2011 Cases and Digests

1. Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011

Facts: The Philippines and the US entered into the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement through DFA
Secretary Ople and US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone. The agreement was for the protection of what it
refers to and defines as persons of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be
brought against them in international tribunals. The persons identified in the agreement referred to
current or former Government officials, employees (including contractors), or military personnel or
nationals of the parties. Thus, the agreement provided that no persons of the two parties shall be
surrendered or transferred to an international tribunal or any third country without the express consent
of the other part. This petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition under Rule 65 assails and seeks
to nullify such agreement.
Issue: Is the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement violative of the Rome Statute and Philippine Sovereignty?
Ruling: No. With regard to the Rome Statue, the Philippines cannot be bound to the provisions of the
Rome Statute as it was not yet a signatory to the Rome Statute when the petition was filed. Moreover, the
statute only provided for a venue with which international crimes may be tried, when the immediate
jurisdictions do not wish to exercise their jurisdictional right to try the offenders. Furthermore, the ICC is
only secondary to any other agreements that signatory states may have with other nations.
Neither is the agreement violative of the Philippine sovereignty as there is reciprocity between the
countries. In giving up its right to surrender or transfer US persons to international tribunals or third
countries, the Philippines expected to receive the same treatment for Philippine persons. Such
manifested the Philippines exercise of its sovereignty.
2. League of Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, February 15, 2011
3. League of Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, April 12, 2011
4. Navarro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011
Facts: Petitioners who are former political leaders of Surigao del Norte, challenged the constitutionality
of RA 9355, an act establishing Dinagat Islands as a province. With the appropriate procedural
requirements as to the election of the provinces transitional officials and the subsequent officials of the
province, Dinagat Islands obtained local autonomy from its mother province Surigao del Norte.
Petitioners alleged that Congress exceeded its powers in creating Dinagat Islands as a province unjustly
depriving the people of Surigao del Norte a significant portion of territory, revenue allocations and the
rich resources of the islands.
Issue: Is RA 9355, an act creating the province of Dinagat islands, unconstitutional and inconsistent with
the state policy on local autonomy?
Ruling: No. RA 9355 was deemed as valid and constitutional and is consistent with the state policy on
local autonomy. Section 10 of Article 10 of the Constitution provides that in the creation of the province,
the Local Government Code should be followed. The creation of Dinagat Islands as a separate province
complied with the land area requirement of the IRR of the local government code and as such is deemed
constitutional.
5. Ampatuan v. Puno, G.R. No. 190259, June 7, 2011
Facts: On November 24, 2009, the day after the gruesome massacre of 57 men and women, including
some news reporters, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation 1946, placing the
Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato under a state of emergency. She

directed the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to
undertake such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all
incidents of lawless violence in the named places. Petitioner ARMM officials claimed that the President
had no factual basis for declaring a state of emergency, especially in the Province of Sultan Kudarat and
the City of Cotabato, where no critical violent incidents occurred. The deployment of troops and the
taking over of the ARMM constitutes an invalid exercise of the Presidents emergency powers. Petitioners
asked that Proclamation 1946 as well as AOs 273 and 273-A be declared unconstitutional and that
respondents DILG Secretary, the AFP, and the PNP be enjoined from implementing them.
Issue: Were there factual bases for the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1946?
Ruling: Yes. In this case the petitioners failed to show that the declaration of a state of emergency in the
Provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City, as well as the Presidents exercise of the
"calling out" power had no factual basis. They simply alleged that, since not all areas under the ARMM
were placed under a state of emergency, it follows that the take over of the entire ARMM by the DILG
Secretary had no basis too. But, apart from the fact that there was no such take over to begin with, the
OSG also clearly explained the factual bases for the Presidents decision to call out the armed forces, are
as follows: The Ampatuan and Mangudadatu clans are prominent families engaged in the political control
of Maguindanao. It is also a known fact that both families have an arsenal of armed followers who hold
elective positions in various parts of the ARMM and the rest of Mindanao. Considering the fact that the
principal victims of the brutal bloodshed are members of the Mangudadatu family and the main
perpetrators of the brutal killings are members and followers of the Ampatuan family, both the military
and police had to prepare for and prevent reported retaliatory actions from the Mangudadatu clan and
additional offensive measures from the Ampatuan clan.
6. Magalona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011
Facts: RA 9522 was enacted by Congress on March 2009 to adjust the Philippine baselines as to make
them in compliance with the terms of the UNCLOS III. Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the
said law and claimed that RA 9522 undermines the Philippine sovereignty and its claim over the
Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), Scarborough Shoal, and Sabah. Respondents argue that RA 9522 is not
inconsistent with the Philippines claim of sovereignty over the said areas.
Issues:
1. Does RA 9522 dismember a large portion of national territory because it discards the preUNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties?
2. Does RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands framework to draw the baselines, and to
measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), weaken
our territorial claim over the area?
3. Did RA 9522 fail to textualize the Philippines claim over Sabah in North Borneo?
4. Did RA 9522 unconstitutionally convert Philippine internal waters into archipelagic waters?
Ruling:
1. No, it does not. The Philippine baseline law, RA 9522, was made in compliance with UNCLOS III and
has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is just a statutory tool to demarcate the
countrys maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not to delineate Philippine
territroy.
2. No. RA 9522, in compliance with UNCOLS III, uses the framework of regime of islands to determine
the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal and is not inconsistent with the
Philippines claim of sovereignty over the said areas. Moreover, Section 2 of RA 9522 commits to
text the Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and the
Scarborough Shoal.

3. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines
of Sabah. Hence, the Philippines statutory claim over Sabah under RA 5446 is retained and stands
despite it not being textualized in RA 9522.
5. No, RA 9522 did not unconstitutionally convert Philippine internal waters into archipelagic waters
and neither is it incompatible with the Constitutions delineation internal waters. It is understood
in Art. 1 of the Constitution and Art. 49 of UNCLOS III that the Philippines, as an archipelagic
country, exercises sovereignty over the body water lying landward of the baselines. As such,
whether they are called internal or archipelagic, these waters are one and same and are under
Philippine sovereignty.
7. Gangcayco v. QC and MMDA, G.R. No. 177807, October 11, 2011
8. KIDA v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
9.