const5 t*e (enate is 0ompose+ o/ IG senators un+er t*e 1FM5 Const.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'6
the Senate." The next day the Presdent of the Phppnes
recognzed CUENCO as actng Senate Presdent.
- Hence, the present petton, AVELINO askng the Court to decare
hm the rghtfu Senate Presdent and oust CUENCO.
I((%E
WON SC has |ursdcton over the sub|ect matter
3ELD
NO (6-4 vote)
atio The ssue of the vadty of the eecton of the new Senate
Presdent s a potca queston.
easonin;
- The answer s n the negatve, n vew of the separaton of powers,
the potca nature of the controversy and the consttutona grant
to the Senate of the power to eect ts own presdent, whch power
shoud not be nterfered wth, nor taken over, by the |udcary. Ae
sho$l& a/sta#n #n th#s %ase /e%a$se the sele%t#on of the )res#&#ng
off#%er affe%ts onl+ the Senators themsel*es .ho are at l#/ert+ at
an+ t#me to %hoose the#r off#%ers, %hange or re#nstate them. If the
ma|orty of the Senators want AVELINO to presde, hs remedy es
n the Senate Sesson Ha, not n the Supreme Court.
- The Court w not say nto the egtmate doman of the Senate
on the pea that our refusa to ntercede mght ead nto a crss,
even a revouton. No state of th#ngs has /een )ro*e& that m#ght
%hange the tem)er of the ;#l#)#no )eo)le as )ea%ef$l an& la.-
a/#&#ng %#t#6ens. It s furthermore beeved that the recognton
accorded by the Chef Executve to CUENCO makes t advsabe, to
adopt the hands-off pocy enuncated by ths Court n matters of
smar nature.
0ecision Pet#t#on &#sm#sse&.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
PE'EC#O D+issentE
- "here .as #llegal a&3o$rnment of the morn#ng sess#on. The power
to ad|ourn s one of the excusve prerogatves of a egsatve
chamber. It cannot be exercsed by any snge ndvdua, wthout
usurpaton of the coectve prerogatves. The functons of the
Senate and ts opportunty to transact offca busness cannot be
eft to the dscreton of a snge ndvdua wthout |eopardzng the
hgh purposes for whch a egsatve deberatve body s
estabshed n a democratc soca order.
- There s no provson n the present rues of the Senate whch
expressy or mpedy authorzes an ad|ournment wthout the
consent of the body or one whch authorzes the presdng offcer to
decree mot$ )ro)#o sad ad|ournment, and the sound paramentary
practce and experence n ths country and n the Unted States of
Amerca, upon whch ours s patterned, woud not authorze the
exstence of such a provson.
- AVELINO aeges that he ordered the ad|ournment because the
moton of a senator to sad effect was propery made and met wth
no ob|ecton. The evdence, however, fas to support AVELINOs
cam. The crcumstances ead us to the concuson that ega
ad|ournment and the wak out of AVELINO and hs supporters from
the sesson ha had the purpose of defeatng or, at east, deayng,
acton on the proposed nvestgaton of the charges aganst
AVELINO and of hs mpedng ouster, by the decsve votes of
CUENCO's group.
- "he r$m) sess#on (#.e. the sess#on after the 0VE57N2 gro$)
.al=o$t! ha& no *al#& 4$or$m to transa%t /$s#ness. - The
Consttuton provdes: "A ma|orty of each House sha consttute a
quorum to do busness." |%f Art. VI, Sec. 16 (2), 1987 Const|. The
ma|orty mentoned n the provson cannot be other than the
ma|orty of the actua members of the Senate. The words "each
House" n the above provson refer to the fu membershp of each
chamber of Congress. The Senate s composed of 24 Senators, and
a ma|orty of them cannot be ess than 13. 12 s ony haf of 24.
Nowhere and at no tme has one-haf ever been the ma|orty.
Ma|orty necessary has to be more than one-haf.
'EI& D0on0urE
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'7
- 7f the r$m) sess#on .as not a %ont#n$at#on of the morn#ng sess#on,
.as #t *al#&l+ %onst#t$te&U Yes. At the begnnng of the rump
sesson there were at east 14 senators. Aso, n vew of the
absence from the country of one senator, 12 senators consttute a
ma|orty of the Senate of 23 senators. When the Consttuton
decares that a ma|orty of "each House" sha consttute a quorum,
"the House" does not mean "a" the members. There s a dfference
between a ma|orty of "a the members of the House" and a
ma|orty of "the House", the atter requrng ess number than the
frst. Therefore an absoute ma|orty (12) of a the members of the
Senate ess one (23), consttutes consttutona ma|orty of the
Senate for the purpose of a quorum.
E(OL%#IO! on "otion /or e0onsi+eration
'&C#(
- In Aveno II, the Court, n ght of events subsequent to Aveno I
(.e., refusa of the Aveno group to return to the sesson ha
despte the compusory process served upon them), reversed ts
orgna decson and now assumed |ursdcton over the case
I((%E(
1. WON SC w assume |ursdcton over ths case
2. WON eecton of Cuenco as Senate Presdent s vad
3ELD
1. The Court has resoved (7-4 vote) to assume |ursdcton over the
case n the ght of subsequent events whch |ustfy ts nterventon.
2. Party for the reasons stated n the frst resouton of ths Court
and party upon the grounds stated by Fera |and| Perfecto, ||. n
ther separate opnons, to decare that there was a quorum at the
sesson where CUENCO was eected actng Senate Presdent. Chef
|ustce |Moran| agrees wth the resut of the ma|orty's
pronouncement on the quorum, t appearng from the evdence
that any new sesson wth a quorum woud resut n CUENCO's
eecton as Senate Presdent, and that the CUENCO group has been
tryng to satsfy |the consttutona| formasm by ssung
compusory processes aganst senators of the AVELINO group, but
to no ava, because of the atter's persstent efforts to bock a
avenues to consttutona processes. For ths reason, |the Chef
|ustce| beeves that the CUENCO group has done enough to satsfy
the requrements of the Consttuton and that the ma|orty's rung
s n conformty wth substanta |ustce and wth the requrements
of pubc nterest.
0ecision The |udgment of the Court s, therefore, that CUENCO has
been egay eected as Senate Presdent and the petton s
dsmssed.
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
'EI& D0on0urE
I mantan my opnon that there was a quorum n the (rump)
sesson. Among others, the amendment of the quorum provson
from "the ma|orty of a the members of the Natona Assemby
consttute a quorum to do busness," nto "a ma|orty of each House
sha consttute a quorum to do busness," shows the ntenton of
the framers of the Consttuton to base the ma|orty, not on the
number fxed or provded for n the Consttuton, but on actua
members or ncumbents, and ths must be mted to actua
members who are not ncapactated to dscharge ther dutes by
reason of death, ncapacty, or absence from the |ursdcton of the
House or for other causes whch make attendance of the member
concerned mpossbe, even through coercve process whch each
House s empowered to ssue to compe ts members to attend the
sesson n order to consttute a quorum.
PE'EC#O D0on0urE
- The words "a the members" used n the orgna, for the
determnaton of the quorum of the Natona Assemby, have been
emnated n the amendment, as regards the Houses of Congress,
because they were a mere surpusage. I, as Member of the Second
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1''
Natona Assemby and n my capacty as Charman of the
Commttee on Thrd Readng, was the one who proposed the
emnaton of sad surpusage, because "ma|orty of each House"
can mean ony the ma|orty of the members thereof, wthout
excudng anyone, that s, of a the members.
The word ma|orty s a mathematca word. It has, as such, a
precse and exact mathematca meanng. A ma|orty means more
than one-haf (1/2). It can never be dentfed wth one-haf (1/2) or
ess than one-haf. The Senate s composed of 24 senators. The
ma|orty of sad senators cannot be ess than thrteen 13. 12 do not
consttute the ma|orty n a group composed of 24 unts. No amount
of menta gymnastcs or |urstc ogodaeday w convnce anyone
that one of two equa numbers consttute a ma|orty part of the two
numbers combned. The 5 fngers of one hand cannot be the
ma|orty of the combned 10 fngers of the two hands. Ma|orty s
ncompatbe wth equaty. It mpes the dea of superorty.
Ma|orty presupposes the exstence of a tota and, n the present
case, the tota number of 24 senators composng the Senate.
- The above pronouncements notwthstandng, we are now ncned
to concude that for the purpose of choosng CUENCO merey as
Actng Senate Presdent, the presence of the 12 senators was
enough quorum. The Consttuton provdes: "A ma|orty of each
House sha consttute a quorum., but a smaer number may
ad|ourn from day to day and may compe the attendance of absent
Members n such manner and under such penates as such House
may provde" |agan, cf Art. VI, Sec. 16 (2), 1987 Const|. The
"smaer number" referred to has to act coectvey and cannot act
as coectve body to perform the functons specfcay vested n t
by the Consttuton uness presded by one among ther number.
The coectve body consttuted by sad "smaer number" has to
take measure to "compe the attendance of absent members," so
as to avod dsrupton n the functons of the respectve egsatve
chamber. Sad "smaer number" may be 12 or even ess than 12
senators to consttute a quorum for the eecton of a temporary or
actng presdent, who w have to act unt normacy s restored.
- At the hearng of ths case, CUENCO manfested that he was
ookng for an opportunty to renounce the poston of Actng
Senate Presdent, and that f AVELINO shoud attend the sessons of
the Senate and nsst on camng the presdency thereof, CUENCO
woud aow AVELINO to presde over the sessons. AVELINOs
refusa to attend the sessons, notwthstandng CUENCOs
commtment to aow hm to presde over them, can and shoud
ogcay be nterpreted as an abandonment whch entas forfeture
of offce.
O("E!& V PE!D&#%!
BENGZON; October 28, 1960
'&C#(
- On |une 23, 1960, Congressman Sergo Osmea, |r., n a prvege
speech devered before the House, made the serous mputatons
of brbery aganst the Presdent. The House of Representatves,
through Resouton No. 59, created a speca commttee of 15
members to nvestgate the truth of the charges aganst the
Presdent. It summoned Osmea to appear before t to
substantate hs charges.
- On |uy 14, 1960, Osmea fed wth the Supreme Court a petton
for "decaratory reef, certorar and prohbton wth premnary
n|uncton" aganst Congressman Sapada Pendatun and the
fourteen other members of the Speca Commttee. He asked that
sad resouton be annued and that sad members of the speca
commttee be en|oned from proceedng n accordance wth t,
partcuary the porton authorzng them to requre hm to
substantate hs charges aganst the Presdent, wth the admonton
that f he faed to do so, he must show cause why the House
shoud not punsh hm. Osmea aeged: (1) the Consttuton gave
hm compete paramentary mmunty, and so, for words spoken n
the House, he ought not to be questoned; (2) that hs speech
consttuted no dsordery behavour for whch he coud be punshed;
and (3) supposng he coud be questoned and dscpned therefor,
the House took up other busness, and Rue XVII, sec. 7 of the Rues
of the House provdes that f other busness has ntervened after
the Member had uttered obnoxous words n debate, he sha not be
hed to answer therefor nor be sub|ect to censure by the House
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.1'9
- Aware of the petton, the speca commttee contnued to perform
ts task, and after gvng Osmena a chance to defend hmsef,
submtted ts report on |uy 18, 1960, fndng sad congressman
guty of serous dsordery behavor. Actng on such report, the
House approved on the same day-before cosng ts sesson-House
Resouton No. 175, decarng hm guty as recommended, and
suspendng hm from offce for ffteen months.
- Thereafter, Osmea took the addtona poston that the House
has no power, under the Consttuton, to suspend one of ts
members.
- On |uy 19, 1960, the respondents fed ther answer, chaenged
the |ursdcton of the Court to entertan the petton, defended the
power of Congress to dscpne ts members wth suspenson,
uphed House Resouton No. .175 and then nvted attenton to the
fact that Congress havng ended ts sesson on |uy 18, 1960, the
Commttee-whose members are the soe respondents-had thereby
ceased to exst.
I((%E(
1. WON the Consttuton gves members of Congress compete
paramentary mmunty for words spoken n the House
2. WON the Speech of Osmea consttuted unruy behavor for
whch he coud be punshed
3. WON Osmea can be hed to answer for or be censured by
the House, gven that other busness had ntervened after gave
the speech n queston
4. WON the House has the power to suspend ts members
3ELD
1. NO. Secton 15, Artce VI of our Consttuton whch provdes that
"for any speech or debate" n Congress, the Senators or Members
of the House of Representatves "sha not be questoned n any
other pace." Ths secton was taken or s a copy of sec. 6, cause I
of Art. 1 of the Consttuton of the Unted States, wheren the
provson has aways been understood to mean that alt&ou;&
e)empt 9rom prosecution or civil actions 9or t&eir :ords
uttered in Con;ress, t&e members o9 Con;ress ma(,
nevert&eless, be Buestioned in Con;ress itsel9.
- Our Consttuton enshrnes paramentary mmunty whch s a
fundamenta prvege chershed n every egsatve assemby of
the democratc word. It guarantees the egsator compete
freedom of expresson wthout fear of beng made responsbe n
crmna or cv actons before the courts or any other forum
outsde of the Congressona Ha. But t does not protect hm from
responsbty before the egsatve body tsef whenever hs words
and conduct are consdered by the atter dsordery or unbecomng
a member thereof.
