You are on page 1of 32

By: Araceli Capulso

DeFunis versus- Odegaard


416 US 312
FACTS:
Marco DeFunis, Jr. applied for admission as a first-year student at the
University of ashin!ton "a# $chool, a state-operated institution.
hen he #as denied admission, he %rou!ht suit in a ashin!ton trial
court claimin! that the admissions committee procedures #ere racially
discriminatory.
Marco DeFunis, Jr. sued the University of ashin!ton "a# $chool, a
state operated university. DeFunis ar!ued that the University&s
admissions policies and criteria #ere racially discriminatory. 'o#ever,
DeFunis #as allo#ed to attend the la# school durin! the case and
#as in his third year #hen the case #as heard %y the Court. Further,
the University has a!reed to let him !raduate upon completion of his
last year.
ISSUE:
Can a case %e ad(udicated #hen su%(ect matter (urisdiction is lac)in!
due to mootness, if ad(udication of the suit #ould resolve an important
social issue*
+U",-.:
/he Court ordered the parties to address the issue of mootness
%efore they proceeded to any other claims in the petition. /he Court
reasoned that 0federal courts are #ithout po#er to decide 1uestions
that cannot affect the ri!hts of liti!ants in the cases %efore them.2 /his
re1uirement stems from Article ,,, of the Constitution, under #hich the
e3ercise of (udicial po#er depends upon the e3istence of a case or
controversy. -o amount of pu%lic interest #ould %e sufficient to create
an actual case or controversy, and the case #as rendered moot
%ecause DeFunis #as !oin! to !raduate from the la# school
re!ardless of the Court&s rulin!. /hus, the case #as rendered moot.
04/5he controversy %et#een the parties has thus clearly ceased to %e
definite and concrete.
,n federal cases %efore the $upreme Court, there must %e an actual
case and controversy #hich e3ists at the sta!es of appellate or
certiorari revie#, and not simply at the date the action is initiated.
DRILO !S LI"
#R $% 1124&'( Augus) 4( 1&&4
FACTS:
6ursuant to $ection 789 of the "ocal .overnment Code, the $ecretary
of Justice had, on appeal to him of four oil companies and a ta3payer,
declared :rdinance -o. 99;<, other#ise )no#n as the Manila
+evenue Code, null and void for non-compliance #ith the prescri%ed
procedure in the enactment of ta3 ordinances and for containin!
certain provisions contrary to la# and pu%lic policy.
,n a petition for certiorari filed %y the City of Manila, the +e!ional /rial
Court of Manila revo)ed the $ecretary&s resolution and sustained the
ordinance, holdin! inter alia that the procedural re1uirements had
%een o%served. More importantly, it declared $ection 789 of the "ocal
.overnment Code as unconstitutional %ecause of its vesture in the
$ecretary of Justice of the po#er of control over local !overnments in
violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution
and of the specific provision therein conferrin! on the 6resident of the
6hilippines only the po#er of supervision over local !overnments. /he
court cited the familiar distinction %et#een control and supervision, the
first %ein! 0the po#er of an officer to alter or modify or set aside #hat
a su%ordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
su%stitute the (ud!ment of the former for the latter,2 #hile the second
is 0the po#er of a superior officer to see to it that lo#er officers
perform their functions is accordance #ith la#.2
ISSUES:
/he issues in this case are:
=7> #hether or not $ection 789 of the "ocal .overnment Code is
unconstitutional? and
=@> #hether or not the $ecretary of Justice can e3ercise control, rather
than supervision, over the local !overnment
*ELD:
/he (ud!ment of the lo#er court is reversed in so far as its declaration
that $ection 789 of the "ocal .overnment Code is unconstitutional %ut
affirmed the said lo#er court&s findin! that the procedural
re1uirements in the enactment of the Manila +evenue Code have
%een o%served.
$ection 789 authoriAes the $ecretary of Justice to revie# only the
constitutionality or le!ality of the ta3 ordinance and, if #arranted, to
revo)e it on either or %oth of these !rounds. hen he alters or
modifies or sets aside a ta3 ordinance, he is not also permitted to
su%stitute his o#n (ud!ment for the (ud!ment of the local !overnment
that enacted the measure. $ecretary Drilon did set aside the Manila
+evenue Code, %ut he did not replace it #ith his o#n version of #hat
the Code should %e.
An officer in control lays do#n the rules in the doin! of an act. ,t they
are not follo#ed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-
done %y his su%ordinate or he may even decide to do it himself.
$upervision does not cover such authority. /he supervisor or
superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are follo#ed, %ut he
himself does not lay do#n such rules, nor does he have the discretion
to modify or replace them. ,n the opinion of the Court, $ecretary Drilon
did precisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed
an act not of control %ut of mere supervision.
+e!ardin! the issue on the non-compliance #ith the prescri%ed
procedure in the enactment of the Manila +evenue Code, the Court
carefully e3amined every e3hi%it and a!ree #ith the trial court that the
procedural re1uirements have indeed %een o%served. /he only
e3ceptions are the postin! of the ordinance as approved %ut this
omission does not affect its validity, considerin! that its pu%lication in
three successive issues of a ne#spaper of !eneral circulation #ill
satisfy due process.
A+,A-A--OUT* vs CO"ELEC( 3.. SCRA 31/
FACTS:
/he petitioners, as representatives the youth sector, see)s to direct
the C:MB"BC to conduct a special re!istration %efore the May 7<,
@CC7 .eneral Blections, of ne# voters a!es 78 to @7 %ecause around
four million youth failed to re!ister on or %efore the Decem%er @9,
@CCC deadline set %y the respondent under +epu%lic Act -o. 878;
=DoterEs +e!istration Act of 7;;F>. Actin! on the clamor of the
students and civic leaders, $enator +aul +oco, Chairman if the
Committee on Blectoral +eforms, $uffra!e, and 6eopleEs
6articipation, conducted a hearin! attended %y Commissioner
"uAviminda .. /ancan!co and +alph C. "antion, to!ether #ith
Consultant +esurreccion G. Borra =no# Commissioner>. :n January
@;, @CC7, Commissioners /ancan!co and "antion su%mitted a
Memorandum -o. @CC7-C@9 on the +eport on the +e1uest for a /#o-
day Additional +e!istration of -e# Doters :nly. ,mmediately,
Commissioner Borra called a consultation meetin! amon! re!ional
heads and representatives, and a num%er of senior staff headed %y
B3ecutive Director Mamasapunod A!uam. ,t #as the consensus of
the !roup, #ith the e3ception of Director Jose /olentino, Jr., of the
A$D, to disapproved the re1uest for additional re!istration of voters
on the !round that $ection 8 of +.A. 878; e3plicitly provides that no
re!istration shall %e conducted durin! the period startin! one hundred
t#enty =7@C> days %efore a re!ular election and that the Commission
has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities. :n
Fe%ruary 8, @CC7, the C:MB"BC issued +esolution -. HI8< denyin!
the re1uest to conduct a t#o-day additional re!istration of ne# voters.
A!!rieved %y the denial, petitioners AJBAKA--Kouth, $CA6, UC$C,
MA$6, J:M6," ,, =K:U/'> et. al. filed %efore this Court the instant
6etition for Certiorari and Mandamus #hich see)s to set aside and
nullify respondent C:MB"BCEs +esolution andLor to declare $ection 8
of +.A. 878; unconstitutional insofar as said provision effectively
causes the disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly
situated. "i)e#ise, petitioners pray for the issuance of a #rit of
mandamus directin! respondent C:MB"BC to conduct a special
re!istration of ne# voters and to admit for re!istration petitioners and
other similarly situated youn! Filipinos to 1ualify them to vote in the
May 7<, @CC7 .eneral Blections. :n March C;, @CC7, herein petitioner
Michelle Betito, a student of the University of the 6hilippines, li)e#ise
filed a 6etition for Mandamus, prayin! that this Court direct the
C:MB"BC to provide for another special re!istration day under the
continuin! re!istration provision under the Blection code. /his court
resolved to consolidate the t#o petitions.
ISSUES:
a. hether or not respondent C:MB"BC committed !rave
a%use of discretion in issuin! C:MB"BC +esolution dated
Fe%ruary 8, @CC7.
%. hether or not this Court can compel respondent
C:MB"BC, throu!h the e3traordinary #rit of mandamus, to
conduct a special re!istration of ne# voters durin! the period
%et#een the C:MB"BCEs imposed Decem%er @9, @CCC
deadline and the May 7<, @CC7 !eneral elections.
*ELD:
Applyin! the fore!oin!, this Court is of the firm vie# that respondent
C:MB"BC did not commit an a%use of discretion, much less %e
ad(ud!ed to have committed the same in some patent, #himsical and
ar%itrary manner, in issuin! +esolution -o, HI8< #hich, in
respondentEs o#n terms, resolved Mto deny the re1uest to conduct a
t#o-day additional re!istration of ne# voters on Fe%ruary 79 and 78,
@CC7.M
Finally, the Court li)e#ise ta)es (udicial notice of the fact that the
6resident has issued 6roclamation -o. 7I callin! Con!ress to a
$pecial $ession on March 78, @CC7, to allo# the conduct of $pecial
+e!istration of ne# voters. 'ouse Bill -o., 7@;HC has %een filed
%efore the "o#er 'ouse, #hich %ills see)s to amend +.A. 878; as to
the 7@C-day prohi%itive period provided for under said la#. $imilarly,
$enate Bill -o. @@9F #as filed %efore the $enate, #ith the same
intention to amend the aforesaid la# and, in effect, allo# the conduct
of special re!istration %efore the May 7<, @CC7 .eneral Blections.
/his Court vie#s the fore!oin! factual circumstances as a clear
intimation on the part of %oth the e3ecutive and le!islative
departments that a le!al o%stacle indeed stands in the #ay of the
conduct %y the Commission on Blections of a special re!istration
%efore May 7<, @CC7 .eneral Blections.
By: $annie Mae 6aronda
NTrans0enden)a1 i23$r)an0eN
/his can %e illustrated in a situation #herein the constitutionality of a
!overnmental act is %ein! challen!ed. ,t is e3pected that the first line
of defense is to 1uestion the standin! of petitioners and the
(usticia%ility of the case.
Ta)ad v% #ar0ia( 243 SCRA 436
Fa0)s:
BD$A "+/ Corporation "td., a forei!n corporation, #as a#arded #ith
the construction of "i!ht +ail /ransit ,,, as the only %idder #ho has
1ualified #ith the re1uirements provided %y the 6re1ualification Bids
and A#ards Committee. /he said forei!n corporation #ill construct the
"+/ ,,, in a 0Built-"ease-/ransfer2 a!reement that such pu%lic utility
#ill %e leased %y the !overnment throu!h the Department of
/ransportation and Communication and then it #ould %e su%se1uently
sold %y the corporation to the !overnment. An o%(ection #as raised %y
the petitioner statin! that the a#ardin! of the %id to the said
corporation violates the Constitution. ,t #as provided in the
Constitution that only Filipinos are entitled to operate a pu%lic utility
such as the "+/ ,,,.
Issue:
7. hether or not 6etitioners have le!al standin! to institute the
present petition
@. hether or not the a#ardin! of the %id to BD$A "+/
Consortium is a!ainst the Constitution.
*e1d:
For as lon! as the rulin! in Kilosbayan on locus standi is not reversed,
they have no choice %ut to follo# it and uphold the le!al standin! of
petitioners as ta3payers to institute the present action. But althou!h
the petitioners have le!al standin! in the present case, the case #as
still dismissed. /he Court held that there is a distinction in the
0operation2 of a pu%lic utility and o#nership in the facilities and
e1uipment to serve the pu%lic. /he BD$A "+/ Consortium fall under
the latter %ecause the said corporation #ill not operate the pu%lic
utility. /he said corporation #ill only o#n the facilities and e1uipment
such as the train carts, the railin!s and the %ooths. ,n addition, such
o#nership #ill then %e su%se1uently transferred to the !overnment
under 0Built-"ease-/ransfer2 a!reement. ith that said, the operation
of the pu%lic utility #ill fall to the Filipinos throu!h its !overnment.
/herefore, the a#ardin! of the %id to BD$A "+/ Consortium is not
a!ainst the provisions of the Constitution.
NE1 e0)i $n $4 56i 1 i 33i ne Ci )i 7ens6i 3N
RE: !i0en)e C6ing( ,ar "a))er $% &14( O0)$8er 39( 1&&1
Fa0)s:
Dicente Chin! is a le!itimate son of a Chinese citiAen and a Filipino
mother. :n Jul 7;;8, after havin! completed a Bachelors of "a#s
course in $t. "ouis University in Ba!uio, he filed an application to ta)e
the 7;;8 Bar B3ams. Chin! passed the said Bar B3ams %ut #as not
allo#ed to ta)e the oath %ecause of his 1uestiona%le status. /he :$.
filed its comment on 8 July 7;;;, statin! that Chin!, %ein! the
Mle!itimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother %orn under
the 7;HI Constitution #as a Chinese citiAen and continued to %e so,
unless upon reachin! the a!e of ma(ority he elected 6hilippine
citiAenshipM in strict compliance #ith the provisions of Common#ealth
Act -o. F@I entitled MAn Act 6rovidin! for the Manner in #hich the
:ption to Blect 6hilippine CitiAenship shall %e Declared %y a 6erson
#hose mother is a Filipino CitiAen.M /he :$. adds that M#hat he
ac1uired at %est #as only an inchoate 6hilippine citiAenship #hich he
could perfect %y election upon reachin! the a!e of ma(ority. M,n this
re!ard, the :$. clarifies that Mt#o conditions must concur in order
that the election of 6hilippine citiAenship may %e effective, namely: =a>
the mother of the person ma)in! the election must %e a citiAen of the
6hilippines? and =%> said election must %e made upon reachin! the
a!e of ma(ority.M ,n conclusion, the :$. points out that Chin! has not
formally elected 6hilippine citiAenship and, if ever he does, it #ould
already %e %eyond the Mreasona%le timeM allo#ed %y
present (urisprudence. 'o#ever, due to the peculiar circumstances
surroundin! Chin!Es case, the :$. recommends the rela3ation of the
standin! rule on the construction of the phrase Mreasona%le periodM
and the allo#ance of Chin! to elect 6hilippine citiAenship in
accordance #ith C.A. -o. F@I prior to ta)in! his oath as a mem%er of
the 6hilippine Bar. :n July 7I, 7;;; O Chin! has elected 6hilippine
citiAenship.