2. YES. The House s the |udge of what consttutes dsordery
behavor, not ony because the Consttuton has conferred
|ursdcton upon t, but aso because the matter depends many on
factua crcumstances of whch the House knows best but whch can
not be depcted n back and whte for presentaton to, and
ad|udcaton by the Courts. For one thng, f ths Court assumed the
power to determne whether Osmea's conduct consttuted
dsordery behavor, t woud thereby have assumed appeate
|ursdcton, whch the Consttuton never ntended to confer upon a
coordnate branch of the Government. The theory of separaton of
powers fastdousy observed by ths Court, demands n such
stuaton a prudent refusa to nterfere. Each department, t has
been sad, has excusve cognzance of matters wthn ts
|ursdcton and s supreme wthn ts own sphere.
- "The Legsatve power of the Phppne Congress s penary,
sub|ect ony to such mtatons as are found n the Repubc's
Consttuton. So that any power deemed to be egsatve by usage
or tradton, s necessary possessed by the Phppne Congress,
uness the Consttuton provdes otherwse." (Vera vs. Aveno, 77
Ph., 192, 212.)
3. YES. Resouton No. 59 was unanmousy approved by the House,
such approva amounted to a suspenson of the House Rues, whch
accordng to standard paramentary practce may be done by
unanmous consent. Paramentary rues are merey procedura,
and wth ther observance, the courts have no concern. They may
be waved or dsregarded by the egsatve body. Consequenty,
mere faure to conform to paramentary usage w not nvadate
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.190
the acton when the requste number of members has agreed to a
partcuar measure."
4. YES. For $n)arl#amentar+ conduct, members of Parament or of
Congress have been, or coud be censured, commtted to prson,
suspended, even expeed by the votes of ther coeagues. The
practce and the tradtona power of egsatve assembes to take,
dscpnary acton aganst ts members, ncudng mprsonment,
suspenson or expuson have been recognzed n the Unted States.
The Rues of Phppne House of Representatves provde that the
paramentary practces of the Congress of the Unted States sha
appy n a suppementary manner to ts proceedngs.
0ecision Petton DISMISSED.
&(#OG& V VILLEG&(
MAKALINTAL; Apr 30, 1974
'&C#(
- Orgna Acton n the SC. Mandamus, n|uncton and/or prohbton
wth premnary mandatory and prohbtory n|uncton
- HB No. 9266 was fed and was passed on the thrd readng
wthout amendments n the House of Representatves (HoR). It was
referred to the Senate Commttee on Provnces and Muncpa
Governments and Ctes headed by Sen. Roxas. Sen. Roxas
suggested a mnor amendment on HB 9266. However, ths
recommendaton was not acted upon by the Senate durng ts
second hearng, and nstead, approved #n toto Sen. Toentnos
substanta amendment on the secton defng the powers and
dutes of the VM.
- After that the Secretary of the Senate sent a etter to the HoR that
HB. No. 9266 had been passed by the Senate wth amendments.
However, the attached amendments were not Sen. Toentnos but
Sen. Roxasamendments. The HoR sgnfed ts approva of HB No.
9266 (wth Roxas amendment) and prnted copes of t whch were
certfed and attested by the Secretary of the HoR, the Speaker of
the HoR, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Senate Presdent.
The Secretary of the House transmtted 4 copes of the b to the
Presdent of the Phppnes, who affxed hs sgnatures by way of
approva - enacted the b nto R.A. No. 4065
50

- The respondent mayor (Vegas) pubcy denounced the RA, then
Sen. Toentno made a press statement that the enroed copy of HB
9266 sgned by the Presdent s not the verson passed by the
Senate snce t dd not contan the amendments he made. The
Senate Presdent then nformed the Presdent that the enroed
copy of the sgned HB 9266 was not the b duy approved by
Congress and that hs sgnature s nvad and had no effect, and
coud not vadate the b whch was not the verson approved by
the Congress. The Presdent then wthdrew hs sgnature on the HB
9266.
- Wth the wthdrawa of sgnatures of the Senate Presdent and the
Presdent of the Phppnes, Vegas ssued crcuars orderng cty
government offcas and operators of busness estabshments to
dsregard the provsons of RA 4065. He kewse ordered the Chef
of Poce to reca the poce offcers assgned to the vce-mayor
presumaby under the sad RA.
- As a reacton, the pettoner vce mayor (Astorga) fed a petton
for "Mandamus, In|uncton and/or Prohbton wth Premnary
Mandatory and Prohbtory In|uncton" to compe respondents to
compy wth the provsons of RA 4065.
- Respondents argued that RA 4056 never became aw snce (1) t
was not the b approved by Congress and (2) entres n the |ourna
of that body and not the enroed b shoud be decsve n the
resouton of the ssue. Snce Mayor Vegas was gong abroad on
an offca trp, Court ssued restranng order for Astorga to not
exercse the powers vested to hm as Actng Mayor under the RA
4065.
I((%E(
1. WON the Court coud resove the ssue regardng the
"enroed b doctrne"
2. WON the attestaton of the presdng offcers of the
Congress approves the b and vadates t nto a aw
50
An Act Defnng the Powers, Rghts and Dutes of the Vce-Mayor of the Cty of Mana, Further Amendng for
the Purpose Secton 10 and 11 of RA No. 409, Otherwse known as the Revsed Charter of the Cty of Mana
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.191
3. WON n the absence of the attestaton of the presdng
offcers, the "|ourna entry" n the |ournas of Congress coud
consttute proof of due enactment
4. WON RA 4065 was duy enacted and therefore dd not
become a aw
3ELD
1. atio YES. The enroed copy of the resouton and the
egsatve |ournas are concusve upon the Courts under Secton
313 of Act 190, as amended by Act. No. 2210 as evdence for the
due enactment of a b.
!biter
< compared ths case to the Mabanag v. Lopez Vto where the
Court dened to resove the ssue of WON a resouton of both
Houses of Congress proposng an amendment to the 1935
Consttuton to be appended as an ordnance thereto had been
passed by a "vote for three-fourths of a the members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatves" pursuant to Artce XV
of the Consttuton, sayng that t nvoved a potca queston
(enroed b doctrne) whch s not n the provnce of the |udcary.
- usng |. Bengzons separate opnon n the same case, |. Makanta
sad that the case at bar s |ustcabe snce enroed copy of the
resouton and the egsatve |ournas are concusve upon the
courts based on Secton 313 of Act 190, as amended by Act. No.
2210 as proof of due enactment of provsons of acts.
- bass of the enroed b theory: respect due to coequa and
ndependent departments whch requres the |udca department to
"accept, as havng passed the Congress, a bs authentcated by
t.
2. atio NO. The fna passage of the b ends the awmakng
process and the certfcaton/attestaton of the b s ony a mode
of authentcaton devsed by the Congress whch does not add the
vadty of the b nor cure any defect aready present upon t.
!biter effects of Attestaton of the b: |ust a mode of
authentcaton; sgnfy the Chef Executve that the b beng
presented to hm has been duy approved by Congress and s ready
for hs approva or dsapprova
3. atio YES. If attestaton s absent and s not mandated n
the Consttuton for the vadty of a statute, the courts may resort
to the |ournas and other records of Congress for proof of ts due
enactment.
!biter Attestaton by the presdng offcers s not mandated n the
Consttuton as a proof of due enactment of a b, but requres a
|ourna of the Congress proceedngs |comparson of Consttutons:
1935 const vs 1987 Const: Sec 10(4) = Art VI, sec 26 (2); Sec.
21(2) = Art VI, sec 27(1)|
4. atio NO. Gven that (1) the Court coud resove the ssue
regardng the enroed b doctrne, (2) that the Court coud use
the attestaton of the presdng offcers of Congress and, n the
absence of the atter, the records of the proceedngs of the
Congress entered nto the |ournas of Congress as proof of the
due enactment of RA 4065 snce the aw s deemed enacted after
the passage of the b n the 3
rd
readng and the attestaton of the
presdng offcers |ust serve as a mode of authentcatng the b,
(3) that, upon referrng to the |ourna entres of the proceedngs
of congress, the Court dscovered that substanta and engthy
amendments were ntroduced to the HB but were not
ncorporated n the prnted text whch was sgned by the
Presdent of the Phppnes, and (4) that the Presdent of the
Phppnes and of the Senate aready wthdrew ther sgnatures,
then RA 4065 was not duy enacted and therefore dd not become
a aw.
0ecision RA 4065 was decared not to have been duy enacted and
therefore dd not become aw. TRO made permanent. |8 concur, 2
no part, 1 dd not take part (I dont know the dfference), 1 on eave
= 12 ony|
"&#I!E4 V "O'E
FERNANDO; March 24, 1972
'&C#(
- Pettoners Manue Martnez and Fernando Bautsta, Sr. were
deegates of the 1971 Consttutona Conventon facng crmna
prosecuton
o Martnez was charged wth fasfcaton of a pubc document for
statng under oath n hs certfcate of canddacy for deegate to
the Consttutona Conventon that he was born on |une 20, 1945,
when n truth he was born on |une 20, 1946
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.192
o Bautsta was accused of voatng Secton 51 of the Revsed
Eecton Code n that he gave and dstrbuted free of charge, food,
drnks, and cgarettes at two pubc meetngs
- Both wanted the respectve warrants of arrest ssued aganst
them to be quashed, by vrtue of the paramentary mmunty they
en|oy as deegates, traceabe to Secton 15 Artce VI of the
Consttuton as construed together wth Artce 145 of the Revsed
Pena Code
I((%E(
1. WON the pettoners are mmune from arrest
2. WON Secton 15 Artce VI of the Consttuton shoud be
construed together wth Artce 145 of the Revsed Pena Code,
thereby expandng congressona mmunty
3ELD
1. No. Parl#amentar+ #mm$n#t+ &oes not %o*er %r#m#nal arrests.
Under Secton 15 of Repubc Act No. 6132, otherwse known as
the 1971 Consttutona Conventon Act, deegates are entted
to the paramentary mmuntes of a senator or a
representatve.
Artce VI Secton 15 of the Consttuton provdes: "The Senators
and Members of the House of Representatves sha n a cases
except treason, feony, and breach of peace, be prveged from
arrest durng ther attendance at the sessons of the Congress,
and n gong to and returnng from the same; and for any
speech o debate theren, they sha not be questoned n any
other pace."
Immunty from arrest does not cover any prosecuton for
treason, feony and breach of peace
o Treason-evyng war aganst the Repubc and adherng to
enemes and gvng them ad and comfort
o Feony-an act or omsson punshabe by aw
o Breach of peace-covers any offense whether defned by RPC
or any speca statute
Hstory of paramentary mmunty shows that t was never
ntended to exempt members of the Natona Assemby from
crmna arrest
The power or rght of the State to cam prveges s due to the
fact that t has the rght to carry out ts functon wthout
obstace
In Engand, operaton of paramentary prvege excudes a
crmes, appes ony to prosecutons of cv nature
There s a fu recognton of the necessty to have members of
the Congress, and kewse, deegates of the Consttutona
Conventon, entted to the utmost freedom to enabe them to
dscharge responsbtes
However, when t comes to freedom from arrest, t woud
amount to the creaton of a prveged cass f notwthstandng
ther abty for a crmna offense, they woud be mmune
durng ther attendance n Congress and n gong to and
returnng from the same.
A egsator or a deegate can perform hs functons effcenty
and we wthout the need for any transgresson of crmna aw.
If a egsator or deegate s facng crmna prosecuton, he
shoud be treated ke any other ctzen consderng that there s
a strong pubc nterest n seeng to t that a crme shoud not
go unpunshed.
2. No. 0rt#%le 14 of the >e*#se& Penal Co&e #s #no)erat#*e.
Artce 145 penazes a pubc offcer or empoyee who sha,
durng the sesson of Congress, arrest or search any member
thereof, except n case such member has commtted a crme
punshabe under the RPC by a penaty hgher than prson
mayor.
RPC took effect on |anuary 1, 1932, before the enforcement of
the 1935 Consttuton
Art. XVI, Sec, 2 of the 1935 Consttuton states: "A aws of the
Phppne Isands sha contnue n force unt the nauguraton
the Commonweath of the Phppnes; thereafter, such aws
sha reman operatve, uness nconsstent wth ths
Consttuton, unt amended, atered, modfed or repeaed by
the Congress of the Phppnes."
Artce 145 whch accords egsators a generous treatment
exemptng them from arrest even f warranted under the pena
aw, s nconsstent wth the Consttuton, and s consequenty
noperatve.
$I"E!E4 V C&.&!G.&!G
CONCEPCION; August 3, 1966
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.19(
'&C#(
- Ordnary Cv Acton for the recovery of severa sums of money by
way of damages for the pubcaton of an aegedy beous etter of
defendant Bartoome Cabangbang
- Defendant moved to dsmss upon ground that etter s a
prveged communcaton and not beous snce he was a member
of the House of Representatves and Charman of House Commttee
on Natona Defense
- The etter n queston s an open etter to the Presdent of the
Phppnes dated Nov 14, 1958 whe congress was presumaby not
n sesson.