Issue:
hether or not Chin! has elected 6hilippine citiAenship #ithin a
0reasona%le time.2
*e1d:
-o. /he 7;HI Charter only provides that the election should %e made
Mupon reachin! the a!e of ma(ority.M /he a!e of ma(ority then
commenced upon reachin! t#enty-one =@7> years. ,n the opinions of
the $ecretary of Justice on cases involvin! the validity of election of
6hilippine citiAenship, this dilemma #as resolved %y %asin! the time
period on the decisions of this Court prior to the effectivity of the 7;HI
Constitution. ,n these decisions, the proper period for electin!
6hilippine citiAenship #as, in turn, %ased on the pronouncements of
the Department of $tate of the United $tates .overnment to the effect
that the election should %e made #ithin a Mreasona%le timeM
after attainin! the a!e of ma(ority. /he phrase Mreasona%le timeM has
%een interpreted to mean that the election should %e made #ithin
three =H> years from reachin! the a!e of ma(ority. ,n the present case,
Chin!, havin! %een %orn on April 77, 7;F<, #as already HI years old
#hen he complied #ith the re1uirements of C.A. -o. F@I on June 7I,
7;;;, or over 7< years after he had reached the a!e of ma(ority.
Based on the interpretation of the phrase Mupon reachin! the a!e of
ma(ority,MChin!Es election #as clearly %eyond the allo#a%le period
#ithin #hich to e3ercise the privile!e. Dicente D. Chin!Es application
for admission to the 6hilippine Bar is DB-,BD.
N.overnment ClassificationN
La:;ers League 4$r a ,e))er 56i1i33ines vs 5res% A<uin$
#%R% $% '3'4/
"a; 22( 1&/6
Fa0)s:
:n Fe%ruary @I, 7;8F, 6resident CoraAon A1uino issued
6roclamation -o. 7 announcin! that she and Dice 6resident "aurel
#ere ta)in! po#er. :n March @I, 7;8F, proclamation -o.H #as
issued providin! the %asis of the A1uino !overnment assumption of
po#er %y statin! that the Mne# !overnment #as installed throu!h a
direct e3ercise of the po#er of the Filipino people assisted %y units of
the -e# Armed Forces of the 6hilippines.M
Issue:
hether or not the !overnment of CoraAon A1uino is le!itimate*
*e1d:
Kes. /he !overnment of former 6resident A1uino #as the result of a
successful revolution %y the soverei!n people, al%eit a peaceful one.
-o less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the A1uino
!overnment #as installed throu!h a direct e3ercise of& the po#er of
the Filipino people 0in defiance of the provisions of the 7;9H
Constitution, as amended.2 ,t is familiar learnin! that the le!itimacy of
a !overnment sired %y a successful revolution %y people po#er is
%eyond (udicial scrutiny for that !overnment automatically or%its out of
the constitutional loop. /he le!itimacy of the A1uino !overnment is not
a (usticia%le matter %ut %elon!s to the realm of politics #here only the
people are the (ud!e. /he Court further held that the people have
accepted the A1uino !overnment #hich is in effective control of the
entire country, it is not merely a de facto !overnment %ut in fact and
la# a de (ure !overnment? and the community of nations has
reco!niAed the le!itimacy of the ne# !overnment.
By: Chriselene Fa(ardo
=ar)6 v% Se1din( 422 US 4&9( 4. L%Ed%2d%343
FACTS:
/he 6laintiffs #ere various or!aniAations and individuals
residin! in +ochester, -e# Kor) =+ochester>. /he 6laintiffs %rou!ht
suit a!ainst the to#n of 6enfield, -e# Kor) =6enfield> and mem%ers of
6enfield&s Gonin!, 6lannin!, and /o#n Boards =Defendants>. 6laintiffs
contended that 6enfield&s Aonin! ordinance effectively e3cluded
persons of lo# and moderate income from livin! in the to#n, in
contravention of constitutional and statutory ri!hts. /he lo#er federal
courts held that none of the 6laintiff&s had standin!.
ISSUES:
hether or not the plaintiffs can have a le!al standin! %y
esta%lishin! a 0case or controversy2 #hich e3ists %et#een them and
the Defendants #ithin the meanin! of Article ,,, of the United $tates
Constitution =Constitution>
*ELD:
,n order for a federal court to have (urisdiction, the plaintiff
himself must have suffered 0some threatened or actual in(ury resultin!
from the putatively le!al action.2 Additionally, standin! #ill !enerally
not %e found #hen: a 0!eneraliAed !rievance2 is shared in
su%stantially e1ual measure %y all or a lar!e class of citiAens a plaintiff
attempts to claim relief on the le!al ri!hts of third parties. Con!ress
may create standin! for individuals throu!h statutes #ho #ould
other#ise lac) standin!, so lon! as the plaintiff alle!es a distinct and
palpa%le in(ury to himself.
,n the present case, it #as D,$M,$$BD. /he 6laintiffs claimed
the enforcement of Aonin! ordinances a!ainst third parties had the
effect of precludin! the construction of housin! suita%le to their needs.
For standin!, a plaintiff must alle!e that the challen!ed practices
affect him specifically and that court intervention #ould personally
%enefit the plaintiff. ,n order for an or!aniAation to have standin!, it
must claim that all or any one of its mem%ers is sufferin! immediate or
threatened in(ury as a result of the challen!ed action. 6laintiffs in this
case fail to do so.
/he purpose of the standin! re1uirement is to prevent the
courts from %ein! forced to ad(udicate a%stract 1uestions of #ide
pu%lic si!nificance, #hich could %etter %e determined in other forums.
Re3u81i0 v% CA( #R '&'32( $v% /( 1&&3
FACTS:
/he +epu%lic of the 6hilippines has sou!ht the e3propriation of
certain portions of land o#ned %y the private respondents for the
#idenin! and concretin! of the -a%ua-Bato-A!os $ection, 6hilippine-
Japan 'i!h#ay "oan =6J'"> road. hile the ri!ht of the pu%lic is not
no# disputed, the private respondents demand that the compensation
for the property should %e %ased on fair mar)et value and not that set
%y 6residential Decree no. 9F, as amended, #hich fi3es payment on
the %asis of the assessment %y the assessor or the declared valuation
%y the o#ner, #hichever is lo#er. /he +e!ional /rial Court ruled for
the private respondents. hen elevated to it, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court&s decision. $o the repu%lic filed an instant
petition.
,n the case of B3port 6rocessin! Gone Authority =0B6GA2> vs.
Dulay, etc., et al., the Court held the determination of (ust
compensation in eminent domain to %e a (udicial function, and it
there%y declared 6residential Decree -o. 9F includin! 6residential
Decree -o. 7IHH, to the contrary e3tent, as unconstitutional and as an
impermissi%le encroachment of (udicial prero!atives.
ISSUES:
7. Bffect of (udicial declaration of 6D 7IHH as unconstitutional and
void? up to #hen retroactively? effect on a pendin! appealed case
#here constitutionality of 6D 7IHH not assailed %efore court a 1uo
@. hether or not the decision of this honoura%le court in BpAa vs.
'on. Dulay, etc.,et al. declarin! 6D 7IHH unconstitutional and void %e
applied in this case
*ELD:
/he strict vie# considers a le!islative enactment #hich is
declared unconstitutional as %ein!, for all le!al intents and purposes,
a total nullity, and it is deemed as if it had never e3isted. 'ere, of
course, #e refer to the la# itself %ein! per se repu!nant to the
Constitution. An other#ise valid la# may %e held unconstitutional only
in so far as it is allo#ed to operate retrospectively #hen it vitiates
contractually vested ri!hts. /o that e3tent, its retroactive application
may %e so declared invalid as impairin! the o%li!ations of contracts. A
(udicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily o%literate all the
effects and conse1uences of a void act occurrin! prior to such a
declaration. /hus, in our decisions on the moratorium laws, #e have
%een constrained to reco!niAe the interim effects of said la#s prior to
the declaration of unconstitutionality, %ut there #e have li)e#ise %een
una%le to simply i!nore stron! considerations of e1uity and fair play.
$o also, even as a practical matter, a situation that may aptly %e
descri%ed as fait accompli may no lon!er %e open for further in1uiry,
let alone to %e unsettled %y a su%se1uent declaration of nullity of a
!overnin! statute.
/he controversy %et#een the petitioner and the private
respondents on the issue of (ust compensation is still unresolved,
partly attri%uta%le to the instant petition that has prevented the finality
of the decision appealed from. /he fact of the matter is that
e3propriation cases, involved in this instance, #ere still pendin!
appeal #hen the B6GA rulin! #as rendered and forth#ith invo)ed %y
said parties.
,n fine, #e hold that the appellate court in this particular case
committed no error in its appealed decision. /he instant petition is
D,$M,$$BD.
"a>a1in)a1 v% C$2e1e0( #R 1.'913( ?u1; 19( 2993
FACTS:
/his is a petition for certiorari and prohi%ition filed %y +omulo
B. Macalintal, a mem%er of the 6hilippine Bar, see)in! a declaration
that certain provisions of +epu%lic Act -o. ;78; =The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003> suffer from constitutional infirmity.
Claimin! that he has actual and material le!al interest in the su%(ect
matter of this case in seein! to it that pu%lic funds are properly and
la#fully used and appropriated, petitioner filed the instant petition as a
ta3payer and as a la#yer.
ISSUES:
7. Does $ection I=d> of +ep. Act -o. ;78; allo#in! the
re!istration of voters #ho are immi!rants or permanent residents in
other countries %y their mere act of e3ecutin! an affidavit e3pressin!
their intention to return to the 6hilippines, violate the residency
re1uirement in $ection 7 of Article D of the Constitution*
@. Does $ection 78.I of the same la# empo#erin! the
C:MB"BC to proclaim the #innin! candidates for national offices and
party list representatives includin! the 6resident and the Dice-
6resident violate the constitutional mandate under $ection <, Article
D,, of the Constitution that the #innin! candidates for 6resident and
the Dice-6resident shall %e proclaimed as #inners %y Con!ress*
H. May Con!ress, throu!h the Joint Con!ressional :versi!ht
Committee created in $ection @I of +ep. Act -o. ;78;, e3ercise the
po#er to revie#, revise, amend, and approve the ,mplementin! +ules
and +e!ulations that the Commission on Blections shall promul!ate
#ithout violatin! the independence of the C:MB"BC under $ection 7,
Article ,P-A of the Constitution*
<. hether or not the petition of Ma)alintal a!ainst the
provisions of +epu%lic Act -o. ;78; =The Overseas Absentee Voting
Act of 2003> #ill %e !ranted
*ELD:
7. $ection I=d> of +.A. -o. ;78; specifically dis1ualifies an
immigrant or permanent resident #ho is Mreco!niAed as such in the
host countryM %ecause immi!ration or permanent residence in another
country implies renunciation of one&s residence in his country of ori!in.
'o#ever, same $ection allo#s an immi!rant and permanent resident
a%road to re!ister as voter for as lon! as heLshe e3ecutes an affidavit
to sho# that heLshe has not a%andoned his domicile in pursuance of
the constitutional intent e3pressed in $ections 7 and @ of Article D that
Mall citiAens of the 6hilippines not other#ise dis1ualified %y la#M must
%e entitled to e3ercise the ri!ht of suffra!e and, that Con!ress must
esta%lish a system for a%sentee votin!? for other#ise, if actual,
physical residence in the 6hilippines is re1uired, there is no sense for
the framers of the Constitution to mandate Con!ress to esta%lish a
system for a%sentee votin!.
@. $ection 78.I of +.A. -o. ;78; appears to %e repu!nant to
$ection <, Article D,, of the Constitution only insofar as said $ection
totally disre!arded the authority !iven to Con!ress %y the Constitution
to proclaim the #innin! candidates for the positions of president and
vice-president. Con!ress could not have allo#ed the C:MB"BC to
usurp a po#er that constitutionally %elon!s to it or, as aptly stated %y
petitioner, to encroach Mon the po#er of Con!ress to canvass the
votes for president and vice-president and the po#er to proclaim the
#inners for the said positions.M /he provisions of the Constitution as
the fundamental la# of the land should %e read as part of The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 and hence, the canvassin! of
the votes and the proclamation of the #innin! candidates for president
and vice-president for the entire nation must remain in the hands of
Con!ress.
H. ,t a!rees #ith the petitioner that $ections 7; and @I of +.A.
-o. ;78; are unconstitutional. "i)e the petitioner, respondent
C:MB"BC anchors its claim of unconstitutionality of said $ections
upon $ection 7, Article ,P-A of the Constitution providin! for the
independence of the constitutional commissions such as the
C:MB"BC. /he petitioner asserts that as an independent
constitutional %ody, it may not %e su%(ect to interference %y any
!overnment instrumentality and that only this Court may revie#
C:MB"BC rules and only in cases of !rave a%use of discretion.
<. /he petition of Ma)alintal is 3ar)1; #RATED. /he
follo#in! portions of +.A. -o. ;78; are declared !OID for %ein!