- Defendant caused the pubcaton of the etter n severa
newpapers.
- The open etter was an expos on aegedy three operatona
pans. The frst pan s sad to be an nsdous pan or a massve
potca bud up of then Sec. of Nat Defense, |esus Vagas, by
propagandzng and gamorzng hm n such a way as to be
prepared to become canddate for Presdent n 1961. (Pan II - A
coup detat;Pan III - A modfcaton of Pan I)
- The etter aso mpcated that the "panners" have under ther
contro the foowng : (1) Co. Ncanor |menez , (2)Lt.Co. |ose
Lukban,(3) Capt. Caros Abert, (4)Co Fde Lamas, (5) Lt. Co |ose
regaa, (6)Ma|. |ose Reyna..."7t #s of %o$rse )oss#/le that the
off#%ers ment#one& a/o*e are $n.#tt#ng tools of the )lan of .h#%h
the+ ma+ ha*e a/sol$tel+ no =no.le&ge.J
- Lower Court dsmssed
- Pettoners appeaed
I((%E(
1. WON the pubcaton s a prveged communcaton
2. (f not) WON t s beous
3ELD
1. NO. The pubcaton n queston s not absoutey prveged. It
was an open etter to the Presdent pubshed by the defendant
when the Congress was not n sesson. And n thus causng t to be
pubshed he was not performng hs offca duty, ether as a
member of Congress or as offcer of any House Commttee.
- The phrase "speech or debate theren" as used n Artce VI, Sec
15 of the 1935 Consttuton refers to utterances made by
congressmen n the performance of ther offca functons, such as
speeches devered, statements made, or votes cast n the has of
Congress whe t s n sesson, as we as bs ntroduced n
Congress whether t s n sesson or not, and other acts performed
by Congressmen, ether n congress or outsde the premses
housng ts offces, n the dscharge of ther dutes as members of
Congress and of Congressona Commttees duy authorzed to
perform ts functon as such, at the tme of the performance of the
acts n queston.
2. NO. The etter n queston s not suffcent to support pantffs
acton for damages. Athough the etter says that pantffs are
under the contro of the panners, the defendant kewse added
that t was possbe that pantffs are unwttng toos of the pan
whch they may have absoutey no knowedge. The statement s
not derogatory to the pantffs, to the pont of enttng them to
recover damages.
PEL&E4 V &%DI#O GE!E&L
CONCEPCION; September 24, 1965
'&C#(
- Durng the perod from September 4 to October 29, 1964 the
Presdent of the Phppnes, purportng to act pursuant to Secton
68 of the Revsed Admnstratve Code, ssued Executve Order Nos.
93 to 121, 124 and 126 to 129; creatng 33 muncpates.
- &C (e0tion 8;
- provdes, among others, that the Presdent may by executve
order defne the boundary of muncpaty, ncrease or dmnsh ts
terrtory provded that the authorzaton of the Congress of the
Ph sha frst be obtaned.
- The pettoner argued that these EOs are nu and vod because of
& IMHJ (e0tion M whch provdes that barros may "not be
created or ther boundares atered nor ther names changed"
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.194
except by Acts of Congress or of the correspondng provnca board
"upon petton of a ma|orty of the voters n areas affected" and the
"recommendaton of the counc of the muncpaty n whch the
proposed barro s stuated."
- +rocedure Emmanue Peaez, as Vce Presdent of the
Phppnes and as taxpayer, nsttuted the present cv acton, for a
wrt of prohbton wth premnary n|uncton, aganst the Audtor
Genera, to restran hm, as we as hs representatves and agents,
from passng n audt any expendture of pubc funds n
mpementaton of sad executve orders and/or any dsbursement
by sad muncpates.
- The mayors who were adversey affected by the EOs ntervened n
the case.
- Atty. Enrque Fernando and Emma Ousumbng-Fernando
appeared as amc curae.
I((%E(
1. WON the executve orders are nu and vod upon the ground
that Secton 68 of RAC, whch was the bass of the EOs has been
mpedy repeaed by RA 2730.
2. WON the power of the Presdent to create muncpates under
RAC amount to an undue deegaton of egsatve power.

3ELD
1. Yes. RA 2370s dena of the presdenta authorty to create a
new /arr#o mpes a negaton of the bgger power to create
muncpates, each of whch conssts of severa barros.
2. Yes. The authorty to create muncpa corporatons s
essentay leg#slat#*e n nature. There coud ony be a due
deegaton of egsatve power f the aw s (a) compete n tsef - t
must set forth the pocy to be executed, carred out or
mpemented by the "deegate" - and (b) fx a standard - the mts
of whch the deegate must conform n the performance of hs
functons.
- Sec 28 of RAC does not meet these we setted requrements for
a vad deegaton of the power to fx the detas n the enforcement
of a aw. It does not enuncate any pocy to be carred out or
mpemented by the Presdent. Nether does t gve a standard
suffcenty precse to avod the ev effects of the power the
Presdent.
easonin;
a. adherence to precedent (Schechter Poutry Corp vs. US)
- It was hed here that n Recovery Act there was an undue
deegaton of egsatve power because t suppes no standards for
any trade, ndustry or actvty.
b. Consttutona provson (ncompatbe and nconsstent wth RAC)
- Sec 10 of Art VII of 1935 Consttuton ordans:
"The Presdent sha have 0ontrol of a the executve
departments, bureaus, or offces, exercse genera supervson
over a oca governments as may be provded by L&7. (ta=e
note@ s$%h %ontrol &oes not #n%l$&e the a$thor#t+ e#ther to
a/ol#sh or %reate!
0ecision The Executve Orders are decared nu and vod a/
#n#t#o and the respondent are permanenty restraned from passng
n audt any expendture of pubc funds n mpementaton of sad
Eos or any dsbursement by the muncpates concerned.
&!&%L# V !&4&E!O
OZAETA; |uy 18, 1950
'&C#(
- Ths refers to two and deas entered nto by the Phppne
government as foows:
1. -EEN0V7S"0 ES"0"E
- The Phppne government eased from San |uan de Dos Hospta
for twenty fve years the Buenavsta estate and had an opton to
purchase the same for P 3.0 mon. Ths purchase opton was
exercsed by the then occupaton repubc by tenderng the owner
the sum of P 3.0 mon and, on ts re|ecton, depostng the sad
funds n Court on |une 21, 1944 together wth the accrued rentas
of P 324,000.
- San |uan de Dos on |une 29, 1946 sod ths same property to
Ernest H. Burt, an non-resdent Amercan for P 5,000,000 wth the
nta downpayment of P 10,000 wth the baance payabe under
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.19
very favorabe terms. Burt was unabe to compy wth the terms
agreed.
2. "0M-2-2N9 ES"0"E
- On May of 1946, the same Burt purchase from Phppne Trust
Corporaton, the Tambobong estate for P 1.2 mon wth a
downpayment of P 10,000.00 and terms whch are as generuous as
those from San |uan de Dos. There was however no other payment
receved from Burt.
- The Phppne government, through the Rura Progress
Admnstraton, acqured ths same property from ts orgna owner
for the sum of P 750,000 and subsequenty nsttuted a notara
demand upon Burt for the resouton and canceaton of hs
contract of purchase wth Phppne Trust for non payment. The
Court of Frst Instance n ths case ordered the canceaton of
Burts tte and the ssuance of a new one under the name of Rura
Progress Admnstraton.
- For one reason or another, despte the fact the Phppne
government aready owned both the above estate, t agan bought
the same from Burt for a tota consderaton of P 5,000,000 (P 4.5
mon for Buenavsta and P 500,000 for Tambobong). The
government pad ntay P 1,000,000 for Buenavsta and the fu
amount of P 500,000 for the Tambobong estate through two
corporatons actng as Burts attorneys-n-fact. These two were
represented n the trasacton by one and the same person, |ean L.
Arnaut.
- It was aso brought out that the Rura Progress Admnstraton was
headed at that tme by the |ustce secretary who was at the same
tme Charman of the Phppne Natona Bank, the nsttuton that
ent the funds to Rura Progress.
- The transactons resuted nto a pubc outcry whch ed nto the
Phppne Senate adoptng Resouton 8 whch created a speca
commttee to nvestgate the Buenavsta and Tambobong Estates
dea.
- The commttee was tasked, among others, wth determnng:
a. the vadty, honesty, proprety of the purchase
b. the farness of the purchase prce
c. the partes nvoved/responsbe for the dea
- Durng the pubc hearngs of the Commttee, varous wtnesses
were caed. Among them and apparenty the most mportant was
|ean Arnaut, the person who represented Burt n the transactons.
- Durng the sad hearng, Arnaut confrmed recevng the money
from the government and wthdrawng, n cash, P 440,000 whch he
gave to someone on nstructon of Burt. When asked to dentfy the
person he gave the money to, he reped that he dd not know hs
name despte the fact that he met the person on many occasons.
When pressed to answer, he aso sad that answerng the queston
mght ncrmnate hm. Based on ths refusa, the senate approved
a resouton on May 15, 1950 arragnng hm for contempt and
subsequenty found hm guty of the charge. He was commtted to
the custody of the Senate Sergeant at arms unt he reveas the
name of the person he gave the money to. The Senate ad|ourned
three days ater. The work of the Commttee however was
extended va Resouton 16.
- Arnaut fed an orgna acton for the ssuance of a wrt of Habeas
Corpus wth the Supreme Court to obtan hs reease cted the
foowng grounds:
a. the Senate has no power to punsh hm for contempt snce the
requested nformaton s not matera to the ntended egsaton
and hs refusa to answer has not mpeded or obstructed the
egsated process. The Senate has aready approved bs reated
to the transactons.
b. the Senate acks the authorty to commt hm n contempt for a
term beyond ts egsatve sesson.
c. the nformaton sought w be sef-ncrmnatng
- ror to dscussng the ssues, the Supreme Court went nto the
genera prncpes of aw wth regard the power of ether house of
Congress to punsh a person not a member for contempt as ths
case s the frst of ts knd to be tred under the Phppne
consttuton. In so dong, the Supreme Court had to draw from
Amercan precedents n recognton of the fact that the Consttuton
of the Phppnes were patterned after argey Amercan nsttutons
and practces. The dscussons were as foows:
a. There s no expressed provsons n the consttuton whch
grant power to ether House to nvestgate or exact testmones to
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.196
exercse egsatve functon. However, ths power of nqury, and
the process to enforce t, s a necessary eement to enabe the
body to wsey and effectvey perform ther respectve egsatve
functons. In the absence of nformaton that t requres, Congress
has no other recourse but to get the same from others who have
them. At tmes, the nformaton requred are not entrey accurate
or compete. Gven ths, Congress has the mped coercve to
obtan such nformaton.
b. The power to compe s mted to nformaton requred n a
matter nto whch Congress has |ursdcton to nqure.
I((%E(
WON the wrt of Habeas Corpus shoud be granted
3ELD
a. The requested nformaton s needed to compy wth the drecton
of the senate as contaned n Resouton Nos. 8 & 16 to secure the
names of the persons responsbe for the transacton. The
materaty of the queston asked n the pubc hearng shoud be
determned by ts drect reaton to the matter beng nqured nto
and not by ts ndrect reaton to any proposed or possbe
egsaton. The ony tme that the Supreme Court may nterfere
wth the Senate s when a pettoner s beng forced to answer
questons whch are not pertnent to the matter nqury. In ths case
and ctng M%9ra#n *s :a$ghert+, Congress woud be guty of a
cear abuse of authorty n the exercse of ts power. As to whether
the nformaton sought to be ected s matera to an proposed
egsaton, the Court coud not say as ths s not wthn ther scope.
- Ctng the case >e@ Cha)man, where the pettoner was |aed for
contempt of the US Senate for refusng to answer questons wth
regard accounts of Senators n hs company, the Supreme Court
hed that the Phppne Senate has the authorty to compe Arnaut
and f he so refuses to gve the nformaton, aso the power fnd hm
n contempt and to mprson hm unt he compes wth sad
requrement.
b. The power of the Senate to commt Arnaut to prson does not
end wth the termnaton of the egsatve sesson. The opnon of
|ustce Macom was cted wth regard the Can&#&o 5o)e6 case
where he opnes that the mprsonment of Lopez termnates when
the House of Representatves ad|ourns. Ctng however the M%9ra#n
case agan, the Court sad that, unke the House of
Representatves whch osses a ts members every four years
(hence ts term s ony four years), the Senate s deemed as a
contnung body whose members are eected for a sx year term
and are so dvded that ony a thrd of the seats become vacant
every two years. Hence, the power of the Senate to hod Arnaut s
a contnung power. The ony caveat of the Supreme Court n ths
case s that f the Senate dsregards the proper mtaton to |a
partes n contempt, the remedy s wth the Court.
c. Arnauts cam to sef ncrmnaton cannot be sustaned ctng
Mason *s ES as a precedent. The Court must be gven the chance
to determne from a the facts and crcumstances whether the
wtness s |ustfed n refusng to answer any queston whch coud
ncrmnate hm. Arnauts testmony was obvousy fase. He
obvousy knew the name of the person he gave the money to. Hs
refusa to testfy truthfuy s punshabe wth contempt.