UCOSTITUTIOAL:
a> /he phrase in the first sentence of the first para!raph of
$ection 79.7, to #it: Msubject to the approval of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee?M
%> /he portion of the last para!raph of $ection 79.7, to #it:
Monly upon review and approval of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee?M
c> /he second sentence of the first para!raph of $ection 7;, to
#it: MThe Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be
submitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior
approval?M and
d> /he second sentence in the second para!raph of $ection
@I, to #it: MIt shall review, revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Commission of the same law?
/he constitutionality of $ection 78.I of +.A. -o. ;78; is
U5*ELD #ith respect only to the authority !iven to the C:MB"BC to
proclaim the #innin! candidates for the $enators and party-list
representatives %ut not as to the po#er to canvass the votes and
proclaim the #innin! candidates for 6resident and Dice-6resident
#hich is lod!ed #ith Con!ress under $ection <, Article D,, of the
Constitution.
/he constitutionality of $ection I=d> is U5*ELD.
6ursuant to $ection HC of +.A. -o. ;78;, the rest of the provisions of
said la# continue to %e in full force and effect.
By: "ouie Ca%il
CIT- OF LOS A#ELES( 5e)i)i$ner
!s%
Ad$136 L-OS%
-o. 87-7CF<.
Ar!ued? -ov. @, 7;8@.
Decided? April @C, 7;8H.
FACTS:
:n Fe%ruary 9, 7;99, #hen respondent, Adolph "yons, filed a
complaint for dama!es, in(unction, and declaratory relief in the United
$tates District Court for the Central District of California. /he
defendants #ere the City of "os An!eles and four of its police officers.
/he complaint alle!ed that on :cto%er F, 7;9F, at @ a.m., "yons #as
stopped %y the defendant officers for a traffic or vehicle code violation
and that althou!h "yons offered no resistance or threat #hatsoever,
the officers, #ithout provocation or (ustification, seiAed "yons and
applied a Mcho)eholdM either the M%ar arm controlM hold or the Mcarotid-
artery controlM hold or %othQ renderin! him unconscious and causin!
dama!e to his laryn3. Counts , throu!h ,D of the complaint sou!ht
dama!es a!ainst the officers and the City. Count D, #ith #hich #e are
principally concerned here, sou!ht a preliminary and permanent
in(unction a!ainst the City %arrin! the use of the control holds. /hat
count alle!ed that the cityEs police officers, Mpursuant to the
authoriAation, instruction and encoura!ement of defendant City of "os
An!eles, re!ularly and routinely apply these cho)e holds in
innumera%le situations #here they are not threatened %y the use of
any deadly force #hatsoever,M that numerous persons have %een
in(ured as the result of the application of the cho)eholds, that "yons
and others similarly situated are threatened #ith irrepara%le in(ury in
the form of %odily in(ury and loss of life, and that "yons M(ustifia%ly
fears that any contact he has #ith "os An!eles police officers may
result in his %ein! cho)ed and stran!led to death #ithout provocation,
(ustification or other le!al e3cuse.M "yons alle!ed the threatened
impairment of ri!hts protected %y the First, Fourth, Bi!hth and
Fourteenth Amendments. ,n(unctive relief #as sou!ht a!ainst the use
of the control holds Me3cept in situations #here the proposed victim of
said control reasona%ly appears to %e threatenin! the immediate use
of deadly force.M Count D, sou!ht declaratory relief a!ainst the City,
i.e., a (ud!ment that use of the cho)eholds a%sent the threat of
immediate use of deadly force is a per se violation of various
constitutional ri!hts.
ISSUE:
hether or not respondent "yons satisfied the prere1uisites for
see)in! in(unctive relief in the federal district court
*ELD:
7. /he case is not rendered moot even thou!h #hile it #as pendin! in
this Court, city police authorities prohi%ited use of a certain type of
cho)ehold in any circumstances and imposed a F- month moratorium
on the use of another type of cho)ehold e3cept under circumstances
#here deadly force #as authoriAed. /he moratorium %y its terms #as
not permanent, and thus intervenin! events have not irrevoca%ly
eradicated the effects of the alle!ed misconduct.
@. /he federal courts are #ithout (urisdiction to entertain respondentEs
claim for in(unctive relief.
+ule: +ipeness arises #hen an actual case has ripened or matured
into a controversy #orthy of ad(udication.
#%R% $% /6.64% Augus) 1( 1&/&%
RA"O L% LA,O( ?R%( 3e)i)i$ner
!s%
T*E CO""ISSIO O ELECTIOS @CO"ELECA E ,AC AD
LUIS
"A+D,GABA", respondents.
FACTS:
'erein petitioner, claimin! for reco!nition as a 6hilippine citiAen is a
Mayor-elect #ho, throu!h his marria!e #ith an Australian national,
#as naturaliAed and too) an oath of alle!iance as an Australian
citiAen. $aid marria!e #as found to %e %i!amous and therefore #as
annulled. 6etitioner claims that his naturaliAation made him only a
dual national and did not divest him of his 6hilippine citiAenship.
ISSUE:
hether or not petitioner #as divested of his 6hilippine citiAenship.
*ELD:
Kes, %ecause Common#ealth Act -o. FH clearly stated that 6hilippine
citiAenship may %e lost throu!h naturaliAation in a forei!n country?
e3press renunciation of citiAenship? and %y oath of alle!iance to a
forei!n country, all of #hich are applica%le to the petitioner.
FI 6hil.IF
-ovem%er 7F, 7;H9
T*E 5EO5LE OF T*E 5*ILI55IE ISLADS and T*E
*O#+O# B
S*A#*AI ,A+I# COR5ORATIO( 3e)i)i$ners
!s%
?OSE O% !ERA( ?udge ad in)eri2 $4 )6e C$ur) $4 Firs) Ins)an0e $4
"ani1a( and
"ARIAO CU U?IE#( res3$nden)s%
Decision: Act -o. <@@7 is here%y declared unconstitutional and void
and the #rit of prohi%ition is, accordin!ly, !ranted. ithout any
pronouncement re!ardin! costs.
FACTS:
/he information in the aforesaid criminal case #as filed #ith the Court
of First ,nstance of Manila on :cto%er 7I, 7;H7, petitioner herein
'on!)on! and $han!hai Ban)in! Corporation intervenin! in the case
as private prosecutor. After a protracted trial unparalleled in the
annals of 6hilippine (urisprudence %oth in the len!th of time spent %y
the court as #ell as in the volume of the testimony and the %ul) of
e3hi%its presented, the Court of First ,nstance of Manila, on January
8, 7;H<, rendered a (ud!ment of conviction sentencin! the defendant
Mariano Cu Un(ien! to an indeterminate penalty ran!in! from four
years and t#o months of prision correccional to ei!ht years of prision
mayor, to pay the costs and #ith reservation of civil action to the
offended party, the 'on!)on! and $han!hai Ban)in! Corporation.
Upon appeal, the court, on March @F, 7;HI, modified the sentence to
an indeterminate penalty of from five years and si3 months of prision
correccional to seven years, si3 months and t#enty-seven days of
prision mayor, %ut affirmed the (ud!ment in all other respects. Mariano
Cu Un(ien! filed a motion for reconsideration and four successive
motions for ne# trial #hich #ere denied on Decem%er 79, 7;HI, and
final (ud!ment #as accordin!ly entered on Decem%er 78, 7;HI. /he
defendant thereupon sou!ht to have the case elevated on certiorari to
the $upreme Court of the United $tates %ut the latter denied the
petition for certiorari in -ovem%er, 7;HF. /his court, on -ovem%er @<,
7;HF, denied the petition su%se1uently filed %y the defendant for leave
to file a second alternative motion for reconsideration or ne# trial and
thereafter remanded the case to the court of ori!in for e3ecution of the
(ud!ment.
ISSUE:
hether or -ot the se c t ion 77of Ac t -o . <@@ 7 c o n s t i t u t e U n
d u e D e l e ! a t i o n o f "e!islative 6o#er.
*ELD:
K B $ . $ e c t i o n 7 7 c o n s t i t u t e s a n improper and unla#ful
dele!ation of le!islative authority to the provincial %oards, therefore,
unconstitutional and void.
+easonin!:
Under the Constitution, !overnment po#er is distri%uted amon! H
coordinate and su%stantially independent or!ans: le!islative,
e3ecutive and (udicial. Bach department derives its authority from the
Constitution, the hi!hest e3pression of popular #ill. Bach has
e3clusive co!niAance of the matters.
By: .race Ann Antipolo
=ar)6 vs% Se1din
I!!"#: hether or not the plaintiffs is in the le!al standin! to sue.
'ave the 6laintiff&s esta%lished that a 0case or controversy2
e3ists %et#een themselves and the Defendants #ithin the meanin! of
Article ,,, of the United $tates Constitution =Constitution>, in order to
have standin!*
R"$I%&: Case dismissed. -o standin!.
A plaintiff must !enerally alle!e a specific 0case or
controversy2 %et#een herself and the defendant in order to have
standin!.
Art.H O Judicial po#er re1uires a $upreme Court, re1uires
!ood %ehavior for (ud!es. +e1uire trial %y (ury in all criminal cases,
e3cept impeachment cases.
Must %e held in the $tate #here the crimes are committed.
'ACT!: 6laintiffs claimed that a local Aonin! ordinance e3cluded
persons of lo# and moderate income from livin! in a certain
community. Defendants responded %y claimin! that 6laintiffs lac)ed
standin! to %rin! suit.
"$n -a Li2 vs% C$22issi$ner $4 I22igra)i$n
I!!"#: ,s Ms. "an %ecame a Filipino citiAen %ecause she !ot married
#ith Moy Ka "im a Filipino citiAen*
R"$I%&: Ms. "an %ecame a naturaliAed Filipino citiAen.
=add&l>: Common#ealth Act states that 0any #oman #ho is
no# or hereafter %e married to a citeen of the 6hilippines, and #ho
mi!ht herself %e la#fully naturaliAed shall %e deemed a citiAen of the
6hilippines2. Base on Commission of ,mmi!ration, nothin! on
testimony of Ms. "au states any dis1ualification for naturaliAation
stated in Common#ealth Act. -ot %ecause someone can a%use this
la#, la# can allo# this. ,f there are case li)e this #ill %e heard %y the
court.
+e!ardin! to the Filipino tradition, not allo#ed that the #ife of
a Filipino citiAen are not a Filipino citiAen, and treatment for a
forei!ner are different.
'ACT!: Ms. "au is a Chinese national from 'on! Jon! #ho applied
temporary passportLvisa on March 7H, 7;F7. 'er visa is 7 month only.
But on January @I, 7;F@, Ms. "au stated that she !ot married to Moy
Ka "im alias Bdi%erto A!uinaldo "im, a Filipino citiAen. Ms. "au did
not )no# ho# to spea), #rite or read Bn!lish, /a!alo! or $panish.
#$vern2en) $4 )6e 56i1% Is1and vs% "$n)e De 5iedad
I!!"#: hether or not the .overnment #ill !rant the stay of
e3ecution.
R"$I%&: .ranted %y the court.
=add&l>: /he (ud!ment of the court #ill stay. /his po#er ena%les
the defendant to prevent ine1uita%le use of (ud!ment or summon.
Most discrepancy po#ers are lia%le to a%use. -ot entitlin! to
e3ecution his ri!ht may %e destroyed a stay of e3ecution.
H classes of stays of e3ecution:
7. :rdered %y the court #hich the (ud!ment #as rendered,
%ut not as the result of appellate proceedin!, upon the
!round for some case, the e3ecution of (ud!ment ou!ht to
postponed su%se1uent date or place at all.
@. Conse1uence of appellate proceedin!s.
H. +esult from statutes !rantin! the defendant further time to
satisfy the (ud!ment upon !ivin! security.
Bach court has such !eneral control of its process as ena%les
to act for prevention of all a%use. ,f it appears that the proceedin!s
have %een institute #hich may result in the annulment of (ud!ment or
!rantin! the defendant a release. B3ecution may %e suspended until
the result of proceedin! can %e )no#n. ,n proceedin! in %an)ruptcy
have %een commenced #hich may result in the release of the
defendant, it is proper to stay e3ecution for a reasona%le time to
permit him to prosecute such proceedin!s that his release can either
%e o%tained or denied. ,f an action %rou!ht upon the (ud!ment from
#hich the court order of error has %een recovered, e3ecution should
%e stayed until the first is reversed or affirmed, other#ise the party
prosecutin! the court order of error may, thou!h successful, %e
deprived of all %enefit. 6erpetual stay of e3ecution may %e !ranted %y
the court #hen (ud!ment #as void #hen entered, and further
prosecution not to %e allo#ed. $atisfaction of (ud!ment and re1uirin!
perpetual stay of e3ecution is the release of the defendant and his
property %y a dischar!e !ranted him under the %an)ruptcy or
insolvency la#.
hen the appellate court has permitted the case to the
su%ordinate court, the latter has no ri!ht to stay e3ecution. /he rule
ou!ht not to prevent a temporary stay of e3ecution upon !rounds
#hich do not 1uestion the correctness of (ud!ment a!ainst the plaintiff
to his %enefit.
'ACT!: /he appellant see)in! a ri!ht under the la# to ta)e the
money for (ud!ment of this court to $upreme Court of U$ for revie#,
'e is ta)in! steps in !ood faith in movin! to stay. ,t is not a sufficient
!round to deny this case to say that the result of chan!e of procedure
in the method #here%y such appeals #ere formerly perfected? #e
cannot !rant a court order char!ed the ne# procedure in the manner
#hich #e #ere authoriAed to !rant such court order under the old
procedure. /he chan!e in procedure #as not intended to have the
effect of deprivin! liti!ants of any ri!ht to stay of pendin! appeals to
$upreme Court of the U$ #hich #as secured them under the former
statute. Unless $upreme Court of the U$ ta)es (urisdiction this court
and this court alone has (urisdiction in the premises. ,n case #herein
the liti!ant see)s to e3ercise his ri!ht to have (ud!ment, a period of
FC-;C days must elapse from the entry of final (ud!ments %y this court
%efore the court a%ove can %e !iven an opportunity to ta)e (urisdiction
of the case. ,t must %e assumed that durin! the period this court has
at least sufficient supervisory (urisdiction over the e3ecution of its o#n
(ud!ments to control and restrain any attempt to enforce these
(ud!ments. herein their immediate e3ecution #ould deprive the
liti!ant of a ri!ht has al#ays %een secured to him, to have e3ecution
stayed %y the e3ercise %y due dili!ence in prosecutin! his appeal. A
ri!ht #hich it #as not the intention of the liti!ators to destroy %y the
chan!e in the mode of procedure in prosecutin! the appeal. ,t is said
that the application %een made to as durin! the period of 7C days after
final (ud!ment #as entered and %efore the record #as returned to the
court, #e mi!ht have held the record in this court for a time sufficient
to allo# an application for the court order to the $upreme Court of the
U$.
hile #e have the po#er to do and #hile delay incurred #ould
had the indirect effect of stayin! the e3ecution, the practice of !rantin!
delay mi!ht conserve the ri!hts of the losin! party, #ho should have
e3ecution of his (ud!ment #ithout delay unless proper security is
furnished %y the party see)in! to stay e3ecution pendin! the appeal.
By: -oah Mecayer
La ,uga1-,CLaan Tri8a1 Assn vs Ra2$s
#%R% $ 12'//2
Fa0)s:
:n July @I, 7;89, then 6resident CoraAon C. A1uino issued B3ecutive
:rder =B.:.> -o. @9;F authoriAin! the DB-+ $ecretary to accept,
consider and evaluate proposals from forei!n-o#ned corporations or
forei!n investors for contracts or a!reements involvin! either technical
or financial assistance for lar!e-scale e3ploration, development, and
utiliAation of minerals, #hich, upon appropriate recommendation of the
$ecretary, the 6resident may e3ecute #ith the forei!n proponent.
:n March H, 7;;I, then 6resident Fidel D. +amos approved +.A. -o.
9;<@ to M!overn the e3ploration, development, utiliAation and
processin! of all mineral resources.M +.A. -o. 9;<@ defines the
modes of mineral a!reements for minin! operations, outlines the
procedure for their filin! and approval, assi!nmentLtransfer and
#ithdra#al, and fi3es their terms. $imilar provisions !overn financial
or technical assistance a!reements.
:n April ;, 7;;I, HC days follo#in! its pu%lication on March 7C, 7;;I
in Malaya and Manila /imes, t#o ne#spapers of !eneral circulation,
+.A. -o. 9;<@ too) effect. $hortly %efore the effectivity of +.A. -o.
9;<@, ho#ever, or on March HC, 7;;I, the 6resident entered into an
F/AA #ith MC6 coverin! ;;,H89 hectares of land in $outh
Cota%ato, $ultan Judarat, Davao del $ur and -orth Cota%ato.
:n Au!ust 7I, 7;;I, then DB-+ $ecretary Dictor :. +amos issued
DB-+ Administrative :rder =DA:> -o. ;I-@H, s. 7;;I, other#ise
)no#n as the ,mplementin! +ules and +e!ulations of +.A. -o. 9;<@.
/his #as later repealed %y DA: -o. ;F-<C, s. 7;;F #hich #as
adopted on Decem%er @C, 7;;F.
:n January 7C, 7;;9, counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the
DB-+ $ecretary demandin! that the DB-+ stop the implementation
of +.A. -o. 9;<@ and DA: -o. ;F-<C, !ivin! the DB-+ fifteen days
from receipt to act thereon. /he DB-+, ho#ever, has yet to respond
or act on petitionersE letter.
6etitioners claim that the DB-+ $ecretary acted #ithout or in e3cess
of (urisdiction.
/hey pray that the Court issue an order:
=a> 6ermanently en(oinin! respondents from actin! on any application
for Financial or /echnical Assistance A!reements?
=%> Declarin! the 6hilippine Minin! Act of 7;;I or +epu%lic Act -o.
9;<@ as unconstitutional and null and void?
=c> Declarin! the ,mplementin! +ules and +e!ulations of the
6hilippine Minin! Act contained in DB-+ Administrative :rder -o. ;F-
<C and all other similar administrative issuances as unconstitutional
and null and void? and
=d> Cancellin! the Financial and /echnical Assistance A!reement
issued to estern Minin! 6hilippines, ,nc. as unconstitutional, ille!al
and null and void.
Issue:
hether or not +epu%lic Act -o. 9;<@ is unconstitutional.
Ru1ing:
/he Court finds the follo#in! provisions of +.A. -o. 9;<@ to %e
violative of $ection @, Article P,, of the Constitution and here%y
declares unconstitutional and void:
=7> /he proviso in $ection H =a1>, #hich defines M1ualified person,M to
#it:
6rovided, /hat a le!ally or!aniAed forei!n-o#ned corporation shall %e
deemed a 1ualified person for purposes of !rantin! an e3ploration
permit, financial or technical assistance a!reement or mineral
processin! permit.
=@> $ection @H, #hich specifies the ri!hts and o%li!ations of an
e3ploration permittee, insofar as said section applies to a financial or
technical assistance a!reement,
=H> $ection HH, #hich prescri%es the eli!i%ility of a contractor in a
financial or technical assistance a!reement?
=<> $ection HI, #hich enumerates the terms and conditions for every
financial or technical assistance a!reement?
=I> $ection H;, #hich allo#s the contractor in a financial and technical
assistance a!reement to convert the same into a mineral production-
sharin! a!reement?
=F> $ection IF, #hich authoriAes the issuance of a mineral processin!
permit to a contractor in a financial and technical assistance
a!reement?
/he follo#in! provisions of the same Act are li)e#ise void as they are
dependent on the fore!oin! provisions and cannot stand on their o#n:
=7> $ection H =!>, #hich defines the term Mcontractor,M insofar as it
applies to a financial or technical assistance a!reement.
$ection H<, #hich prescri%es the ma3imum contract area in a financial
or technical assistance a!reements?
$ection HF, #hich allo#s ne!otiations for financial or technical
assistance a!reements?
$ection H9, #hich prescri%es the procedure for filin! and evaluation of
financial or technical assistance a!reement proposals?
$ection H8, #hich limits the term of financial or technical assistance
a!reements?
$ection <C, #hich allo#s the assi!nment or transfer of financial or
technical assistance a!reements?
$ection <7, #hich allo#s the #ithdra#al of the contractor in an F/AA?
/he second and third para!raphs of $ection 87, #hich provide for the
.overnmentEs share in a financial and technical assistance
a!reement? and
$ection ;C, #hich provides for incentives to contractors in F/AAs
insofar as it applies to said contractors?
hen the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent and
connected as conditions, considerations, inducements, or
compensations for each other, as to #arrant a %elief that the
le!islature intended them as a #hole, and that if all could not %e
carried into effect, the le!islature #ould not pass the residue
independently, then, if some parts are unconstitutional, all the
provisions #hich are thus dependent, conditional, or connected, must
fall #ith them.
'B+BF:+B, the petition is .+A-/BD.
I,5 vs% Da2$ra #%R% $%1412/4( Augus) 1.( 2999
Fa0)s:
,nvo)in! his po#ers as Commander-in-Chief under $ec. 78, Art. D,,
of the Constitution, the 6resident directed the AF6 Chief of $taff and
6-6 Chief to coordinate #ith each other for the
properdeployment and utiliAation of the Marines to assist the 6-6 in
preventin! or suppressin! criminal or la#less violence. /he
6residentdeclared that the services of the Marines in the anti-crime
campai!n are merely temporary in nature and for a reasona%le period
only, until such time #hen the situation shall have improved. /he ,B6
filed apetition see)in! to declare the deployment of the 6hilippine
Marines null and void and unconstitutional.
Issues:
=7> hether or not the 6resident&s factual determination of the
necessity of callin! the armed forces is su%(ect to (udicial revie#
=@> hether or not the callin! of the armed forces to assist the 6-6 in
(oint visi%ility patrols violates the constitutional provisions on civilian
supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the 6-6
*e1d:
hen the 6resident calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress
la#less violence, invasion or re%ellion, he necessarilye3ercises a
discretionary po#er solely vested in his #isdom. Under $ec. 78, Art.
D,, of the Constitution, Con!ress may revo)e such proclamation of
martial la# or suspension of the privile!e of the #rit of ha%eas corpus
and the Court may revie# the sufficiency of the factual %asis thereof.
'o#ever, there is no such e1uivalent provision dealin! #ith the
revocation or revie# of the 6resident&s action to call out the
armed forces. /he distinction places the callin! out po#er in a
different cate!ory from the po#er to declare martial la# and po#er
tosuspend the privile!e of the #rit of ha%eas corpus, other#ise, the
framers of the Constitution #ould have simply lumped to!ether the H
po#ers and provided for their revocation and revie# #ithout any
1ualification.
/he reason for the difference in the treatment of the said
po#ershi!hli!hts the intent to !rant the 6resident the #idest lee#ay
and %roadest discretion in usin! the po#er to call out %ecause it is
considered as the lesser and more %eni!n po#er compared to the
po#er to suspend the privile!e of the #rit of ha%eas corpus and the
po#er to impose martial la#, %oth of #hich involve the curtailment and
suppression of certain %asic civil ri!hts and individual freedoms, and
thus necessitatin! safe!uards %y Con!ress and revie# %y the Court.
,n vie# of the constitutional intent to !ive the 6resident full
discretionary po#er to determine the necessity of callin! out the
armed forces, it is incum%ent upon the petitioner to sho# that the
6resident&s decision is totally %ereft of factual %asis. /he
presentpetition fails to dischar!e such heavy %urden, as there is no
evidence to support the assertion that there e3ists no (ustification for
callin! out the armed forces.
/he Court disa!rees to the contention that %y the deployment of the
Marines, the civilian tas) of la# enforcement is 0militariAed2 in violation
of $ec. H, Art. ,, of the Constitution. /he deployment of the
Marines does not constitute a %reach of the civilian supremacy clause.
/he callin! of the Marines constitutes permissi%le use of military
assets for civilian la# enforcement. /he local police forces are the
ones in char!e of the visi%ility patrols at all times, the real authority
%elon!in! to the 6-6
Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the 6-6 does not
unma)e the civilian character of the police force. /he real authority in
the operations is lod!ed #ith the head of a civilian institution, the
6-6, and not #ith the military. $ince none of the Marines #as
incorporated or enlisted as mem%ers of the 6-6, there can %e no
appointment to civilian position to spea) of. 'ence,
the deployment ofthe Marines in the (oint visi%ility patrols does not
destroy the civilian character of the 6-6.
FRI!ALDO !S% CO"ELEC
E1'4 SCRA 24.F #%R% O% /'1&3F 23 ?U 1&/&G
Fa0)s:
6etitioner Juan .. Frivaldo #as proclaimed !overnor-elect of the
province of $orso!on on January @@, 7;88, and assumed office in due
time. :n :cto%er @9, 7;88, the "ea!ue of Municipalities, $orso!on
Chapter, represented %y its 6resident, Bstuye, #ho #as also suin! in
his personal capacity, filed #ith the C:MB"BC a petition for the
annulment of Frivaldo? election and proclamation on the !round that
he #as not a Filipino citiAen, havin! %een naturaliAed in the United
$tates on January @C, 7;8H. ,n his ans#er dated May @@, 7;88,
Frivaldo admitted that he #as naturaliAed in the United $tates as
alle!ed %ut pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had
sou!ht American citiAenship only to protect himself a!ainst 6resident
Marcos. 'is naturaliAation, he said, #as Mmerely forced upon himself
as a means of survival a!ainst the unrelentin! persecution %y the
Martial "a# DictatorEs a!ents a%road.M 'e added that he had returned
to the 6hilippines after the BD$A revolution to help in the restoration
of democracy. ,n their Comment, the private respondents reiterated
their assertion that Frivaldo #as a naturaliAed American citiAen and
had not reac1uired 6hilippine citiAenship on the day of the election on
January 78, 7;88. 'e #as therefore not 1ualified to run for and %e
elected !overnor. /hey also ar!ued that their petition in the
Commission on Blections #as not really for 1uo #arranto under
$ection @IH of the :mni%us Blection Code. /he ultimate purpose #as
to prevent Frivaldo from continuin! as !overnor, his candidacy and
election %ein! null and void a% initio %ecause of his aliena!e.
$pea)in! for the pu%lic respondent, the $olicitor .eneral supported
the contention that Frivaldo #as not a citiAen of the 6hilippines and
had not repatriated himself after his naturaliAation as an American
citiAen. As an alien, he #as dis1ualified from pu%lic office in the
6hilippines. 'is election did not cure this defect %ecause the
electorate of $orso!on could not amend the Constitution, the "ocal
.overnmentCode, and the :mni%us Blection Code. 'e also (oined in
the private respondentEs ar!ument that $ection @IH of the :mni%us
Blection Code #as not applica%le %ecause #hat the "ea!ue and
Bstuye #ere see)in! #as not only the annulment of the proclamation
and election of Frivaldo. 'e a!reed that they #ere also as)in! for the
termination of FrivaldoEs incum%ency as !overnor of $orso!on on the
!round that he #as not a Filipino.
Issue:
hether or -ot petitioner Juan .. Frivaldo #as a citiAen of the
6hilippines at the time of his election on January 78, 7;88, as
provincial !overnor of $orso!on.