0ecision Petton s dened
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
#%&(O! D+issentE
- The power of the egsatve body to punsh for contempt s based
on the necessty for ts attanment of the ends. The power s
however not absoute. And ths s precsey where dsagreement
occur.
- |ustce Tuason s of the opnon that the queston beng asked has
no reaton whatsoever to the contempated egsaton. A stated
reason for the nsstence on gettng an answer to the queston as to
who receved the money s supposedy to vndcate or cear the
names of the persons suspected of gettng the money (Antono
Ourno, one of the suspects, s the brother of Presdent Ourno).
The Senate s not the proper forum for such vndcaton. The
Senate nvestgaton seems to have ony one ob|ectve and ths s
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.197
to prepare the way for court acton snce they coud not expect the
|ustce department to take the ntatve to nvestgate and
prosecute the responsbe partes as t seems that the Secretary of
the |ustce department had a hand n the transacton. Ths s not
the a duty of the Legsatve department.
- The Commttees report has been submtted to the entre Senate.
And as a matter of fact three bs were passed by the Senate n
connecton wth the nvestgaton. Ths beng the case there s no
need to extract names. The mportance of names s when t comes
to a crmna prosecuton.
- In endng, |ustce Tuason stated that the nvestgaton of the
Senate s commendabe and ega. Hs man ob|ecton es n the
fact that the Senate has overstepped ts authorty and trespassed
on the terrtory of other braches of government "when t
mprsoned a wtness for contumacy on a pont that s unmportant,
useess, mpertnent and rreevant, et aone moot".
LID&(&! V CO""I((IO! O! ELEC#IO!(
SANCHEZ; October 25, 1967
'&C#(
- On |une 18, 1966, the Chef Executve sgned nto aw House B
1247, known as Repubc Act 4790, now n dspute. The body of the
statute, reproduced n haec verba, reads:
SECTION 1. Barros Togag, Madaum, Bayanga, Langkong,
Sarakan, Kat-bo, Dgakapan, Magabo, Tabangao, Tongko,
Coodan, Kabamakawan, Kapatagan, Bongabong, Apang,
Dagowan, Bakks, Bungabung, Losan, Matmos and Magoatung,
n the Muncpates of Butg and Baabagan, Provnce of Lanao
de Sur, are separated from sad muncpates and consttuted
nto a dstnct and ndependent muncpaty of the same provnce
to be known as the Muncpaty of Danaton, Provnce of Lanao
de Sur. The seat of government of the muncpaty sha be n
Togag.
SEC. 2. The frst mayor, vce-mayor and councors of the new
muncpaty sha be eected n the nneteen hundred sxty-seven
genera eectons for oca offcas.
SEC. 3. Ths Act sha take effect upon ts approva.
- It came to ght ater that barros Togag and Madaum |ust
mentoned are wthn the muncpaty of Budon, Provnce of
Cotabato, and that Bayanga, Langkong, Sarakan, Kat-bo,
Dgakapan, Magabo, Tabangao, Tongko, Coodan, and
Kabamakawan are parts and parce of another muncpaty, the
muncpaty of Parang, aso n the Provnce of Cotabato and not of
Lanao de Sur. Bara Ldasan, a resdent and taxpayer of Parang,
Cotabato, prays that Repubc Act 4790 be decared
unconsttutona; and that Comeec's resoutons of August 15, 1967
and September 20, 1967 mpementng the same for eectora
purposes, be nufed.
I((%E(
1. WON the tte of RA 4790 conforms wth the consttutona
requrement that the sub|ect of a b sha be expressed n the tte
NO
2. WON RA 4790 may st be savaged wth reference to the nne
barros n Lanao de Sur NO
3. WON pettoner has ega standng to chaenge the statute YES
3ELD
1. The tte - "An Act Creatng the Muncpaty of Danaton, n the
Provnce of Lanao de Sur" 8 - pro|ects the mpresson that soey
the provnce of Lanao de Sur s affected by the creaton of
Danaton. Not the sghtest ntmaton s there that communtes n
the ad|acent provnce of Cotabato are ncorporated n ths new
Lanao de Sur town. The phrase "n the Provnce of Lanao de Sur,"
read wthout subtety or contorton, makes the tte mseadng,
deceptve. Such tte dd not nform the members of Congress as to
the fu mpact of the aw; t dd not apprse the peope n the towns
of Budon and Parang n Cotabato and n the provnce of Cotabato
tsef that part of ther terrtory s beng taken away from ther
towns and provnce and added to the ad|acent Provnce of Lanao
de Sur; t kept the pubc n the dark as to what towns and
provnces were actuay affected by the b.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.19'
2. Where a porton of a statute s rendered unconsttutona and the
remander vad, the parts w be separated, and the consttutona
porton uphed. But when the parts of the statute are so mutuay
dependent and connected, as condtons, consderatons,
nducements, or compensatons for each other, as to warrant a
beef that the egsature ntended them as a whoe, and that f a
coud not be carred nto effect, the egsature woud not pass the
resdue ndependenty, then, f some parts are unconsttutona, a
the provsons whch are thus dependent, condtona, or connected,
must fa wth them. When the foregong b was presented n
Congress, unquestonaby, the totaty of the twenty-one barros -
not nne barros - was n the mnd of the proponent thereof. That
ths s so, s pany evdent by the fact that the b tsef, thereafter
enacted nto aw, states that the seat of the government s n
Togag, whch s a barro n the muncpaty of Budon n Cotabato.
And then the reduced area poses a number of questons, thus:
Coud the observatons as to progressve communty, arge
aggregate popuaton, coectve ncome suffcent to mantan an
ndependent muncpaty, st appy to a motey group of ony nne
barros out of the twenty-one?
3. Pettoner s a quafed voter. He expects to vote n the 1967
eectons Hs rght to vote n hs own barro before t was annexed
to a new town s affected. He may not want, as s the case here, to
vote n a town dfferent from hs actua resdence. He may not
desre to be consdered a part of htherto dfferent communtes
whch are formed nto the new town; he may prefer to reman n
the pace where he s and as t was consttuted, and contnue to
en|oy the rghts and benefts he acqured theren. He may not even
know the canddates of the new town; he may express a ack of
desre to vote for anyone of them; he may fee that hs vote shoud
be cast for the offcas n the town before dsmemberment. Snce
by consttutona drecton the purpose of a b must be shown n ts
tte for the beneft, amongst others, of the communty affected
thereby, 16 t stands to reason to say that when the consttutona
rght to vote on the part of any ctzen of that communty s
affected, he may become a sutor to chaenge the consttutonaty
of the Act as passed by Congress.
"ILLE V "&DO
BARRERA; |uy 31, 1961
'&C#(
- These are dfferent cases taken together as they present ony one
dentca queston
- 1
st
case: Manue Gonzaes fed compant aganst B Mer at the
DoL, camng that he s a drver of Mer and was arbtrary
dsmssed wthout separaton pay
- Mer fed petton for prohbton aganst Hearng Offcer Mardo of
the DoL on ground that HO has no |ursdcton to hear and decde
on the case
- Court rendered decson though that Reorg. Pan 2-A dd not
repea |udcary Act that conferred to CFI orgna |ursdcton to take
cognzance of money cams re voatons of abor standards
- 2
nd
case: Cresenco Estano fed compant at the DoL aganst Chn
Hua Tradng Co., for not beng pad overtme and vacaton eave
pay as a drver n the company
- same crcumstances as 1
st
case, and court ssued permanent
n|uncton aganst hearng the cases by the Hearng Offcer, as
Reorg. Pan 2-A s nu and vod.
- 3
RD
case: Numerana Raganas fed wth CFI a compant aganst
Sen Bee Tradng Company for beng underpad, not beng pad
overtme, wthout sck eave and vacaton eave pay, as a
seamstress
- Sun Bee fed moton to dsmss, and nssted that CFI does not
have |ursdcton as money cams must be fed wth Regona
Offce of DoL under Reorg. Pan 2-A
- 4
th
case: Vcente Romero fed case aganst Sa Seng at the DoL
Sa Leng dd noy\t fe an answer and a decson was rendered n
favor of Romero. But Labor Admnstrator Hernando refused to
ssue the wrt of executon of the ecson as he beeved that Sa
Seng deserved to be heard
they nsst as we that Reorg. Pan s not vady passed as a
statute and unconsttutona
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.199
- 5
th
case: Marano Pabare fed at the DoL a compant aganst
Fred Wson and Co., as he was summary dsmssed whout cause,
wthout separaton pay, and wthout suffcent notce.
- They moved to dsmss as t s ony an admnstratve body, wth
no power to ad|udcate money cams
- Certorar, prohbton and n|ucton was fed as we - that Reorg
Pan s nu and vod nsofar as t vest orgna excusve
|ursdcton over money cams
I((%E(
1. WON Reorganzaton Pan 20-A, prepared and submtted under
the authorty of RA 997 as amended by RA 1241, s vad, nsofar as
t confers |ursdcton to the Regona Offces of the Department of
Labor to decde on cams of aborers for wages, overtme and
separaton pay, etc.
2. WON Reorganzaton Pan 20-A was vady passed by Congress
3ELD
1. No t s not vad.
- Whe the Reorganzaton Commsson coud create functons, t
referred merey to admnstratve and not |udca functons such as
decdng on money cams. |udca power rests excusvey on the
|udcary
- Whe egsature may confer admnstratve boards quas-|udca
powers, t must be ncdent to the exercse of admnstratve
dunctons
- Conferment of quas-|udca functons cannot be mped from a
mere grant of power to create f$n%t#ons n connecton wth
reorganzaton of the Executve
2. No t was not vady passed by Congress
- A aw s not passed by mere sence or non-acton of Congress
even f t be stated n Sec 6(a) of RA 997
- It s contrary to we-setted and we-understood paramentary
aw- that two houses are to hod separate sessons for ther
deberatons and the determnaton of the one upon a proposed
aw s to be submtted to the separate determnaton of the other.
#&!&D& V #%VE&
ESCOLIN; Apr 24, 1985
'&C#(
- Petton to revew the decson of the Executve Assstant to the
Presdent.
- Invokng the peopes rght to be nformed on matters of pubc
concern, a rght recognzed n Secton 6, Artce IV of the 1973
consttuton, pettoners seek a wrt of mandamus to compe
respondent pubc offcas to pubsh, and/or cause the pubcaton
n the Offca Gazette, of varous presdenta decrees, etters of
nstructons, genera orders, procamatons, executve orders, etter
of mpementaton and admnstratve orders. The respondents
woud have ths case dsmssed on the ground that pettoners have
no ega personaty to brng ths petton. Pettoners mantan that
snce the sub|ect of the petton concerns a pubc rght and ts
ob|ect s to compe pubc duty, they need not show any specfc
nterest. Respondents further contend that pubcaton n the OG s
not a sne qua non requrement for the effectvty of aws where the
aws themseves provde for ther own effectvty dates.
I((%E
WON pubcaton n the Offca Gazette s an ndspensabe
requrement for the effectvty of the PDs, LOIs, genera orders,
EOs, etc. where aws themseves provde for ther own effectvty
dates
3ELD
Yes. It s the peopes rght to be nformed on matters of pubc
concern & coroary access to offca records, & to documents &
papers pertanng to offca acts, transactons, or decsons, sha be
afforded the ctzens sub|ect to such mtaton as may be provded
by aw (Sec. 6, Art. IV, 1973 Consttuton). Laws, to be vad &
enforceabe, must be pubshed n the OG or otherwse effectvey
promugated. The fact that a PD or LOI states ts date of effectvty
does not precude ther pubcaton n the OG as they consttute
mportant egsatve acts. The pubcaton of presdenta ssuances
"of pubc nature" or "of genera appcabty" s a requrement of
due process. Before a person may be bound by aw, he must frst
be offcay nformed of ts contents.
0ecision Respondents ordered to pubsh n Offca Gazette a
unpubshed presdenta ssuances of genera appcaton, and
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.200
uness so pubshed sha have no bndng force and effect.
Important +oint It ustrates how decrees & ssuances ssued by
one man - Marcos - are n fact aws of genera appcaton and
provde for penates. The consttuton afforded Marcos both
executve & egsatve powers.
- The generaty of aw (CC Art. 14) w never work w/o constructve
notce. The rung of ths case provdes that pubcaton consttutes
the necessary constructve notce & s thus the cure for gnorance
as an excuse.
- Ignorance w not even mtgate the crme.
#&!&D& V #%VE&
CRUZ; December 29, 1986
'&C#(
- In the decson of ths case on Apr 24, 1985, the Court affrmed
the necessty for the pubcaton of some of these decrees,
decarng n the dspostve porton as foows:
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to pubsh to
the Offca Gazette a unpubshed presdenta ssuances whch
are of genera appcaton, and uness so pubshed, they sha
have no bndng force and effect."
- Ths s a moton for reconsderaton/carfcaton of the frst
decson, specfcay, on the foowng questons:
I((%E(
1. What s meant by "aw of pubc nature" or "genera
appcabty"?
2. Must a dstncton be made between aws of genera appcabty
and aws whch are not?