*e1d:
/he reason for this in1uiry is the provision in Article P,, $ection ;, of
the Constitution that all pu%lic officials and employeeso#e the $tate
and the Constitution Malle!iance at all timesM and the specific
re1uirement in $ection <@ of the "ocal .overnment Code that a
candidate for local elective office must %e inter alia a citiAen of the
6hilippines and a 1ualified voter of the constituency #here he is
runnin!. $ection 779 of the :mni%us Blection Code provides that a
1ualified voter must %e, amon! other 1ualifications, a citiAen of the
6hilippines, this %ein! an indispensa%le re1uirement for suffra!e
under Article D, $ection 7, of the Constitution.
,n the certificate of candidacy he filed on -ovem%er 7;, 7;89, Frivaldo
descri%ed himself as a Mnatural-%ornM citiAen of the 6hilippines,
omittin! mention of any su%se1uent loss of such status. /he evidence
sho#s, ho#ever, that he #as naturaliAed as a citiAen of the United
$tates in 7;8H per the follo#in! certification from the United $tates
District Court, -orthern District of California, as duly authenticated %y
Dice Consul Amado 6. CorteA of the 6hilippine Consulate .eneral in
$an Francisco, California, U.$.A.
/he Court sees no reason not to %elieve that the petitioner #as one of
the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. Bven so, it cannot a!ree that
as a conse1uence thereof he #as coerced into em%racin! American
citiAenship. 'is fee%le su!!estion that his naturaliAation #as not the
result of his o#n free and voluntary choice is totally unaccepta%le and
must %e re(ected outri!ht.
/his Court #ill not permit the anomaly of a person sittin! as provincial
!overnor in this country #hile o#in! e3clusive alle!iance to another
country. /he fact that he #as elected %y the people of $orso!on does
not e3cuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limitin! pu%lic
office and employment only to the citiAens of this country. /he
1ualifications prescri%ed for elective office cannot %e erased %y the
electorate alone. /he #ill of the people as e3pressed throu!h the
%allot cannot cure the vice of ineli!i%ility, especially if they mista)enly
%elieved, as in this case, that the candidate #as 1ualified. :%viously,
this rule re1uires strict application #hen the deficiency is lac) of
citiAenship. ,f a person see)s to serve in the +epu%lic of the
6hilippines, he must o#e his total loyalty to this country only, a%(urin!
and renouncin! all fealty and fidelity to any other state.
,t is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural-%orn
citiAen is favored %y the Constitution and our la#s, #hich is all the
more reason #hy it should %e treasured li)e a pearl of !reat price. But
once it is surrendered and renounced, the !ift is !one and cannot %e
li!htly restored. /his country of ours, for all its difficulties and
limitations, is li)e a (ealous and possessive mother. :nce re(ected, it
is not 1uic) to #elcome %ac) #ith ea!er arms its prodi!al if repentant
children. /he returnin! rene!ade must sho#, %y an e3press and
une1uivocal act, the rene#al of his loyalty and love.
6etition Dismissed. 6etitioner JUA- .. F+,DA"D: is here%y declared
not a citiAen of the 6hilippines and therefore dis1ualified from servin!
as .overnor of the 6rovince of $orso!on. Accordin!ly, he is ordered
to vacate his office and surrender the same to the duly elected Dice-
.overnor of the said province once this decision %ecomes final and
e3ecutory.
By: Jeruelle 6olin!a
,$ard $4 O3)$2e)r; v% C$1e)( #R122241( ?u1; 39( 1&&6
,OARD OF O5TO"ETR-( re3resen)ed 8; i)s C6air2an( DR%
5RI"ITI!A -% 5ERED-SISO( 5ROFESSIOAL RE#ULATIO
CO""ISSIO( re3resen)ed 8; i)s C$22issi$ner( *ER"O#EES
5% 5O,RE( DE5ART"ET OF *EALT*( re3resen)ed 8; i)s
Se0re)ar;( DR% *ILARIO "% RA"IRO( ,UREAU OF FOODS AD
DRU#S( re3resen)ed 8; i)s Dire0)$r( DR% HUITI L% +ITAAR(
DE5ART"ET OF ,UD#ET AD "AA#E"ET( re3resen)ed 8;
i)s Se0re)ar;( SAL!ADOR "% ERIHUED( ?R%( and ,UREAU OF
*I#*ER EDUCATIO( re3resen)ed 8; i)s Dire0)$r( "OA D%
!ALISO( petitioners,
vs.
*O% A#EL ,% COLET( 5residing ?udge( Regi$na1 Tria1 C$ur) $4
"ani1a( ,ran06 2&( ACE,EDO O5TICAL CO"5A-( IC%(
re3resen)ed 8; i)s 5residen) and C6air2an $4 )6e ,$ard( "I#UEL
5% ACE,EDO( O5TO"ETR- 5RACTITIOERS ASSOCIATIO OF
T*E 5*ILI55IES @O5A5A( re3resen)ed 8; i)s 5residen)( DR%
"IRIA" F% LLA!E( CEE!IS O5TO"ETRIST ASSOCIATIO
@COAA( re3resen)ed 8; i)s 5residen)( DR% RO,ERTO RODIS( ?R%(
ASSOCIATIO OF C*RISTIA-"USLI" O5TO"ETRIST @AC"OA(
re3resen)ed 8; i)s 5residen)( DR% C-RIL CORALES( SOUT*ER
"IDAAO O5TO"ETRIST ASSOCIATIO OF T*E 5*ILS%( IC%
@S"OA5A( re3resen)ed 8; i)s 5residen)( DR% EL"ER !ILLAROSA(
and RE5U,LICA A% 5AOL( $% & #en% "a1var S)%( Arane)a
Cen)er( Cu8a$( Hue7$n Ci);( respondents.
/he 6etitioners see) to annul and set aside the order rendered %y
herein pu%lic respondent Jud!e An!el B. Colet, #ho !ranted the #rit
of preliminary in(unction restrainin!, en(oinin!, and prohi%itin! the
petitioners in enforcin! and implementin! the +evised :ptometry "a#
or any re!ulations or Code of Bthics issued.
/he petitioners prayed that the #rit of preliminary in(uction %e made
permanent.
Fa0)s:
Con!ress enacted +.A. -o. 8CIC,2An Act +e!ulatin! the 6ractice of
:ptometry Bducation, ,nte!ratin! :ptometrists, and for :ther
6urposes2 or +evised :ptometry la# of 7;;I.
6rivate petitioners filed a petition for declaratory relief and for
prohi%ition and in(unction, #ith a re1uest for a temporary restrainin!
order.
/he !rounds are as follo#s
7. /hat there #as dero!ation in the le!islative process and
vitiation of le!islative consent
@. +.A. -o. 8CIC violates the due process clause of the
Constitution
H. +.A. -:. 8CIC violates the principle a!ainst undue dele!ation
of le!islative po#er
<. Diolation of the !uaranty of freedom of speech and press
B3amination of petition found out that the %ody of the petition !ave no
details as to the (uridical personality and address of the alle!ed
associations :6A6, C:A, ACM:, and $M:A6, e3cept for Ace%edo
:ptical Co., ,nc. /he 6etition #as summariAed as Civil Case -o. ;I-
9<99C, listed entirely the names of the alle!ed presidents as #ell as
their profession and home addresses.
/he 6etitioners filed an opposition to the application for preliminary
in(unction and alle!ed that:
7. respondents do not possess the re1uisite ri!ht as #ould entitle
them to the relief they sou!ht
@. respondents have no le!al e3istence or capacity to file the
case
H. implementation of the 1uestioned la# carries no in(urious
effect
<. respondents failed to overcome the presumption of
constitutionality in favor of the 1uestioned la#
/he +e!ional /rial Court !ranted the #rit of preliminary in(unction in
#hich the court #as inclined to find prima facie =at first appearance>,
that petitioners have le!al ri!hts affected %y +evised :ptometry "a#,
and that in its operation, said "a# is li)ely to inflict serious and
irrepara%le in(ury to such le!al ri!hts. /hus, petitioners filed this
special civil action for certiorari =A #rit issuin! out a superior court, to
call up the records of a inferior court, or remove a cause there
dependin!, in order that the party may have more sure and speedy
(ustice, or that errors and irre!ularities may %e corrected.>
Issue:
hether or not private respondents have le!al e3istence or capacity
to 1uestion the constitutionality of +.A. -o. 8CIC.
De0isi$n:
:nly (uridical entity authoriAed %y la# may %e parties in civil action,
and every action must %e prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest. Article << of the Civil Code, an association is
considered a (uridical entityLperson if the la# !rants it a personality
separate and distinct from that of its mem%ers.
/here is dou%ts as to the e3istence of the private respondents :6A6,
C:A, ACM:, and $M:A6
7. /he %ody of the petition in Civil Case -o. ;I-9<99C ma)es no
mention of these associations nor did states their addresses,
in #hich no#here is it claim that they are (uridical entities.
Under $ection <, +ule 8 of the +ules of Court, #hich provides
that facts sho#in! the capacity of a party to sue or the le!al
e3istence of an or!aniAed association of person that is made a
party must %e averred.
@. -ot even s#orn states statements of the alle!ed presidents
representin! the 0associations,2 #hich #ere offered in
evidence in support of the application for the #rit of preliminary
in(unction, #ere such 0associations2 mentioned or named
H. ,n the petition, private respondents chose to remain silent on
the issue of (uridical identity of their 0associations.2
For havin! failed to sho# that they are (uridical entities must then %e
deemed to %e devoid of le!al personality to %rin! an action. $ince
petitioners #ere not sho# to %e (uridical entities, they cannot, %e
deemed real parties in interest.
/he petitioners prayer is !ranted. /he 1uestioned order rendered %y
the +e!ional /rial Court !rantin! the application for the issuance of a
#rit of preliminary in(unction, and the #rit of preliminary in(unction are
here%y annulled and set aside
D$0)rine:
An association can only %e considered as a (uridical person if the la#
!rants it a personality separate and distinct that of its mem%ers.
+i1$s8a;an v% "$ra)$ #R 11/&19( $v% 16( 1&&.
FACTS:
/his is a petition see)in! to declare the B"A invalid on the
!round that its su%stantially the same as the Contract of "ease
-ullified in ..+. -o. 77HH9H,@H@ $C+A 77C. 6etitioner
contented the amended B"A is inconsistent #ith and violative of
6C$:&s charter and the decision of the $upreme Court in May
I, 7;;I, that it violated the la# on pu%lic %iddin! of contract as
#ell as $ection @=@>, Article ;-D of the 7;89 Constitution in
relation to the C:A Circular -o. 8I-II-A. +espondents
1uestioned the petitioner&s standin! to %rin! this suit.
ISSUE:
hether or not petitioners possess the le!al standin! to file the
instant petition
DECISIOIDOCTRIE:
/he $upreme Court ruled in the ne!ative. $tandin! is a special
concern in constitutional la# %ecause some cases are %rou!ht
not %y parties #ho have %een personally in(ured %y the
operation of the la# or %y official action ta)en, %y concerned
citiAens, ta3payers or voters #ho actually sue in the pu%lic
interest. 6etitioners do not in fact sho# #hat particulariAed
interest they have for %rin!in! this suit and they do no have
present su%stantial interest in the B"A as #ould entitle to %rin!
this suit.
,a;an !s% Da2$ra ( #%R% $% 13/.'9( O0)$8er 19(2999
Fa0)s:
/he 6hilippines and the United $tates entered into a Mutual Defense
/reaty on Au!ust HC, 7;I7. /o further stren!then their defense and
security relationship. Under the treaty, the parties a!reed to respond
to any e3ternal armed attac) on their territory, armed forces, pu%ic
vessels, and aircraft.
:n $eptem%er 7F, 7;;7, the 6hilippine $enate re(ected the proposed
+6-U$ /reaty of Friendship, Cooperation and $ecurity #hich, in
effect, #ould have e3tended the presence of U$ military %ases in the
6hilippines.
:n July 78, 7;;9 +6 and U$ e3chan!ed notes and discussed, amon!
other thin!s, the possi%le elements of the Disitin! Forces A!reement
=DFA>. /his resulted to a series of conferences and ne!otiations #hich
culminated on January 7@ and 7H, 7;;8. /hereafter, 6resident Fidel
D. +amos approved the DFA, #hich #as respectively si!ned %y
$ecretary $iaAon and United $tates Am%assador /homas 'u%%ad.
:n :cto%er I, 7;;8, 6resident Joseph B. Bstrada, throu!h
respondent $ecretary of Forei!n Affairs, ratified the DFA. :n :cto%er
F,7;;8 ,the 6resident, actin! throu!h respondent B3ecutive $ecretary
+onaldo Gamora, officially transmitted to the $enate of the
6hilippines, the instrument of +atification, the letter of the 6resident
and the DFA, for concurrence pursuant to $ection @7, Article D,, of the
7;89 Constitution.
6etitions for certiorari and prohi%ition, petitioners O as le!islators non-
!overnmental or!aniAations, citiAens and ta3payers O assail the
constitutionally of the DFA and impute to herein respondents !rave
a%use of discretion in ratifyin! the a!reement.
6etitioner contends, under the provision cited, the 0forei!n military
%ases, troops, or facilities2 may %e allo#ed in the 6hilippines unless
the follo#in! conditions are sufficiently met
a. ,t must %e a treaty
%. ,t must e dully concurred in %y the senate, ratified %y a ma(ority
of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that
purposes if so re1uired %y con!ress
c. +eco!niAed as such %y the other contractin! state
+espondents, on the other hand, ar!ue that $ection @7 Article D,, is
applica%le so that, #hat is re1uires for such treaty to %e valid and
effective is the concurrence in %y at least t#o-thirds of all mem%ers of
the senate.
ISSUE:
hether or not DFA is !overned %y the provisions of $ection @7, Art
D,, or %y the provisioned of $ection @I, Article PD,, of the Constitution.
DECISIOIDOCTRIE:
$ection @I, Article PD,,,, #hich specifically deals #ith the treaties
involvin! forei!n military %ases, troops or facilities should apply in the
instant case.
/he 7;89 6hilippines Constitution contains t#o provisions re1uirin!
the concurrence of the $enate on treaties or international a!reements.
$ec. @7 Art. D,,, #hich respondents invo)es, 0-o treaty or
internationally a!reement shall %e valid and effective unless
concurred in %y unless concurred in %y at least @LH of all Mem%ers of
the $enate. $ec. @I Art. PD,,, provides, 2After the e3piration in 7;;7 of
the A!reement %et#een the +6 and the U$ concernin! Military
Bases, forei!n military %ases, troops or facilities shall not %e allo#ed
in the 6hilippines e3cept under a treaty duly concurred in and #hen
the Con!ress so re1uires, ratified %y a ma(ority of votes cast %y the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and reco!niAed
as a treaty %y the $enate %y the other contractin! state.2
/he first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and
international a!reements in !eneral #ith a #ide variety of su%(ect
matter. All treaties and international a!reement entered into %y the
6hilippines, re!ardless the concurrence of the $enate to %e valid and
effective.
,n contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties #hich
involve presence of forei!n military %ases, troops and facilities in the
6hilippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common
!round. /he fact that the 6resident referred the DFA to the $enate
under $ec.@7 Art. D77, and that $enate e3tended its concurrence
under the same provision is immaterial.
By: Au!ie Capili
,a;an vs Da2$ra #% R% $% 13/.'9 O0)$8er 19( 2999
Fa0)s:
/he United $tates panel met #ith the 6hilippine panel to discussed,
amon! others, the possi%le elements of the Disitin! Forces
A!reement =DFA>. /his resulted to a series of conferences and
ne!otiations #hich culminated on January 7@ and 7H, 7;;8.
/hereafter, 6resident Fidel +amos approved the DFA, #hich #as
respectively si!ned %y $ecretary $iaAon and United $tates
Am%assador /homas 'u%%ard. 6res. Joseph Bstrada ratified the DFA
on :cto%er I, 7;;8 and on May @9, 7;;;, the senate approved it %y
=@LH> votes.
Cause $4 A0)i$n:
6etitioners, amon! others, assert that $ec. @I, Art PD,,, of the 7;89
constitution is applica%le and not $ection @7, Article D,,. Follo#in! the
ar!ument of the petitioner, under they provision cited, the 0forei!n
military %ases, troops, or facilities2 may %e allo#ed in the 6hilippines
unless the follo#in! conditions are sufficiently met :a> it must %e a
treaty, %> it must %e duly concurred in %y the senate, ratified %y a
ma(ority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that
purpose if so re1uired %y con!ress, and c> reco!niAed as such %y the
other contractin! state. +espondents, on the other hand, ar!ue that
$ection @7 Article D,, is applica%le so that, #hat is re1uired for such
treaty to %e valid and effective is the concurrence in %y at least t#o-
thirds of all the mem%ers of the senate.
Issue:
,s the DFA !overned %y the provisions of $ection @7, Art D,, or of
$ection @I, Article PD,,, of the Constitution*
*e1d:
$ection @I, Article PD,,,, #hich specifically deals #ith treaties
involvin! forei!n military %ases, troops or facilities should apply in the
instant case. /o a certain e3tent and in a limited sense, ho#ever, the
provisions of section @7, Article D,, #ill find applica%ility #ith re!ard to
the issue and for the sole purpose of determinin! the num%er of votes
re1uired to o%tain the valid concurrence of the senate. /he
Constitution, ma)es no distinction %et#een 0transient2 and
0permanent.2 e find nothin! insection @I, Article PD,,, that re1uires
forei!n troops or facilities to %e stationed or placed.
David v "a0a3ag1-Arr$;$ #R $% 1'13&6( "a; 3( 2996
Fa0)s:
As the nation cele%rated BD$A&s @C
th
anniversary, 6resident Arroyo issued
66 7C79 declarin! a state of national emer!ency and there%y commanded the
AF6 and 6-6 to immediately carryout necessary and appropriate actions and
measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorismand la#less violence./his
declaration led to cancellation of all pro!rams and activities related to
the BD$A 6eople6o#er , cele%ration. +ally permits #ere revo)ed and
#arrantless arrests and ta)e-over of facilities, includin! the media, #ere
implemented. Assem%lies and rallyists #ere dispersed. Alon! #ith the
dispersal, petitioner #as arrested #ithout #arrant. A #ee) after 66 7C79, 667C@7
#as issued liftin! the state of emer!ency.
Issue:
hether or not there is an actual controversy or case su%(ect
for (udicial revie#.hether or not there petition is #ith le!al standin! particularly
on his 1ualification to sue.
Ru1ing:
/he $olicitor .eneral refute that the case has %een moot and academic #as not
upheld %y theCourt. Accordin! to the $upreme Court, courts #ill decide
cases other#ise found moot andacademic if: there is !rave Constitutional
violation, the situation&s e3ceptional character andparamount pu%lic interest
involved, issue raised re1uires formulation of controllin! principles to!uide the
%ench, %ar and pu%lic, and lastly it is capa%le of repetition yet evadin!
revie#.6etitioner #as found to %e of le!al standin! on the !rounds that his
personal ri!hts #ereinvolved. /he petitioner 1ualifies under the direct
in(ury test. /he personal and su%stantialinterest in the case such that he
has sustained, or #ill sustain direct in(ury 1ualifies him toimpu!n the validity of the
statute. /o #it some of these direct in(uries he sustained are the ille!alarrest and
unla#ful search he e3perienced. .iven this fact, the court entertained his petition
ashe has ade1uately sho#n that he entitled to (udicial protection.'o#ever, the
court does not li%erally declare statutes as invalid althou!h they may %e
a%usedand misa%used and may afford an opportunity for a%use in the
manner of application. /hevalidity of a statute or ordinance is to %e
determined from its !eneral purpose and its efficiencyto accomplish
the end desired, not from its effects in a particular case./he Court ruled
that the assailed 66 7C79 is unconstitutional insofar as it !rants 6resident Arroyo
the authority to promul!ate decrees, ta)in! into consideration that
le!islative po#er isvested only in con!ress./he Court partly !rants the
petitions. 66 7C79 is constitutional insofar as it allo#s the 6residentto
call the AF6 to prevent or suppress la#less violence. 'o#ever, commandin! the
AF6 toenforce la#s not related to la#less violence are declared unconstitutional.
$uch proclamationdoes not also authoriAe the 6resident to ta)e over
privately-o#ned pu%lic utilities or %usinessaffected #ith pu%lic interest
#ithout prior le!islation. .eneral :rder -o. I is constitutional as it isa
standard on ho# the AF6 and 6-6 #ould implement 667C79, %ut portion #here
Racts of terrorismS has not %een defined and punisha%le %y con!ress is
held unconstitutional.
-u vs De4ens$r-San)iag$
Doctrine: +eac1uisition of citiAenship
FACTS:
6etitioner Ku, ori!inally a 6ortu!uese national, #as naturaliAed as a
6hilippine citiAen on 7CFe%ruary 7;98. 'o#ever, on @7 July 7;87,
petitioner applied for and #as issued a rene#ed 6ortu!uese 6assport
-o. HIL87 serial -. 7I79<7C %y the Consular $ection of the
6ortu!uese Bm%assy in /o)yo. $aid Consular :ffice certifies that his
6ortu!uese passport e3pired on @C July 7;8F./he C,D detained the
petitioner pendin! his deportation case. /he petitioner, in turn, filed a
petition for ha%eas corpus. An internal resolution of 9 -ovem%er 7;88
referred the case to the Court en %anc.
ISSUE:
hether or not petitioner&s acts constitute renunciation of his
6hilippine citiAenship

*ELD:
Kes. 6hilippine citiAenship, it must %e stressed, is not a commodity or
#ere to %e displayed #hen re1uired and suppressed #hen
convenient. 6etitioner, #hile still a citiAen of the 6hilippines #ho had
renounced, upon his naturaliAation, Ma%solutely and forever all
alle!iance and fidelity to any forei!n prince, potentate, state or
soverei!ntyM and pled!ed to Mmaintain true faith and alle!iance to the
+epu%lic of the 6hilippines,M he declared his nationality as 6ortu!uese
in commercial documents hesi!ned, specifically, the Companies
re!istry of /ai $hun Bstate "td. @C filed in 'on!)on! sometime in April
7;8C. B3press renunciation #as held to mean a renunciation that is
made )no#n distinctly ande3plicitly and not left to inference or
implication. 6etitioner, #ith full )no#led!e, and le!al capacity,after
havin! renounced 6ortu!uese citiAenship upon naturaliAation as a
6hilippine citiAen resumed orreac1uired his prior status as a
6ortu!uese citiAen, applied for a rene#al of his 6ortu!uese passport
andrepresented himself as such in official documents even after he
had %ecome a naturaliAed 6hilippinecitiAen. $uch resumption or
reac1uisition of 6ortu!uese citiAenship is !rossly inconsistent #ith
hismaintenance of 6hilippine citiAenship.'B+BF:+B, premises
considered, petitionerEs motion for release from detention is
DB-,BD.+espondentEs motion to lift the temporary restrainin! order is
.+A-/BD. /his Decision is immediatelye3ecutory.hile still a citiAen
of the 6hilippines #ho had renounced, upon his naturaliAation,
Ma%solutely andforever all alle!iance and fidelity to any forei!n prince,
potentate, state or soverei!ntyM and pled!ed toMmaintain true faith and
alle!iance to the +epu%lic of the 6hilippines,M he declared his
nationality as6ortu!uese in commercial documents he si!ned,
specifically, the Companies re!istry of /ai $hun Bstate"td. filed in
'on!)on! sometime in April 7;8C.
By: Jul%er /adiaman
+i1$s8a;an v% "anue1 "$ra)$
@<F $C+A I<C
SU,?ECT CATE#OR-: 6+:6B+ 6A+/K
FACTS:
/his is a petition for revie# and prohi%ition on the
implementation and realiAation of B1uipment "ease A!reement =B"A>
entered into %y and %et#een the 6hilippine Charity $#eepsta)e :ffice
=6C$:> and 6hilippine .amin! Mana!ement Corporation =6.MC> for
lease of online lottery e1uipment and accessories. 'erein petitioner
claimed that said a!reement is null and void %ecause it has the same
nature as that of contract of lease %et#een the 6C$: and 6.MC,
#hich #as invalidated %y the $C in case entitled: 0Kilusan v.
uigona.!
ISSUE:
hether or not petitioner have le!al standin! and #hether or
not they are +eal 6arty in ,nterest
*ELD:
-o. 6etitioners have no le!al standin!. $tandin! is a concept
in constitutional la# and here no constitutional 1uestion in involved.
"e!al standin! may%e %rou!ht %y concerned citiAens, ta3payers or
voters #ho sue in pu%lic interest. /o have a le!al standin!, one must
have =a> direct and personal interest? =%> has sustained or is in
immediate dan!er of sustained some direct in(ury and =c> has %een or
is a%out to %e denied some ri!ht or privile!e. ,n this case, there is no
sho#in! of particulariAed interest or an alle!ation of pu%lic funds
%ein! misspent to ma)e the action of pu%lic interest.
6etitioners are not a real party in interest. /he real parties are
those #ho are parties to the a!reement or are %ound either principally
or su%sidiarily or are pre(udiced in their ri!hts #ith respect to one of
the contractin! parties and can sho# the detriment #hich #ould
positively result to them from the contract. 6etitioners do not have
such present su%stantial interest. Hues)i$ns )$ )6e na)ure $r
va1idi); $4 3u81i0 0$n)ra0)s may%e made %efore C:A or %efore the
:m%udsman.
DECISIO:
6etition for prohi%ition, revie#Lin(unction is dismissed.
,a;an @,ag$ng A1;ansang "a>a8a;anA v% EJe0u)ive Se0re)ar;
R$na1d$ Da2$ra
.+ -o. 7H8I9C dated :cto%er 7C, @CCC
SU,?ECT CATE#OR-: DB+:.A/,:-
7
:F 6',",66,-B
$:DB+B,-/K
FACTS:
/his is a petition for certiorari and prohi%ition on the
implementation of the Disitin! Forces A!reement =DFA> for!ed
%et#een the 6hilippine .overnment and the U$A, #hich #ould
formaliAe, amon! others, the use installation
@
in the 6hilippine territory
%y the U$ Military personnel to stren!then their defense and security
mem%ership. $aid a!reement #as ratified %y /hen 6resident Bstrada
and #as approved %y the $enate throu!h @LH votes of its mem%ers.
ISSUE:
hether or not DFA constitute an a%dication
H
of 6hilippine
soverei!nty, especially #ith respect to courts& (urisdiction to hear, try
and decide offenses committed %y the U$ military personnel.
*ELD:
1
To enact something contrary to law. Partial taking of effectiveness. As distinguish from
abrogation which is to abolish entirely.
2
Equipment system mechanism
!
"enunciation or abandonment
,t is not a dero!ation of 6hilippine soverei!nty.
:n the #hole, the DFA is an a!reement #hich defines the
treatment of U$ troops and personnel visitin! the 6hilippines. ,t
provides !uidelines to !overn such personnel and further defines the
ri!ht of the U$ and the 6hilippine .overnment in the matter of
0ri2ina1 Kurisdi0)i$n. ith its ratification, it is no# o%li!atory and
incum%ent on our part, under the 3rin0i31es $4 in)erna)i$na1 1a:, to
%e %ound %y the terms of a!reement. -o less than the $ection @,
Article ,, of the 7;89 6hilippine Constitution declares that 0the
"hilippines adopt the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land2.
DECISIO:
6etition #as dismissed. $C upheld the validity and
constitutionality of DFA.