3. What s meant by "pubcaton"?
4. Where s the pubcaton to be made?
5. When s the pubcaton to be made?
3ELD
1 & 2. The term "aws" shoud refer to a aws and not ony to
those of genera appcaton, for strcty speakng a aws reate to
the peope n genera abet there are some that do not appy to
them drecty. We hod therefore that a statutes, ncudng those of
oca appcaton and prvate aws, sha be pubshed as a condton
for ther effectvty, whch sha begn ffteen days after pubcaton
uness a dfferent effectvty date s fxed by the egsature.
Covered by ths rue are presdenta decrees and executve orders
promugated by the Presdent n the exercse of egsatve powers
whenever the same are vady deegated by the egsature or, at
present, drecty conferred by the Consttuton. Admnstratve rues
and reguatons must aso be pubshed f ther purpose s to
enforce or mpement exstng aw pursuant aso to a vad
deegaton.
3. The pubcaton must be n fu or t s no pubcaton at a snce
ts purpose s to nform the pubc of the contents of the aws. The
mere menton of the number of the presdenta decree, the tte of
such decree, ts whereabouts (e.g., "wth Secretary Tuvera"), the
supposed date of effectvty, and n a mere suppement of the
Offca Gazette cannot satsfy the pubcaton requrement. Ths s
not even substanta compance.
51
4. We have no choce but to pronounce that under Artce 2 of the
Cv Code, the pubcaton of aws must be made n the Offca
Gazette, and not esewhere, as a requrement for ther effectvty
after ffteen days from such pubcaton or after a dfferent perod
provded by the egsature.
5. We aso hod that the pubcaton must be made forthwth, or at
east as soon as possbe, to gve effect to the aw pursuant to the
sad Artce 2. There s that possbty, of course, athough not
suggested by the partes that a aw coud be rendered
unenforceabe by a mere refusa of the executve, for whatever
reason, to cause ts pubcaton as requred. Ths s a matter,
however, that we do not need to examne at ths tme.
L&.&! !G DE"O)&#I)O!G PILIPI!O V CO""I((IO! O!
ELEC#IO!(
TINGA; February 24, 2004
51
Ths was the manner n whch the Genera Appropratons Act for FY 1975, a presdenta decree undenaby of
genera appcabty and nterest, was "pubshed" by the Marcos admnstraton. The evdent purpose was to
wthhod rather than dscose nformaton on ths vta aw.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.201
'&C#(
- LDP together wth other potca partes formed a coaton caed
?oal#s+on ng Nag=a=a#sang P#l#)#no (?NP!
- KNP has chose Fernando Poe as ts Standard Bearer for the
Presdent of the Phs n the May 2004 eectons
- LDP fed wth COMELEC a petton to certfy nomnaton of
canddates for the upcomng eectons
- on Dec. 8, 2003, LDP fed a Manfestaton nformng the COMELEC
a) that ony the Party Charman, Senator Edgardo Angara or hs
authorzed representatve may endorse the certfcate of
canddacy of the partys offca canddates
b) that LDP had paced ts Secretary Genera, Representatve
Agapto Aquno, on "ndefnte forced eave" and Ambassador
Enrque Zadvar was the Actng Sec-Gen
- Rep. Aquno contended that the Party Charman does not have
authorty to mpose dscpnary sanctons on the Sec-Gen and
asked COMELEC to dsregard the Manfestaton
- pendng resouton, a Certfcate of Nomnaton was fed wth
COMELEC, namng Sen. Panfo Lacson as LDPs Standard Bearer for
presdent; the certfcate was sgned by Rep. Aquno
- the COMELEC, notng that the confct was an nterna party
matter and that the perod for fng for the Certfcate of
Nomnaton was about to end, granted the petton for both
Pettoner (Angara) and Oppostor (Aquno) n that t recognzed a
the canddates nomnated by both partes as the offca canddates
of the LDP dentfyng each set of canddates as the "Angara Wng"
and the "Aquno Wng"
- Angara fed the present petton assang the COMELEC
Resouton for havng been ssued wth grave abuse of dscreton
I((%E
WON COMELEC gravey abused ts dscreton when t apped equty
and dvded LDP nto "wngs"
3ELD
YES there was grave abuse of dscreton. The ony ssue to be
resoved by the Commsson was who as between the Charman
and the Secretary Genera had the authorty to sgn the certfcates
of canddacy. To resove the ssue, the COMELEC need ony to refer
to the Party Consttuton. Equty s apped ony f there absence of
aw that can be apped to resove the ssue whch s not the case
here.
- as provded n the 1987 Consttuton the COMELEC has the
authorty to ascertan the dentty of the potca partes and ts
egtmate offcers; consequenty t has the power to sette any
controversy regardng eadershp of the party as an ncdent to ts
power to regster potca partes. Ths matter s mportant n
determnng as to who between Aquno and Angara had the
authorty to certfy LDPs canddates
- Accordng to the Party Consttuton, t s the Charman who has
the power to sgn documents n behaf of the party; the Sec-Gen
has power to sgn documents onl+ .hen a$thor#6e& /+ the
Cha#rman. That Aquno had been gven authorty n the past, as
found by the COMELEC durng the 2001 eectons, t does not
foow that sad authorty s st exstng snce t can be gathered
n Angaras Manfestaton that Aqunos authorty had been
revoked, whch the Charman may do so n hs dscreton as
mped n hs authorty to grant such power
- However, the ack of authorty of Aquno to certfy canddates
does not cance the certfcates he sgned. The canddates named
w ony be treated as ndependent canddates foowng
COMELEC Resouton No. 6453, secton 7
- The COMELEC, by aowng two wngs to nomnate ther own
canddates, confused the eectorate as to whch set of canddates
truy represent the deooges that the LDP represents
- The consttutona pocy towards a free and open party system
envsons a system that sha "evove accordng to the free choce
of the peope" and not one moded by the COMELEC
.ILL&!#E( V CO"ELEC
CALLE|O; |une 15, 2004
'&C#(
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.202
- On 12/22/97, Congress enacted RA 8436, authorzng COMELEC to
use an automated eecton system (AES) for the process of votng,
countng of votes and canvassng/consodatng resuts of the
natona and oca eectons for May 11 98. Aso aowed the
acquston of automated countng machnes (ACM) and other
devces to adopt new eectora forms and prntng materas.
However, the faure of the machnes to read baots correcty
deferred mpementaton of modernzaton pan.
- 10/29/02, COMELEC ssued Resouton No. 02-0170, a t*ree-
p*ase mo+erni,ation program for the 2004 eectons.
o Phase 1 P %om)$ter#6e& reg#strat#on an& *al#&at#on
Encountered probems n mpementaton because machne was
revertng to od stng of voters
o Phase 2 P %om)$ter#6e& *ot#ng an& %o$nt#ng
Scrapped because COMELEC had to mantan manua votng and
countng system due to the probems encountered wth
vadaton
o Phase ( P Ele%tron#% transm#ss#on of $noff#%#al res$lts (whch s
chaenged n ths case)
- Despte faure of the frst 2 phases, COMELEC through ts
commssoners st decded to mpement Phase 3
- GMA ssued EO 172 whch aocated P250,000,000 to fund the AES
for the May 10 04 eectons. Aso ssued EO 175, gvng an
addtona P500M budget for the AES pro|ect.
- Senate Presdent Dron had msgvngs about the proposed
eectronc transmsson of resuts because accordng to the
Consttuton (Art VII, Sec 4), Congress has the soe authorty to
canvass votes for Presdent and VP. Impementng Phase 3 woud
be pre-emptve of the authorty of Congress and woud aso ack
consttutona authorty
- Asde from Drons apprehenson, there were budget probems for
mpementaton because the money aocated by GMA had aready
been used for phases 1 and 2. COMELEC, however, st conducted a
fed test of the eectronc transmsson of resuts (phase 3) on
04/27/04 (Separate opnons of COMELEC offcas found on p. 277.
Read |ust n case.)
- COMELEC, 2 weeks before the natona and oca eectons,
approved E(OL%#IO! 8H1I statng the mpementaton of phase
3 and decared that resuts of each cty/muncpaty sha be
eectroncay transmtted n advance to COMELEC, Mana. They
estabshed a Natona Consodaton Center (NCC), Eectronc
Transmsson Centers (ETC) for each cty/muncpaty and a speca
ETC at COMELEC for the absentee voters. (procedure p. 278). Note
that the resuts garnered n the procedure are of unoffca
character.
- Hence, pettoner and pettoners-n-nterventon brought ther
msgvngs to SC.
I((%E(
1. WON pettoners have ocus stand
2. WON COMELEC commtted grave abuse of dscreton amountng
to ack or excess of |ursdcton n ssung RA 6712
3ELD
1. Pettoners cam ther standng as taxpayers and snce the
Resouton obvousy nvoves the expendture of funds, they do
have the requste standng to queston ts vadty. Most of the
pettoners-n-nterventon are aso part of NAMFREL, the ctzens
authorzed arm to conduct an unoffca quck count durng
eectons. Lasty, Dron and De Veneca are heads of Congress, the
soe authorty for canvassng votes for Presdent and VP.
2. The resouton usurps the tabuaton of eecton resuts based on
a copy of the eecton returns the soe and excusve authorty of
Congress to canvass votes for Presdent and VP. COMELECs cam
that t s not prohbted because t s an unoffca vote s
unacceptabe.
- the resouton goes aganst the consttutona provson that no
money sha be pad out of the treasury except n pursuance of an
appropraton made by aw (Sec 29, Art VI). Because the tabuaton
n the resouton s unoffca n character, t s not an appropraton
made by aw. In fact, t may be consdered a feony under Art 217
under the Pena Code (maversaton of pubc funds/property).
- t dsregards exstng aws that any unoffca countng of votes s
done by NAMFREL by usng a copy of the eecton returns. Not even
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.20(
COMELEC s authorzed to use a copy of eecton returns for
countng.
- COMELEC faed to notfy authorzed representatves of accredted
potca partes and a canddates of the proposed use of
technoogy for the eectons under Sec 52 of the Omnbus Eecton
Code. There are 2 condtons that COMELEC must compy wth
before undertakng technoogy for eectora purposes: take nto
account the stuaton prevang and the funds avaabe, and notfy
authorzed representatves. These condtons gve the affected
peope an opportunty to ob|ect f need be. Detas on p 302-303.
- resouton has no consttutona and statutory bass for COMELEC
to undertake a separate and unoffca tabuaton of resuts. It aso
doesnt make sense that Phase 3 of the program shoud go on
when the frst two phases have been scrapped. They shoud be
taken as a whoe and not ndependent of each other. In the frst
pace, there s a great possbty that the unoffca resuts w dffer
greaty from the offca count so what s the use of spendng a
that money for somethng uncertan, somethng that the NAMFREL
had aways undertaken? It s an unnecessary waste of government
funds and effort.
- COMELEC uses the probem of dagdag-bawas as a reason for the
resouton. Accdg to them, modernzaton of the eecton w
decrease the possbty of dagdag bawas but t doesnt make sense
because dagdag-bawas s a resut of human nterventon. No
matter how modern the technoogy for eectora purposes s, there
w aways be the need for human nterventon so the probem w
not be eradcated.
0ecision PETITION GRANTED. Resouton No. 6712 s NULL AND
VOID.
PLD# V P%.LIC (EVICE CO""I((IO!
MAKALINTAL; August 29, 1975
'&C#(
- September, 1964 - the Pubc Servce Commsson assessed
severa pubc uttes for supposed supervision an+ regulation
/ees for that year
- PLDT (P214,353.60); Mana Eectrc Company - P727,526.00;
Bonao Eectroncs Corporaton - P11,610.40; Phppne Stearn
Navgaton Company - P23.921.60; and Genera Shppng Company
- P33,146.80
- #*e assesse+ /ees were 6ase+ upon t*e value o/ t*e
respe0tive properties or eLuipment pursuant to Secton 40(e)
of the Pubc Servce Act as amended by Repubc Act 3792
- After payng the demanded amounts, the sad corporatons sent
Separate etters to the Commsson, (except the Phppne Steam
Navgaton Company whch fed a forma petton nstead)
reLuesting /or re0onsi+eration o/ t*e assessments ther
ground: under the sad Secton 40(e), su0* assessments s*oul+
6e 6ase+ not on t*e value o/ t*e properties 6ut upon t*e
su6s0ri6e+ an+ pai+ up 0apital sto09s o/ t*e 0orporations.
- 28 September 1966-Pubc Servce Commsson dened request
for reconsderaton. Ther reason:
o the cause Dor of the )ro)ert+ an& e4$#)ment, :&ic&ever is
&i;&erD n secton 40(e) of the Pubc Servce Act as an
aternatve base for supervson fees coectbe, appes to both
stock and non-stock corporatons.
o to use the vaue of property and equpment as an aternatve
base for fxng the rates ony n case of pubc servces not
ssung shares woud resut n unreasonabe dscrmnaton
aganst the atter
o a comma after the words "capta subscrbed or pad" and
another after the words "Capta nvested," mmedatey
precedng the cause "property and equpment, whchever s
hgher," ndcates the ntenton of the egsature to consttute
the atter as an aternatve of both stock and non-stock corp.