,engs$n v% *$use $4 Re3resen)a)ive E1e0)$ra1 Tri8una1 @*RETA
.+ -o. 7<@8<C dated May 9, @CC7
SU,?ECT CATE#OR-: -A/U+A" B:+- C,/,GB-$
FACTS:
/he CitiAenship of +espondent Te$d$r$ Cru7 is at issue in
this case. 'e #as a natural %orn citiAen of the 6hilippines. 'e #as
%orn on @9 April 7;FC in $an Clemente, /arlac to Filipino parents.
$ometime in 7;8I, he #as enlisted in the U$ Marine Corps and too)
alle!iance to the U$, there%y losin! his citiAenship under
Common#ealth Act -o. FH. Four =<> years after, he re-ac1uired his
citiAenship throu!h +epatriation or an act providin! re-ac1uisition of
his citiAenship. 'e then ran for con!ressman and #on over 6etitioner
Antonio Ben!son ,,,. $u%se1uently, petitioner Ben!son filed a case
claimin! that respondent CruA is not a natural %orn citiAen. /he '+B/
denied the petition and petitioner&s motion for reconsideration. /hus,
this case.
ISSUE:
hether or not respondent CruA can still %e considered a
natural corn citiAen upon his reac1uisition of 6hilippine CitiAen $hip
*ELD:
A natural %orn citiAen #ho lost his citiAenship, as in the case of
+espondent CruA, my still reac1uires the same in the manner
provided %y la#. +epatriation results in the recovery of :+,.,-A"
-A/,:-A",/K. /hrou!h process of repatriation, he is merely re1uired
to ta)e an oath of alle!iance to the +epu%lic of the 6hilippines and
re!istered said oath in the "ocal civil re!istry #here he resides or last
resided to %e a%le to restore his former status as a natural %orn
citiAen. $ince +espondent CruA complied #ith the aforementioned
re1uirements, he is deemed to have recovered his ori!inal status as
natural %orn citiAen, a status he ac1uired at %irth as the son of a
Filipino Father.
RULI#:
$C ruled in favor of +espondent CruA and dismissed the
petition of Ben!son.
By: Bisen Del +osario
#%R% $% 192&49 $ve28er 6( 1&&2
FERADED( petitioners,
vs.
*O% RU,E TORRES( ( respondents.
FACTS:
6etitioners Adelpha FernandeA, et. al. see) certiorari and prohi%ition
to prohi%it and restrain the $ecretary of the Department of "a%or and
Bmployment =MD:"BM> and the Administrator of the 6hilippine
:verseas Bmployment Administration =M6:BAM> from enforcin! and
implementin! ,tem -o. 7 of D:"B Circular -o. C7-;7 dated @C
-ovem%er 7;;7 entitled M6rescri%in! Additional +e1uirements,
Conditions and 6rocedures for the Deployment of 6erformin! Artists.M
,tem -o. 7 of the assailed D:"B Circular provides as follo#s:
7. -o Filipino entertainer shall %e deployed outside the 6hilippines
e3cept for le!itimate performin! artists consistin! of musicians,
sin!ers and mem%ers of dance troupes. ,n all cases, the performin!
artists must have a trac) record of le!itimate and reputa%le
performance in the 6hilippines for at least one year. ,n no case shall
the performin! artists %e %elo# @H years old. /he $ecretary of "a%or
and Bmployment may, for (ustifia%le reasons, e3empt performin!
artists from covera!e hereof.
,n the present case, petitioners alle!e themselves to %e M1ualified
performin! artists, mostly sin!ers and dancers,M of a!es ei!hteen =78>
to t#enty-t#o =@@> years. /hrou!h counsel, they challen!e the
constitutional validity of ,tem -o. 7 of D:"B Circular -o. C7-;7 and
their ar!uments may %e condensed in the follo#in! manner:
=7> that ,tem -o. 7 of D:"B Circular -o. C7-;7 is violative of the e1ual
of the protection clause and the due process clause of the
Constitution, and the state policy on protection of la%or %ecause ,tem
-o. 7 is ar%itrary, oppressive and discriminatory a!ainst performin!
artists of a!es ei!hteen =78> to t#enty-t#o =@@> #ho #ould other#ise
%e 1ualified for overseas employment? and =@> that ,tem -o. 7 of the
mentioned D:"B Circular #as promul!ated %y pu%lic respondent
D:"B $ecretary and 6:BA Administrator #ithout or in e3cess of their
(urisdiction or #ith !rave a%use of discretion.
ISSUE:
:- there is an e3istence of an actual case or controversy
RULI#:
6B/,/,:- D,$M,$$BD. 6etitioners have failed to sho# the first
re1uisite of a (udicial in1uiry, i.e., the e3istence of actual case or
controversy. /his failure renders unnecessary consideration of the
other re1uisites of constitutional liti!ation.
,n actions involvin! constitutional issues, the firmly settled rule is that
a constitutional 1uestion #ill not %e heard and resolved %y the courts
unless the follo#in! re1uirements of (udicial in1uiry are met: =7> the
e3istence of an actual case or controversy? =@> the party raisin! the
constitutional issue must have a personal and su%stantial interest in
the resolution thereof? =H> the controversy must %e raised at the
earliest reasona%le opportunity? and =<> that the resolution of the
constitutional issue must %e indispensa%le for the final determination
of the controversy.
6etitioners, #ho claim to %e performin! artists, had not previously
applied #ith the $ecretary of "a%or for e3emption from the covera!e
of the Circular in line #ith the afore1uoted provision. $aid provision
connotes that the prohi%ition is not at all permanent or a%solute. ,t
admits of e3ception. . . . But to repeat, there is no alle!ation in the
petition that petitioners had previously sou!ht e3emption from the
$ecretary of "a%or, from the covera!e of the Circular, %efore filin! the
instant petition. :%viously, the petition must fail for prematurity.
,A#ATSI# !% CO""ITTEE O 5RI!ATIDATIO
#R $% 1123&&( ?u1; 14( 1&&.
FACTS:
6etron #as ori!inally re!istered #ith the $ecurities and B3chan!e
Commission =$BC> in 7;FF under the corporate name 0Bsso 6hils.,
,nc.,2. Bsso %ecame a #holly-o#ned company of the !overnment
under the corporate name 6B/+:- and as a su%sidiary of 6-:C.
6etron o#ns the lar!est, most modern comple3 refinery in the 6hils. ,t
is listed as the -o. 7 Corporation in terms of assets and income in the
6hils, in 7;;H pres. CoraAon A1uino promul!ated proclamation -o. IC
in the e3ercise of her le!islative po#er under the Freedom
Constitution. ,mplicit in the proclamation is the need to raise revenue
for the .overnment and the ideal of leavin! %usiness to the private
sector %y creatin! the committee on privatiAation. /he .overnment
can then concentrate on the delivery of %asic service and the
performance of vital pu%lic functions. /he presidential ca%inet of
6resident +amos approved the privatiAation of 6B/+:- as part of the
Bner!y $ector Action 6lan. 6-:C Board of Directors passed a
resolution authoriAin! the company to ne!otiate and conclude a
contract #ith the consortium $alomon Brothers of 'on!)on! "imited
and 6C, Capital Corporation for financial advisory services to %e
rendered to 6B/+:-. /he 6etron 6rivatiAation or)in! Committee
=6C> #as thus formed. ,t finaliAed a privatiAation strate!y #ith <C T
of the shares to %e sold to strate!ic partner and @C T to the !eneral
pu%lic. /he president approved the <C T - <C T- @C T privatiAation
strate!y of 6etron. /he invitation to %id #as pu%lished in several
ne#spaper of !eneral circulation, %oth local and forei!n. /he 6-:C
Board of Directors then passed +esolution -o. 8FF, $. 7;;H,
declarin! A+AMC: the #innin! %idder. 6-:C and A+AMC: si!ned
the $toc) purchase A!reement. /he petition for prohi%ition sou!ht 7>
to nullify the %iddin! conducted for the sale of a %loc) of shares
constitutin! <C T of the capital stoc) =<C T %loc)> of 6etron corp. and
the a#ard made to A+AMC:, as a hi!hest %idder and @> to stop the
sale of said %loc) of shares to A+AMC:. /he petition for prohi%ition
and certiorari, sou!ht to annul the sale of the same %loc) of 6etron a
share su%(ect of the petition. A+AMC: %ein! in a limited appearance
to 1uestion the (urisdiction over its person, alle!in! that it is a forei!n
company or!aniAed under the la#s of the -etherlands, that it is not
doin! nor licensed to do %usiness in the 6hils., and it does not
maintain an office or a %usiness address in and has not appointed a
resident a!ent for the 6hils. 6etitioners ho#ever, countered that they
filed the action in their capacity as mem%ers of Con!ress.
ISSUE: :- 6etitioners have a locus standi*
DECISIO: petition dismissed.
LOCUS STADI
,n 6hilippine Constitution, Association v. 'on. $alvador Bnri1ueA ,
..+. -o. 77H7CI, Au!ust 7;, 7;;<, #e held that the mem%ers of
Con!ress have the le!al standin! to 1uestion the validity of acts of the
B3ecutive #hich
in(ures them in their person or the institution of Con!ress to #hich
they %elon!. ,n the latter case, the
acts cause derivative %ut nonetheless su%stantial
in(ury #hich can %e 1uestioned %y mem%ers of Con!ress =Jennedy v.
James, <7@ F. $upp. HIH 47;9F5>. ,n the a%sence of a claim that the
contract in 1uestion violated the ri!hts of petitioners or impermissi%ly
intruded into the domain of the "e!islature, petitioners have no le!al
standin! to institute the instant action in their capacity as mem%ers of
Con!ress. 'o#ever, petitioners can %rin! the action in their capacity
as ta3payers under the doctrine laid do#n in Jilos%ayan, ,nc.v.
.uin!ona, @H@
$C+A77C=7;;<>.Under said rulin!, ta3payers may 1uestion contracts
entered into %y the national !overnment or !overnment-o#ned
or controlled corporations alle!edto %e in contravention of the la#. As
lon! as the rulin! in Jilos%ayan on locus standi is not reversed, #e
have no choice %ut to follo# it and uphold the le!al standin!
of petitioners as ta3payers to institute the presentation.
5RI!ATIDATIO
/he only re1uirement under +.A. -o. 9787 in order to
p r i v a t i A e a s t r a t e ! i c i n d u s t r y l i ) e 6B/ +:- i s t h
e appr oval of t he 6r esi dent . , n t he case of 6B/+:-E s
privatiAation, the 6resident !ave his approval not only once %ut t#ice.
6B/+:-Es privatiAation is also in line #ith and is part
of the 6hi l ippi ne Bner!y 6ro!ram under +.A.
-o. 9FH8.$ecti on I=%> of the l a# provides that the 6hil i ppi ne
Bner!y 6ro!ram shall include a policy direction to#ards the pri vati Aati on
of !overnment a!enci es rel ated to ener!y.
,IDDI#
: n t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e r e # a s a f a i l e d % i d
d i n ! , petitioners contend that there #ere only three %idders. :ne
of them, 6B/+:-A$, su%mitted a %id lo#er than the floor price
#hile a second, failed to pre-1ualify. Under said C:A Ci rcul ar, there i s
a fail ure of %iddi n! #hen: 7> there is only one offeror? or =@> #hen
all the offers are non-complyin! or un accepta%le .,n the case at
%ench, there #ere three offerors: $AUD,
A+AMC:,6B/+:-A$ and B$/M:-/. hi le t#o offerors
#ere dis1ualified, 6B/+:-A$ for su%mittin! a %id %elo# the floor
pri ce and B$/M:-/ for techni cal reasons, not all the
offerors #ere dis1ualified. /o constitute a failed %iddin! under the C:A
Circular, all the offerors must %e dis1ualified.
RE5U,LIC vs% DELA ROSA
@H@ $C+A 98I June F, 7;;<
FACTS:
/his case is a consolidation of H petitions that primarily aims to
declare the naturaliAed citiAenship of ?uan Friva1d$ as invalid and
conse1uently, nullify his proclamation as !overnor of $orso!on. ,t
appears that Frivaldo had served as !overnor of $orso!on for si3
terms already and #as only compelled to renounce his citiAenship
#hen he sou!ht political asylum in U$ due to the precarious political
atmosphere here in the country durin! the Marcos re!ime. As he
#asn&t a%le to reac1uire his citiAenship throu!h repatriation or throu!h
act of Con!ress, he #as forced to file a petition for naturaliAation on
$eptem%er 7;;7.
/he (ud!e set the hearin! on March 7F 7;;@ and ordered the
pu%lication of the order in the :fficial .aAette and in a ne#spaper of
!eneral circulation---for three consecutive #ee)s, at least once every
#ee), the last pu%lication to %e made si3 months %efore the
scheduled hearin!. 'o#ever, Frivaldo as)ed the court if the hearin!
could %e moved to an earlier date as he intends to participate in the
May 7;;@ elections, the last day of filin! of certificate of candidacy
%ein! March 7I 7;;@, a day ahead of the scheduled hearin!.
/he court !ranted his re1uest and set the hearin! on Fe% @7
7;;7. :f this advancement of hearin!, neither pu%lication nor postin!
of notice #as made. $i3 days after said hearin!, Jud!e Dela +osa
rendered a decision !rantin! Frivaldo&s application and allo#ed him to
ta)e his oath of alle!iance on that same day. /o this, petitioner
Hui)eri$ *er2$, Frivaldo&s rival for !overnorship in $orso!on, filed a
Motion for +econsideration alle!in! (urisdictional defects in the
proceedin!s.
$u%se1uently, t#o petitions #ere filed mainly alle!in! that
Frivaldo is an American citiAen and is therefore ineli!i%le to run, and
that the court&s decision is null and void for %ein! frau!ht #ith le!al
infirmities. ,n one of the petitions, petitioner 'ermo prayed that the
votes casted in favor Frivaldo %e declared as stray votes and that he
%e declared #inner instead. /hese petitions #ere all dismissed %y
Comelec on the !round that such petitions #ere filed out of time, as it
should have %een filed #ithin three days.