I((%E(
1. WON the aw tsef draws a dstncton between pubc uttes
ssung shares and those that do not as the capta nvested s
dffcut to ascertan where no shares have been ssued. Thus, the
vaue of ther property or equpment shoud provde as an
aternatve rate base for ths cass of operators
2. WON reance on the use of comma/punctuaton shoud have
bearng
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.204
3. WON there s aeged dsproporton of the tota amount to be
coected as supervsory fees
3ELD
1. NO. No showng of dffcuty n ascertanng actua capta
nvestment of pubc servce operators that do not ssue stocks.
These companes are requred to submt annua reports of fnances
and operatons
2. reance on punctuaton s too rsky a method of statutory
constructon
- the punctuaton of the provson n queston has undergone no
ateraton at a
- the consderanda on punctuaton was merey empoyed to
renforce ts man argument that nothng n the aw |ustfes a
dscrmnatory appcaton of the vaue of the property or
equpment (as aternatve rate base) soey to operators not ssung
shares of capta stock.
3. the very statute ndcates that such fees as are theren fxed
were desgned to rase revenue for the genera expenses of the
Commsson, and were not mted to rembursement of actua
expendtures n supervson.
- we are n accord wth pettoner operators that the Commsson
was n error n coectng the fees n queston on de bass of the
orgna cost of ther property and equpment wthout due
aowance for deprecaton.
0ecision |udgment MODIED n the sense that the supervson fees
payabe under Repubc Act No. 3792 shoud be computed upon
present vaues of propery and equpment n use; the appeaed
resouton of the Pubc Servce Commsson s AFFIRMED
&((OCI&#IO! O' P3ILIPPI!E COCO!%# DE(ICC&#O( V
P3ILIPPI!E COCO!%# &%#3OI#2
MENDOZA; February 10, 1998
'&C#(
- Nov. 5, 1992 APCD brought sut to en|on PCA from ssung permts
to appcants for the estabshment of new desccated coconut
processng pants- ssuance woud voate PCAs Admn. Order
No.02 seres of 1991 as appcants were seekng to operate n
congested areas
- Nov.6 tra court ssued TRO en|onng PCA from ussung censes
- Pendng the case, PCA ssued on March 24, 1993 Resouton
No.018-93 provdng for the wthdrawa of the PCA from a
reguaton of coconut product processng ndustry; regstraton
woud be mted to the montorng of ther voumes of producton
and admn of quaty standards
- PCA then ssued certfcates of regstraton to those wshng to
operate desccated coconut processng pants
I((%E
- Whether or not the PCA can renounce the power to reguate
mpct n the aw creatng t for that s what the resouton n
queston actuay s.
3ELD
- The power gven to the PCA "to formuate and adopt a genera
program of devt for the coconut and other pams o ndustry" s
not a rovng commsson to adopt any program deemed necessary
to promote the devt of the coconut and other pam os ndustry,
but one to be exercsed n the context of the reguatory structure.
easonin;
- PCA was orgnay created by PD232 on |une 30, 1973 to take
over the powers and functons of the Coconut Coordnatng Counc,
the Ph. Coco Admn, and the Ph. Coco Research Insttute
- By PD1468 on |une 11, 1978, t was made an ndependent pubc
corp...charged wth carryng out States pocy to promote the rapd
ntegrated devt and growth of the coco and other pam o ndustry
and to ensure that the coco farmers become drect partcpants and
benefcares through a reguatory scheme set up by aw
- Aug.28, 1982 by EO826 govt temporary prohbted the openng
of new coco processng pants and on Dec.6 phased out some of
the exstng ones--- because of overproducton n the ndustry
resutng, utmatey, n the decne of the export performance of
coco-based products
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.20
- Oct.23, 1987 PCA adopted Resouton No.058-87 authorzng
estabshment and operaton of addtona DCN pants because of
ncreased demand n word market
- The above measures were adopted wthn the framework of
reguaton as estabshed by aw "to promote rapd ntegrated devt
and growth of coco and other pam o ndustry and to ensure that
the coco farmers become drect partcpants and benefcares
- the questoned resouton aows not ony ndscrmnate openng
of new pants, but the vrtua dsmantng of the reguatory
nfrastructure
- PD1468 Art.II Revsed Coco Code-the roe of the PCA s to
"formuate and adopt a genera program of devt for the coco and
other pam o ndustry n a ts aspects"
o By mtng the purpose of reg. to merey montorng voumes of
producton and admn. Of quaty standards, PCA n effect
abdcates ts roe and eaves t amost competey to market
forces how the ndustry w deveop
- Consttuton Art.XII
o Sec.6 ...duty of the State to promote dstrbutve |ustce and to
ntervene when the common good so demands
o Sec.19 State sha reguate or prohbt monopoes when pubc
nterest so requres
o Any change n pocy must be made by the egsatve dept of
the govt. The reguatory system has been set up by aw. It s
beyond the power of an admnstratve agency to dsmante t.
0ecision Petton GRANTED; resouton NULL and VOID
(EP&&#E OPI!IO!
O"EO D+issentE
- The resouton dereguatng the coco ndustry s a vad exercse of
deegated egsaton. Such resouton s n harmony wth the
ob|ectves sough to be acheved by the aws regardng the coco
ndustry, partcuary "to promote acceerated growth and devt of
the coco ndustry" and "the rapd ntegrated devt and growth of
the coconut ndustry"
- The tme has come for admn poces and reguatons to adapt to
ever-changng busness needs rather than to accommodate
tradtona acts of the egsature
- Trmmng down an admn agencys functons of regstraton s not
an abdcaton of the power to reguate but s reguaton tsef
(&!#I&GO V G%I!GO!&
PANGANIBAN; November 18, 1998
'&C#(
- On |uy 27, 1998, the Senate of the Phppnes convened for the
frst reguar sesson of the eeventh Congress. Eectons for the
offcers of the Senate were hed on the same day wth Fernan and
Tatad nomnated to the poston of Senate Presdent. Fernan was
decared the duy eected Presdent of the Senate. The foowng
were kewse eected: Senator Ope as presdent pro tempore, and
Sen. Dron as ma|orty eader.
- Senator Tatad manfested that he was assumng the poston of
mnorty eader, wth the agreement of Senator Santago. He
expaned that those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprsed
the "ma|orty," whe ony those who had voted for hm, the osng
nomnee, beonged to the "mnorty."
- On |uy 30, 1998, the ma|orty eader nformed the body that he
was n recept of a etter sgned by the seven Lakas-NUCD-UMDP
senators, statng that they had eected Senator Gungona as the
mnorty eader. By vrtue thereof, the Senate Presdent formay
recognzed Senator Gungona as the mnorty eader of the Senate.
- On |uy 31, 1998, Senators Santago and Tatad nsttuted an
orgna petton for quo warranto to seek the ouster of Senator
Gungona as mnorty eader of the Senate and the decaraton of
Senator Tatad as the rghtfu mnorty eader. They aege that
Senator Gungona had been usurpng, unawfuy hodng and
exercsng the poston of Senate mnorty eader, a poston that,
accordng to them, rghtfuy beonged to Senator Tatad.
I((%E(
1. WON the Court have |ursdcton over the petton
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.206
2. WON there s an actua voaton of the Consttuton
3. WON Gungona s usurpng, unawfuy hodng and exercsng
the poston of Senate mnorty eader
4. WON Fernan acted wth grave abuse of dscreton n recognzng
Gungona as the mnorty eader
3ELD
1. Yes, the court has |ursdcton. It s we wthn the power and
|ursdcton of the Court to nqure whether ndeed the Senate or ts
offcas commtted a voaton of the Consttuton or gravey abuse
ther dscreton n exercse of ther functons and prerogatves
- The pettoners cam that Secton 16 (1), Artce VI of the
Consttuton, has not been observed n the seecton of the Senate
mnorty eader. They aso nvoke the Court's "expanded" |udca
power "to determne whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton" on the part
of respondents.
- Aveno v. Cuenco tacked the scope of the Court's power of
|udca revew; that s, questons nvovng an nterpretaton or
appcaton of a provson of the Consttuton or the aw, ncudng
the rues of ether house of Congress. Wthn ths scope fas the
|ursdcton of the Court over questons on the vadty of egsatve
or executve acts that are potca n nature, whenever the trbuna
"fnds consttutonay mposed mts on powers or functons
conferred upon potca bodes or prevous consttutons, the 1987
Consttuton s expct n defnng the scope of |udca power. The
present Consttuton now fortfes the authorty of the courts to
determne n an approprate acton the vadty of the acts of the
potca departments. It speaks of |udca prerogatve n terms of
duty, vz.:
- "|udca power ncudes the duty of the court of |ustce to sette
actua controverses nvovng rghts whch are egay demandabe
and enforceabe, and to determne whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of
|ursdcton on the part of any branch or nstrumentaty of the
Government."
2. No, there was no actua voaton of the Consttuton.
- Whe the Consttuton mandates that the Presdent of the Senate
must be eected by a number consttutng more than one haf of a
the members thereof, t does not provde that the members who
w not vote for hm sha pso facto consttute the "mnorty", who
coud thereby eect the mnorty eader. Very, no aw or reguaton
states that the defeated canddate sha automatcay become the
mnorty eader.
- Whe the Consttuton s expct on the manner of eectng a
Senate Presdent and a House Speaker, t s, however, dead sent
on the manner of seectng the other offcers n both chambers of
Congress. A that the Charter says s that "each House sha choose
such other offcers as t may deem necessary." The method of
choosng who w be such other offcers s merey a dervatve of
the exercse of the prerogatve conferred by the consttutona
provson. Therefore, such method must be prescrbed by the
Senate tsef, not by ths Court.
- Congress very has the power and prerogatve to provde for such
offcers as t may deem. And t s certany wthn ts own
|ursdcton and dscreton to prescrbe the parameters for the
exercse of ths prerogatve. Ths Court has no authorty to nterfere
and unateray ntrude nto that excusve ream, wthout runnng
afou of consttutona prncpes that t s bound to protect and
uphod - the very duty that |ustfes the Court's beng.
Consttutona respect and a becomng regard for the soveregn
acts of a coequa branch prevents ths Court from pryng nto the
nterna workngs of the Senate.
3. No, Respondent Gungona was not usurpng, unawfuy hodng
and exercsng the poston of Senate mnorty eader.
- Usurpaton generay refers to unauthorzed arbtrary assumpton
and exercse of power by one wthout coor of tte or who s not
entted by aw. In order for a quo warranto proceedng to be
successfu, the person sung must show that he or she has a cear
rght to the contested offce or to use or exercse the functons of
the offce aegedy usurped or unawfuy hed by the respondent.
In ths case, pettoners dd not present suffcent proof of a cear
and ndubtabe franchse to the offce of the Senate mnorty
eader.
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.207
4. No, Respondent Fernan dd not act wth grave abuse of
dscreton n recognzng Respondent Gungona as the mnorty
eader.
- By grave abuse of dscreton s meant such caprcous or
whmsca exercse of |udgment as s equvaent to ack of
|ursdcton. The abuse of dscreton must be patent and gross as to
amount to an evason of postve duty or a vrtua refusa to perform
a duty en|oned by aw, or to act at a n contempaton of aw as
where the power s exercsed n an arbtrary and despotc manner
by reason of passon and hostty.
- Respondent Fernan dd not gravey abuse hs dscreton as Senate
Presdent n recognzng Respondent Gungona as the mnorty
eader.The atter beongs to one of the mnorty partes n the
Senate, the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP. By unanmous resouton of the
members of ths party that he be the mnorty eader, he was
recognzed as such by the Senate Presdent. Such forma
recognton by Respondent Fernan came ony after at east two
Senate sessons and a caucus, wheren both sdes were beray
aowed to artcuate ther standponts.
- Under these crcumstances, we beeve that the Senate Presdent
cannot be accused of "caprcous or whmsca exercse of
|udgment" or of "an arbtrary and despotc manner by reason of
passon or hostty." Where no provson of the Consttuton, the
aws or even the rues of the Senate has been ceary shown to
have been voated, dsregarded or overooked, grave abuse of
dscreton cannot be mputed to Senate offcas for acts done
wthn ther competence and authorty.
$O3! 3&2 PEOPLE( &L#E!&#IVE CO&LI#IO! V LI"
CARPIO-MORALES; October 24, 2003
'&C#(
- +etitioners: |ohn Hay Peopes Aternatve Coaton, Mateo Carno
Foundaton Inc., Center for Aternatve Systems Foundaton, Inc.,
Regna Vctora Benafn represented and |oned by her mother Esa
Benafn, Izabe Luyk represented and |oned by her mother Rebecca
Luyk, Katherne Pe represented and |oned by her mother
Rosemare Pe, Soedad Camo, Aca Pacaso aas "Kevab," Betty
Strasser, Ruby Gron, Ursua Perez aas "Ba-yay," Edberto
Carava, Carmen Caromna, La Yaranon, Dane Mondoc
- espondents: Vctor Lm, Presdent Bases Converson and
Deveopment Authorty; |ohn Hay Poro Pont Deveopment
Corporaton, Cty of Baguo, TUNTEX, ASIAWORLD, DENR
- Petton for prohbton, mandamus and decaratory reef wth
prayer for temporary restranng order (TRO) and/or wrt of
n|uncton assang the consttutonaty of Presi+ential
Pro0lamation !o. GIJ, Seres of 1994, "Creatng and Desgnatng
a Porton of the Area Covered by the Former Camp |ohn Hay as the
|ohn Hay Speca Economc Zone Pursuant to Repubc Act No.
7227"
- & HIIH: An Act Acceeratng the Converson of Mtary
Reservatons nto other Productve Uses, Creatng the Bases
Converson and Deveopment Authorty for ths Purpose, Provdng
Funds therefor and for Other Purposes OR >.ases Conversion
an+ Development &0t o/ 1FFI?
> settng out pocy to acceerate sound and baanced converson
nto aternatve productve uses of former mtary bases under
the 1947 Phppne-Unted States of Amerca Mtary Bases
Agreement, namey Cark and Subc mtary reservatons
ncudng extenson Camp |ohn Hay Staton n Baguo
> created Bases Converson and Deveopment Authorty (BCDA),
Subc Speca Economc (and free port) Zone (Sebuc SEZ)
> granted Subc SEZ ncentves such tax and duty-free
mportatons, exempton of busnesses from oca and natona
taxes
> gave authorty to the Presdent to create through executve
procamaton, sub|ect to the concurrence of the oca government
unts drecty affected, other Speca Economc Zones (SEZ) n
Cark (Pampanga), Waace Ar Staton (La Unon), and Camp |ohn
Hay (Baguo)
- #u; 16, 199C - BCDA entered "o& an+ Es0row &greement
wth TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD, prvate corporatons under aws of
Brtsh Vrgn Isands, n preparng for a |ont venture for
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.20'
deveopment of Poro Pont n La Unon and Camp |ohn Hay as a
premer tourst destnatons and recreaton centers
- 0ec 16, 199C - BCDA, TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD executed a $oint
Venture &greement (|VA) bndng themseves to put up a |ont
venture company caed .aguio International Development
an+ "anagement Corporation easng areas wthn Camp |ohn
Hay and Poro Pont for toursm and recreaton
.an;;uanian; +an;lun;sod o/ .aguio Cit1As esolutions to
.CD&
> .ept $9, 199C -to excude a the barangays party and totay
ocated wthn Camp |ohn Hay from the reach and coverage of
any pan or program for deveopment
> Jan 19, 199= - abdcaton, waver or qutcam of ts ownershp
over homeots beng occuped by resdents of 9 barangays
surroundng C|H
> Feb $1, 199= - 15-pont concept of the deveopment of C|H
whch ncudes protecton of the envronment, makng of a famy-
orented tourst destnaton, prorty n empoyment of Baguo
resdents, free access to base area, guaranteed partcpaton of
the cty government n the management and operaton of the
camp, excuson of the prevousy mentoned 9 bgys, abty for
oca taxes of busnesses
.CD&-#%!#EB-&(I&7OLD response
> modfed the proposa stressng the need to decare C|H a SEZ
as a condton to ts fu deveopment accordng to RA 7227
- *a( 11, 199= - sanggunan passed resouton askng mayor to
order determnaton of reaty taxes whch may be coected from
rea propertes of C|H checkng f C|H rea propertes exempt from
taxes and economc actvty from oca and natona taxes
- June 199= - sanggunan passed Resouton No. 255 (Seres of
1994) see=#ng and s$))ort#ng sub|ect to ts concurrence, the
ssuance of Pres. Ramos of presdenta procamaton decarng area
of 288.1 hectares of the camp as a SEZ n accordance to RA 7227
- Jul( D, 199= - Ramos ssued Proc No. 420 estabshng a SEZ on
Camp |ohn Hay whch reads
Pursuant to powers vested n me by the aw and the resouton of
concurrence by the Cty Counc of Baguo. create and
desgnate. former Camp |ohn Hay. as |ohn Hay Speca
Economc Zone
Se% 1. Co*erage of 1ohn 8a+ SEV@ 288.1 hectares out of 677
hectares surveyed and verfed by DENR
Se% 2. 9o*ern#ng -o&+@ pursuant to Sec 15 of RA 7227, the Bases
Converson and Deveopment Authorty (BCDA) s estabshed to
govern |HSEZ, a$thor#6e& to &eterm#ne $t#l#6at#on an& &#s)os#t#on
of lan&s sub|ect to prvate rghts and #n %ons$ltat#on an&
%oor&#nat#on .#th the C#t+ 9o*ernment of -ag$#o after
%ons$ltat#on .#th #ts #nha/#tants, and to promugate necessary
poces, rues, and reguatons to govern and reguate the zone
thru the |ohn Hay Poro Pont Deveopment Corporaton (|HPPDC),
the mpementng arm for ts economc deveopment and
optmum utzaton
Se% (. 7n*estment Cl#mate #n 18SEV@ pursuant to Sec 5(m) and
Secton 15 of RA 7227, the |H Poro Pont Deveopment
Corporaton sha mpement necessary poces, rues and
reguatons governng the zone, ncudng #n*estment #n%ent#*es,
n consutaton wth pertnent government departments. The
zone sha have a the appcabe ncentves of the SEZ under Se%
12 of >0 7227 and those appcabe ncentves granted n the
E,)ort Pro%ess#ng Vones, the 2mn#/$s 7n*estment Co&e of 19'7,
the ;ore#gn 7n*estment 0%t of 1991, and ne. #n*estment la.s
that w be enacted.
Se% 4. >ole of :e)artments, -$rea$s, 2ff#%es, 0gen%#es an&
7nstr$mental#t#es@ A heads of departments, etc of the
government are &#re%te& to g#*e f$ll s$))ort to BCDA and/or
mpementng subsdary or |ont venture to factate necessary
approvas to expedte programs.
Se% . 5o%al 0$thor#t+@ The affected oca government unts sha
reta#n /as#% a$tonom+ an& #&ent#t+.
- #pril $D, 199D - petton for prohbton, mandamus and
decaratory reef chaengng Proc. No. 420s consttutonaty or
vadty as we as the egaty of MoA and |VA between BCDA and
TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD
- +etitionerEs #lle;e:
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.209
1. Proc. No. 420 grants ta, e,em)t#ons #s #n*al#& an& #llegal as t
s an unconsttutona exercse by the Presdent of a power
granted ony to the Legsature
2. Proc. No. 420 l#m#ts the )o.ers an& #nterferes .#th the
a$tonom+ of the C#t+ of -ag$#o s nvad, ega and
unconsttutona
3. Proc. No. 420 s unconsttutona that t voates the r$le that all
ta,es sho$l& /e $n#form an& e4$#ta/le
4. MoA havng been entered nto ony by &#re%t negot#at#on s
ega
5. terms an& %on&#t#ons of the MoA s ega
6. the conceptua deveopment )lan of res)on&ents not ha*#ng
$n&ergone en*#ronmental #m)a%t assessment s beng egay
consdered wthout a vad envronmenta mpact assessment
- a TRO and/or wrt of premnary n|uncton prayed to en|on
BCDA, |HPPDC and the cty government from mpementng Proc.
No. 420 and TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD from proceedng wth ther
pan respectng C|Hs deveopment pursuant to the |VA
- Pu6li0 respon+ents (.CD&5 $3PPDC5 Cit1 o/ .aguio) &llege
1. ssues are moot an& a%a&em#% because n November 21, 1995
BCDA formay notfed TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD of the revocaton
of the MoA and |VA
2. n mantanng the vadty of Proc. No. 420, extendng to the
|HSEZ economc ncentves to those en|oyed by Subc SEZ
(estabshed n RA 7227), the procamaton merey mpements
the leg#slat#*e #ntent of sad aw to turn the US mtary bases nto
h$/s of /$s#ness a%t#*#t+ or #n*estment
3. &en+#ng Pro%. No. 420 &erogates the lo%al a$tonom+ of -ag$#o
C#t+ or voatve of the equa protecton cause
4. pettoners have no stan&#ng to beng sut even as taxpayers n
the a/sen%e of an a%t$al %ontro*ers+
5. dsregarded herarchy of courts and the doctrne of exhauston
of admnstratve remedes
- Petitioners epl1
1. doctrne of exhauston of admnstratve remedes does not
appy snce they are nvokng the excusve authorty of SC under
Secton 21 of RA 7227 to en|on or restran mpementaton of
pro|ects for converson of the base areas
2. they possess standng to brng petton as taxpayers
I((%E(
Pro%e&$ral
1. WON pettoners voated doctrne of exhauston of
admnstratve remedes
2. WON ssues regardng TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD s moot and
academc
3. WON present petton compes wth the requrements of SCs
exercse of |ursdcton over consttutona ssues
S$/stant#*e
4. WON Proc. No. 420 s consttutona by provdng for natona
and oca tax exempton wthn and grantng other economc
ncentves to the |ohn Hay SEZ
5. WON Proc. No. 420 s consttutona for mtng or nterferng
wth oca autonomy of Baguo Cty
3ELD
1. Athough |udca pocy of SC entas not entertanng decaratory
reef or drect resort to t except when the redress sought cannot
be obtaned n the proper courts, or when exceptona and
compeng crcumstances warrant avament of a remedy wthn
and cang for the exercse of SCs prmary |ursdcton, un+er (e0
I1 o/ & HIIH5 onl1 (C *as t*e power to en<oin
implementation o/ pro<e0ts /or t*e +evelopment o/ t*e
/ormer %( militar1 reservations therefore SC w take
cognzance of ths petton.
easonin;
- Aso SC retans fu dscretonary power to take cognzance of such
petton. Besdes, remandng ths case to the ower courts may
unduy proong ad|udcaton of the ssues
- transformaton of an area n C|H nto a SEZ s not a smpe re-
cassfcaton of an area TF a cruca ssue. Converson nvoves
> foca pont for nvestments by oca and foregn enttes
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.210
> ste for vgorous busness actvty spurrng countrys economc
growth
> ke Sub SEZ, turnng nto sef-sustanng, ndustra,
commerca, fnanca and nvestment center
> crtca nks to a host of envronmenta and soca concerns
affectng communtes are ocated and naton n genera
> chaenges n provdng an ecoogcay sustanabe,
envronmentay sound, equtabe transton for cty n C|H
reverson to government property e.g. probem of scarcty of
water suppy n Baguo Cty
2. Revocaton of the agreements wth prvate respondents made
ssues regardng them as moot and academc.
3. Yes, present petton compes wth requrements for |udca
revew.
easonin;
- Requstes of exercse of power of |udca revew
1. e:isten0e o/ an a0tual or an appropriate 0ase
> not con|ectura or antcpatory; defnte and concrete;
partes ptted aganst each other due to ther adverse ega
nterests
> n present case, there s a rea cash of nterests and rghts
between pettoners and respondents arsng from ssuance of
Proc. No. 420 convertng a porton of C|H nto a SEZ where
pettoners nsst Proc. No. 420 has unconsttutona provsons
and the respondents camng otherwse
> P#mentel, 1r. * 0g$#rre@ By the mere enactment of the
questoned aw or the approva of the chaenged act, the
dspute s deemed to have rpened nto a |udca controversy
even wthout an overt act. Indeed, even a snguar voaton
of the Consttuton and/or aw s enough to awaken |udca
duty
I. personal an+ su6stantial interest o/ t*e part1 raising
t*e 0onstitutional Luestion
> RA 7227 requres concurrence of the affected oca
government unts to the creaton of SEZs and ths grant by
aw on LGUs of the rght to concurrence s equvaent to
vestng a ega standng on LGUs (recognton of rea nterests
of communtes n the utzaton of such base areas)
> as INHABITANTS OF BAGUIO, assang Proc No. 420, s
)ersonal and s$/stant#al that they have sustaned or w
sustan &#re%t #n3$r+ as a resut of the government act beng
chaenged; mater#al #nterest for what s at stake n the
enforcement of Proc. No. 420 s the very economc and soca
exstence of the peope of Baguo Cty
> 9ar%#a * -oar& of 7n*estments: resdents of Lmay, Bataan
where SC characterzed ther nterest n the estabshment of
a petrochemca pant n ther pace as a%t$al, real, *#tal an&
legal for t woud affect not ony ther economc fe but even
the ar they breathe
> Pettoners Edberto Carava and La Yaranon were duy
eected councors of Baguo at the tme; dutes ncuded
decdng for and on behaf of ther consttuents on the
queston of concurrence to Proc. No. 420; they opposed Res.
No. 255 whch supported Proc. No. 420
M. plea+e+ in t*e earliest opportunit1
G. 0onstitutional Luestion is t*e lis mota o/ t*e 0ase
- 3 and 4 no queston snce acton fed purposey to brng forth
consttutonaty ssues
4. Uness mted by a provson n the Consttuton, f there s no
express extenson of tax exempton and other economc ncentves
granted by aw, any presdenta procamaton grantng such
extenson through mpcaton s unconsttutona because t
voates Art VI Sec 28(4) whch gves the egsature, not the
executve, the fu power to exempt any person or corporaton or
cass of property from taxaton and ts power to exempt beng as
broad as ts power to tax.
easonin;
- Art VI Sec 28(4): No aw grantng any tax exempton sha be
passed wthout the concurrence of a ma|orty of a the members of
Congress.