ISSUES:
:- the proceedin!s #ere invalid ma)in! Frivaldo not a
Filipino citiAen and thus ineli!i%le for pu%lic office*
RULI#:
/he petitions in ..+. -o. 7C<FI< and ..+. -o. 7CI97I are
%oth .+A-/BD #hile the petition in ..+. -o. 7CI9HI is D,$M,$$BD.
6rivate respondent is declared -:/ a citiAen of the 6hilippines and
therefore D,$UUA",F,BD from continuin! to serve as .:DB+-:+ of
the 6rovince of $orso!on. 'e is ordered to DACA/B his office and to
$U++B-DB+ the same to the Dice-.overnor of the 6rovince of
$orso!on once this decision %ecomes final and e3ecutory. -o
pronouncement as to costs.
T6e 3r$0eedings :ere inva1id and C$2e1e0 s6$u1d 6ave
0an0e11ed Friva1d$Ls 0er)i4i0a)e $4 0andida0;% /he Court never
ac1uired (urisdiction over the case due to the follo#in! irre!ularities:
=7> there #as no order pu%lished advancin! the date of the hearin!,
=@> the petition #as heard #ithin F months from last pu%lication of the
petition, =H> Frivaldo too) his oath of alle!iance #hen there #as still a
pendin! appeal , and =<> Frivaldo did not o%serve the @-year #aitin!
period. /hus, as 1ualifications for pu%lic office is a continuin!
re1uirement, once lost =citiAenship>, title may %e seasona%ly
challen!ed.
By: John 6aul Chan!ale
CRAI# !S% ,ORE
42& US 1&9De0e28er 29( 1&'6
Fa0)s:
Appellant Crai!, a male then %et#een 78 and @7 years old, and
appellant hitener, a licensed vendor of H.@T %eer, %rou!ht this
action to the attention of U$ $upreme Court for declaratory and
in(unctive relief, claimin! that an:)lahoma statutory scheme
prohi%itin! the sale of 0non-into3icatin!2 H.@T%eer to males under the
a!e of @7 and to females under the a!e of 78constituted a !ender-
%ased discrimination that denied to males 78-@C yearsof a!e the
e1ual protection of the la#s. A three-(ud!e District Court held that
appellees& statistical evidence re!ardin! youn! males& drun)-drivin!
arrests and traffic in(uries demonstrated that the !ender-%ased
discrimination #as su%stantially related to the achievement of traffic
safety on :)lahoma roads.
Issue: Do Crai! and hitener have standin! to sue*
*e1d: /he U$ $upreme Court held that the controversy has %een
mooted as to Crai!. hitener on the other hand has standin! to ma)e
the e1ual protection challen!e. Crai!, at the time that the
U$ $upreme Court had noted pro%a%le (urisdiction, has turned @7
years old hence the decision that the controversies ou!ht %y Crai!
has %een mooted. Furthermore, the court also held that there %e no
prudential o%(ective thou!ht to %e served %y limitations of Kus)er)ii
@)6ird 3ar); s)andingA can %e furthered here, especially as the
District. %ooths. ,n addition, such o#nership #ill then %e su%se1uently
transferred tothe !overnment under Built-"ease-/ransfer a!reement
DKu2an)an vs% D$2ing$
Fa0)s: Bernard BaneA, the hus%and of Marina Ca%ael, #ent to
,ndonesia as a contract #or)er.
:n April H, 7;9<, he em%raced and #as converted to ,slam. :n May
79, 7;9<, he married petitioner in accordance #ith ,slamic rites. 'e
returned to the 6hilippines in January 7;9;. :n January 7H, 7;9;,
petitioner and her t#o children #ith BaneA, arrived in Manila as the
M!uestsM of BaneA. /he latter made it appear that he #as (ust a friend
of the family of petitioner and #as merely repayin! the hospita%ility
e3tended to him durin! his stay in ,ndonesia. hen petitioner and her
t#o children arrived at the -inoy A1uino ,nternational Airport on
January 7H, 7;9;, BaneA, to!ether #ith Marina Ca%ael, met them.As
M!uests,M petitioner and her t#o children lived in the house of BaneA.
6etitioner and her children #ere admitted to the 6hilippines as
temporary visitors under $ection ;=a> of the ,mmi!ration Act of 7;<C.
,n 7;87, Marina Ca%ael discovered the true relationship of her
hus%and and petitioner. :n March @I, 7;8@, the immi!ration status of
petitioner #as chan!ed from temporary visitor to that of permanent
resident under $ection 7H=a> of the same la#. :n April 7<, 7;8@,
petitioner #as issued an alien certificate of re!istration.
-ot acceptin! the set-%ac), BaneAE eldest son, "eonardo, filed a
letter complaint #ith the :m%udsman, #ho su%se1uently referred the
letter to the C,D. :n the %asis of the said letter, petitioner #as
detained at the C,D detention cell.
/he C,D issued an order revo)in! the status of permanent resident
!iven to petitioner, the Board found the @nd marria!e irre!ular and not
in accordance #ith the la#s of the 6hils. /here #as thus no %asis for
!ivin! her the status of permanent residence, since she #as an
,ndonesian citiAen and her marria!e #ith a Filipino CitiAen #as not
valid. /hus this petition for certiorari.
Issue: hether or not the courts may revie# deportation proceedin!s
*e1d : Kes. $ection 7 of Article 8 says Judicial 6o#er includes 7>
settle actual controversies involvin! ri!hts #hich are le!ally
demanda%le and enforcea%le @> determine #hether or not there has
%een a !rave a%use of discretion amountin! to lac) or e3cess of
(urisdiction on the part of any %ranch or instrumentality of the
!overnment.
e need not resolve the validity of petitionerEs marria!e to BaneA, if
under the la# the C,D can validly deport petitioner as an Mundesira%le
alienM re!ardless of her marria!e to a Filipino citiAen. .enerally, the
ri!ht of the 6resident to e3pel or deport aliens #hose presence is
deemed inimical to the pu%lic interest is as a%solute and un1ualified
as the ri!ht to prohi%it and prevent their entry into the country.
'o#ever, under clause 7 of $ection H9=a> of the ,mmi!ration Act of
7;<C an Malien #ho enters the 6hilippines after the effective date of
this Act %y means of false and misleadin! statements or #ithout
inspection and admission %y the immi!ration authorities at a
desi!nated port of entry or at any place other than at a desi!nated
port of entryM is su%(ect to deportation.
/he deportation of an alien under said clause of $ection H9=a> has a
prescriptive period and Mshall not %e effected ... unless the arrest in
the deportation proceedin!s is made #ithin five years after the cause
for deportation arisesM. /ollin! the prescriptive period from -ovem%er
7;, 7;8C, #hen "eonardo C. BaneA informed the C,D of the ille!al
entry of petitioner into the country, more than five years had elapsed
%efore the issuance of the order of her deportation on $eptem%er @9,
7;;C.
5i1a3i1 vs I8a;-S$2era
FACTS:
,melda M. 6ilapil, a Filipino citiAen, #as married #ith private
respondent, Brich B))ehard .eilin!, a .erman national %efore the
+e!istrar of Births, Marria!es and Deaths at Friedens#eiler, Federal
+epu%lic of .ermany. /hey have a child #ho #as %orn on April @C,
7;8C and named ,sa%ella 6ilapil .eilin!. Con(u!al disharmony
eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce
proceedin! a!ainst petitioner in .ermany %efore the $chone%er!
"ocal Court in January 7;8H. /he petitioner then filed an action for
le!al separation, support and separation of property %efore the +/C
Manila on January @H, 7;8H.
/he decree of divorce #as promul!ated on January 7I, 7;8F on the
!round of failure of marria!e of the spouses. /he custody of the child
#as !ranted to the petitioner.
:n June @9, 7;8F, private respondent filed @ complaints for adultery
%efore the City Fiscal of Manila alle!in! that #hile still married to
,melda, latter 0had an affair #ith illiam Chia as early as 7;8@ and
another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 7;8H2.
ISSUE: hether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the
!round of adultery even thou!h they are no lon!er hus%and and #ife
as decree of divorce #as already issued.
*ELD:
/he la# specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and
concu%ina!e, the person #ho can le!ally file the complaint should %e
the offended spouse and no%ody else. /hou!h in this case, it
appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter
o%tained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal +epu%lic of
.ermany, and said divorce and its le!al effects may %e reco!niAed in
the 6hilippines in so far as he is concerned. /hus, under the same
consideration and rationale, private respondent is no lon!er the
hus%and of petitioner and has no le!al standin! to commence the
adultery case under the imposture that he #as the offended spouse at
the time he filed suit.
By: John Michael Bar%er
La8uga1 v% DER DEC% 1( 2994 #R% 12'//2
Fa0)s: "a Bu!al files petition challen!in! the constitutionality of +A
9;<@, DA: ;F-<C and the F/AAe3ecuted %y !overnment and MC6.
Court !rants petition, declarin! unconstitutionality.+espondents file for
reconsideration. 6etitioners file response. Case commences, de%ate
continues.
Issue:hether or not the Court has a role in the e3ercise of po#er of
control over the e3ploration, developmentand utiliAation =BDU> of our
natural resources.
*e1d:Court !rants motion for reconsideration, reversin! the Jan @9,
@CC< decision, dismissin! petition, issuin!ne# (ud!ment, statin! +A
9;<@, DA: ;F-<C and F/AA are constitutional, e3cept for sections 9.8
and 9.;of the F/AA for %ein! contrary to pu%lic policy and !rossly
disadvanta!eous to the !overnment.
Friva1d$ v% C$2e1e0 2.' SCRA '2'
T6e Fa0)s
Juan .. Frivaldo filed for candidacy for !overnorship. /his #as
contested %y+aul "ee #ho filed a petition #ith the Comelec prayin!
that Frivaldo %edis1ualified %ecause he #as not a Filipino citiAen.
$econd Division of the Comelec promul!ated a +esolution !rantin!
petition. /he Motion for +econsideration filed %y Frivaldo remained
unacted uponuntil after the elections. 'is candidacy continued and he
#as voted. /hreedays after, the Comelec affirmed the previous
+esolution.
Board of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election and
determinedthat Frivaldo !arnered the lar!est num%er of votes,
follo#ed %y "ee. "ee filed another petition prayin! for his proclamation
as .overnor. 6etition #as !ranted. "ee #as declared .overnor.
Frivaldo filed a ne# petition. 'e alle!ed that he already too) his oath
of alle!iance on June HC, 7;;I and that there #as no more le!al
impedimenthis proclamation as !overnor. ,n the alternative, Frivaldo
averred that pursuant to the case of "a%ovsComelec, the Dice-
.overnor should occupy said position of !overnor.
:n Decem%er 7;, 7;;I, the Comelec First Division annulled
theproclamation of "ee and proclaimedFrivaldo as ri!htful !overnor.
"ee filed a motion for reconsideration #hich #as denied %y the
Comelec.
T6e issue
,s FrivaldoEs dis1ualification for lac) of Filipino citiAenship a continuin!
%arto his eli!i%ility to run for, %e elected to or hold office as !overnor*
T6e De0isi$n
7> "ee&s petition is D,$M,$$BD. /he assailed +esolutions of the
respondentCommission are AFF,+MBD.
@> Frivaldo&s petition is also D,$M,$$BD for %ein! moot and
academic.
#$n7a1es v% arvasa Aug% 14( 2999
Fa0)s: 6etitioner +amon .onAales, in his capacity as a citiAen and
ta3payer, assails the constitutionality of the creation of the
6reparatory Commission on Constitutional +eform =6CC+> and of the
positions of presidential consultants, advisers and assistants.
/he 6CC+ #as created %y 6res. Bstrada %y virtue of B: <H in order
to study and recommend proposed amendments andLor revisions to
the Constitution, and the manner of implementin! them.
Issue: hether or not the petitioner has le!al standin! to file the
case. 0":CU$ $/A-D,2
*e1d: ,n assailin! the constitutionality of B: <H, petitioner asserts his
interest as a citiAen and ta3payer. A citiAen ac1uires standin! only if
he can esta%lish that he has suffered some actual or threatened in(ury
as a result of the alle!edly ille!al conduct of the !overnment? the
in(ury is fairly tracea%le to the challen!ed action? and the in(ury is li)ely
to %e addressed %y a favora%le action. 6etitioner has not sho#n that
he has sustained or in dan!er of sustainin! any personal in(ury
attri%uta%le to the creation of the 6CC+ and of the positions of
presidential consultants, advisers and assistants. -either does he
claim that his ri!hts or privile!es have %een or are in dan!er of %ein!
violated, nor that he shall %e su%(ected to any penalties or %urdens as
a result of the issues raised.
,n his capacity as a ta3payer, a ta3payer is deemed to have the
standin! to raise a constitutional issue #hen it is esta%lished that
pu%lic funds have dis%ursed in alle!ed contravention of the la# or the
Constitution. /hus, payer&s action is properly %rou!ht only #hen there
is an e3ercise %y Con!ress of its ta3in! or spendin! po#er. ,n the
creation of 6CC+, it is apparent that there is no e3ercise %y Con!ress
of its ta3in! or spendin! po#er. /he 6CC+ #as created %y the
6resident %y virtue of B: <H as amended %y B: 9C. /he
appropriations for the 6CC+ #ere authoriAed %y the 6resident, not %y
Con!ress. /he funds used for the 6CC+ #ere ta)en from funds
intended for the :ffice of the 6resident, in the e3ercise of the Chief
B3ecutive&s po#er to transfer funds pursuant to $ec. @I=I> of Art. D, of
the Constitution. As to the creation of the positions of presidential
consultants, advisers and assistants, the petitioner has not alle!ed the
necessary facts so as to ena%le the Court to determine if he
possesses a ta3payer&s interest in this particular issue.