- Sec 3 Proc. No. 420: 7n*estment Cl#mate #n 18 SEV@ . the zone
sha have a the appcabe ncentves of the SEZ under Sec 12 of
RA 7227 and those appcabe ncentves granted n the Export
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.211
Processng Zones, the Omnbus Investment Code of 1987, the
Foregn Investment Act of 1991 and new nvestment aws that may
be herenafter enacted
> Sec 12 RA 7227: (u6i0 (E4
(b & c) exempton from tarff or custom dutes, natona and
oca taxes of busness enttes
(d) free market and trade of specfed goods or propertes
(f) berazed bankng and fnance
(g) reaxed mmgraton rues for foregn nvestors
- deberatons of Senate confrm excusvty to Subc SEZ of the
tax and nvestment prveges
(dscussng Sec 12 RA 7227)
0ngara@ . we must confne these poces to Subc and
provde that "THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE OF SUBIC SHALL
BE ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
POLICIES". t s very cear that these prncpes and poces
are appcabe ony to Subc as a free port
. so we agreed that we w smpy mt the defnton of
pweors and descrpton of the zone to Subc but that does not
excude the possbty of creatng other economc zones
wthn the baseands
. the provson now w be confned ony to Subc
> RA 7916: The Speca Economc Zone Act of 1995
- prvege of export processng zone-based busnesses of
mportng capta equpment and raw materas free from taxes,
dutes and other restrctons
> Omnbus Investment Code of 1987
- tax and duty exemptons, tax hoday, tax credt, and other
ncentves
> RA 7042: Foregn Investments Act of 1991
- appcabty to the sub|ect zone of rues governng foregn
nvestments n the Phppnes
- It s cear that under Sec 12 RA 7227 ONLY the SUBIC SEZ whch
was granted by Congress wth tax exempton, nvestment
ncentves and the ke and no express extenson of the aforesad
benefts to other SEZs st to be created at the tme va presdenta
procamaton ; aso grant of prveges to |H SEZ fnds no support n
the other aws specfed under Sec 3 Proc. No. 420 whch are
aready extant before the ssuance of the procamaton or the
enactment of RA 7227
- SC can vod an act or pocy of the potca departments of the
govt on two grounds - nfrngement of the Consttuton or grave
abuse of dscreton - and ceary, Proc. No. 420 nfrnges upon the
Consttuton
5. NO because when the aw merey emphaszes or reterates the
statutory roe or functons s has been granted.
easonin;
- under RA 7227, BCDA s entrusted wth the foowng
(a) to o.n, hol& an&Cor a&m#n#ster the mtary reservatons of |ohn
Hay Ar Staton, Waace Ar Staton, ODonne Transmtter
Staton. whch may be transferred to t by the Presdent
- such broad rghts of ownershp and admnstraton vested n BCDA
over C|H, BCDA vrtuay has contro over t sub|ect to certan
mtatons of aw
0ecision Sec 3 of Proc. NO.420 s nu and vod and decared no
ega force and effect. Proc. No. 420, wthout the nvadated
porton, remans vad and effectve
("&# CO""%!IC&#IO!(5 I!C V !&#IO!&L
#ELECO""%!IC&#IO!( CO""I((IO!
YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 12, 2003
'&C#(
- |une 16, 2000 - !#C5 pursuant to its rule<ma@in; and
re;ulator( po:ers5 issue+ "emoran+um Cir0ular ("C) !o.
1M-8-IJJJ. It promugated rues and reguatons on the /#ll#ng of
tele%omm$n#%at#ons ser*#%es:
1. Bng statements sha be receved by the servce subscrber
(SS) not later than (0 &a+s from the en& of ea%h /#ll#ng %+%le. In
case t s receved beyond 30 days, SS sha have a grace perod
wthn whch to pay the b. Durng such perod, SS sha not be
dsconnected from servce by the pubc teecommuncatons
entty (PTE).
2. There sha be no %harge for %alls that are &#*erte& to a *o#%e
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.212
ma#l/o,, voce prompt, recorded message or smar facty
excudng the customers own equpment.
3. P"Es shall *er#f+ #&ent#f#%at#on an& a&&ress of ea%h )$r%haser
of )re)a#& S7M %ar&s. Prepad ca cards and SIM cards sha be
*al#& for at least 2 +ears from the date of frst use. Hoders of
prepad SIM cards sha be gven 45 days from the date t s fuy
consumed but not beyond 2yrs 45 days from date of frst use to
repensh SIM card. The *al#&#t+ of an #n*al#& S7M %ar& shall /e
#nstalle& $)on re4$est of the SS at no a&&tl %harge except the
presentaton of a vad prepad ca card.
4. SS sha be $)&ate& of the rema#n#ng *al$e of the#r %ar&s
before the start of every ca usng the cards.
5. The unt of bng for (Ceuar Mobe Teephone) CMT servce
whether postpad or prepad sha be re&$%e& from 1m#nC)$lse
to 6se%C)$lse. The authorzed rates per mnute sha be dvded
by 10.
- The MC provded that t sha ta9e e//e0t 15 +a1s a/ter its
pu6li0ation n a newspaper of genera crcuaton and three
certfed copes furnshed at the UP Law Center.
- |une 22, 2000 - MC was pubshed n the Phppne Star; MC
provsons regardng sae and use of prepad cards & unt of bng
took effect 90 days from effectvty of MC
- August 30, 2000 - !#C issue+ a "emoran+um to all C"#
servi0e operators ((O) w*i0* 0ontaine+ measures to
minimi,e in0i+en0e o/ stealing o/ 0ell p*one units. It drected
CMT SO to:
1. Strcty compy wth MC re4$#r#ng the )resentat#on an&
*er#f#%at#on of the dentty and addresses of prepad SIM card
customers
2. Requre a respectve )re)a#& S7M %ar& &ealers to compy wth
MC
3. :en+ a%%e)tan%e to the net.or=s those %$stomers $s#ng stolen
%ell )hone $n#ts or ce phone unts regstered to somebody ese
when propery nformed of a nformaton reatve to the stoen
ce phone unts
4. Share all ne%essar+ #nfo of stoen ce phone unts to a other
CMT SO n order to prevent ther use
5. >e4$#re all e,#st#ng )re)a#& S7M %ar& %$stomers to reg#ster and
present vad dentfcaton cards.
- October 6, 2000 - !#C issue+ anot*er "emoran+um
a++resse+ to all P#Es5 w*i0* was >/or stri0t 0omplian0e.?
1. A prepad cards and a SIM packs used by subscrbers of
prepad cards sod on Oct. 7, 2000 and beyond sha be vad for
at east 2 years from date of frst use.
2. The bng unt sha be on a 6sec puse effectve October 7,
2000.
< +rocedure
October 20, 2000 - I(L&CO" an+ PIL#EL /ile+ against t*e
!#C an a0tion /or De0laration o/ !ullit1 o/ "C (t*e .illing
Cir0ular) an+ o/ t*e O0t. 8 "emoran+um, wth prayer for
n|uncton and TRO n the RTC-OC on the grounds that-
a. NTC has no |ursdcton to reguate the sae of consumer
goods snce such |ursdcton beongs to the DTI under the
Consumer Act of the Phs
b. MC s oppressve and voatve of the Due Process Cause
(deprvaton of property)
c. MC w resut n the mparment of the vabty of prepad
servce by unduy proongng the expraton of prepad SIM
and ca cards
d. Requrements of dentfcaton of prepad card buyers and
ca baance announcement are unreasonabe
GLOBE and SMART fed a |ont Moton to Admt Compant-n-
Interventon
October 27, 2000 - #C issue+ #O en<oining !#C /rom
implementing "C
November 20, 2000 - RTC dened NTCs moton to dsmss for ack
of mert. In|uncton s granted, pendng fnaty of the decson of
the case.
October 9, 2001 - C& grante+ !#CAs petition /or 0ertiorari
an+ pro*i6ition.
|anuary 10, 2002 - Motons for Reconsderaton were dened by
CA
I((%E(
1. WON the Regona Tra Court has |ursdcton to hear ths case
2. WON the Doctrne on Exhauston of Admnstratve Remedes s
appcabe
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.21(
3ELD
!biter Admnstratve agences possess quas-egsatve or rue-
makng powers and quas-|udca or admnstratve ad|udcatory
powers.
@uasi-legislative power s the power to make rues and
reguatons, whch shoud be wthn the scope of the statutory
authorty granted by the egsature to such admnstratve
agency. The reguatons must be germane to the purposes of
the aw, and not n contradcton to the standards prescrbed by
aw.
@uasi-<u+i0ial power s exercsed by an admnstratve agency
when t performs n a |udca manner an act whch s essentay
of an executve nature, where the power to act n such a
manner s ncdenta to or reasonaby necessary for the
performance of the admnstratve duty entrusted to t.
1. Yes.
atio In cases assang the vadty of a rue or reguaton ssued
by an admnstratve agency n the performance of ts OUASI-
LEGISLATIVE functon, the reguar courts have |ursdcton. The
power of |UDICIAL REVIEW s vested n the courts by the
Consttuton. The Doctrne of Prmary |ursdcton s onl+ appcabe
when the admnstratve agency s exercsng ts OUASI-|UDICIAL
functon.
- &rt.VIII (e0.1 1F;H Consti- |udca power ncudes the duty of
the courts of |ustce to determne whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of dscreton on the part of any branch or
nstrumentaty of the govt.
- Do0trine o/ Primar1 $uris+i0tion- The courts w not determne
a controversy nvovng a queston whch s wthn the |ursdcton of
the admnstratve trbuna pror to the resouton of that queston
by the admnstratve trbuna, where the queston demands the
exercse of sound admnstratve dscreton requrng the speca
knowedge, experence and servces of the admn. trbuna to
determne technca matters of fact.
2. No.
atio In questonng the vadty or consttutonaty of a rue
ssued by an admnstratve agency, n exercse of ts OUASI-
LEGISLATIVE powers, a party need not exhaust admnstratve
remedes before gong to court. Ony |udca revew of decsons of
admnstratve agences made n the exercse of ther quas-|udca
functon s sub|ect to the exhauston doctrne (Assoc. of Ph.
Coconut Desccators v. PHILCOA).
- Even f the Doctrne on Exhauston of Admnstratve Remedes s
appcabe, records show that pettoners have comped wth such
requrement:
- Durng deberaton stages of MC, pettoners regstered ther
protests and submtted proposed schemes for the Bng Crcuar.
- After ssuance of MC, pettoners wrote successve etters askng
for the suspenson and reconsderaton of the MC.
- Such etters were not acted upon and nstead, NTC ssued
10/06/00 Memorandum. Ths was taken by pettoners as a cear
dena of ther requests.
0ecision Consodated pettons are GRANTED. The decson of CA
and ts Resouton are reversed. The case s REMANDED to the RTC-
OC for contnuaton of the proceedngs.
#/ 2II: ,1,C5/I2,
GO!4&LE( V "&CO(
FERNANDO; |uy 31, 1975
(SEE DIGEST UNDER DOMINIUM AND IMPERIUM)
"&CO( V "&!GL&P%(
CORTES; September 15, 1989
'&C#(
Mr. Marcos and the mmedate members of hs famy fed a
petton for mandamus and prohbton askng the court to order the
respondents to ssue trave documents to them and to en|on the
mpementaton of the Presdents decson to bar ther return to the
Phppnes. Pettoners state that the rght of the Marcoses to return
to the Phppnes s guaranteed under Sectons 1 and 6 of the B of
Rghts, argung that before the rght to trave may be mpared by
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007 Constitutional Law I Digests (Pre-Legislative Compilation) v1.5 Page No.214
any authorty/agency of the government, there must be egsaton
to that effect. They aso nvoke generay accepted prncpes of
nternatona aw: (1) Art. 13, par. 2 of the Unversa Decaraton of
Human Rghts, whch provdes that everyone has the rght to eave
any country, ncudng hs own, and to ret$rn to h#s o.n %o$ntr+,
and (2) Art. 12, par. 2 of the Internatona Covenant on Cv and
Potca Rghts, whch states that "no one sha be arbtrary
deprved of the rght to enter hs own country." Respondents
contend that the ssue of whether the two rghts camed by the
Marcoses code wth the more prmorda and transcendenta rght
of the state to securty and safety of ts natonas nvoves a
potca queston and s non-|ustcabe. In support thereof, they cte
Sectons 4 and 5 of the Consttuton. They aso pont out that the
decson to bar Marcos and famy from returnng to the Phppnes
for reasons of natona securty and pubc safety has nternatona
precedents.
I((%E(
1. WON the Presdent has the power under the Consttuton to bar
the Marcoses from returnng to the Phppnes.
2. WON the Presdent acted arbtrary or wth grave abuse of
dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton when she
determned that the return of the Marcoses to the Phppnes poses
a serous threat to natona nterest and wefare and decded to bar
ther return.
3ELD
1. Yes. Athough the 1987 Consttuton mposes mtatons on the
exercse of s)e%#f#% powers of the Presdent, t mantans ntact
what s tradtonay consdered as wthn the scope of "executve
power." Coroary, the powers of the Presdent cannot be sad to
be mted ony to the specfc powers enumerated n the
Consttuton. In other words, executve power s more than the sum
of the specfc powers so enumerated.
- The request/demand of the Marcoses to be aowed to return to
the Phppnes cannot be consdered n ght soey of the
consttutona provson guaranteeng berty of abode and the rght
to trav