You are on page 1of 3

La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc.

Vs Ramos

Natural Resources and Environmental Laws


G.R. No. 127882; January 27, 2004
FACTS:
This petition for prohibition and mandamus challenges the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942
(The Philippine Mining Act of 1995), its implementing rules and regulations and the Financial and
Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated March 30, 1995 by the government with Western
Mining Corporation(Philippines) Inc. (WMCP).
Accordingly, the FTAA violated the 1987 Constitution in that it is a service contract and is antithetical
to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign control over the
exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.
ISSUE:
What is the proper interpretation of the phrase Agreements involving Either Technical or Financial
Assistance contained in paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
HELD:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law, its implementing rules
and regulations insofar as they relate to financial and technical agreements as well as the subject
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement.
Full control is not anathematic to day-to-day management by the contractor, provided that the State
retains the power to direct overall strategy; and to set aside, reverse or modify plans and actions of the
contractor. The idea of full control is similar to that which is exercised by the board of directors of a
private corporation, the performance of managerial, operational, financial, marketing and other
functions may be delegated to subordinate officers or given to contractual entities, but the board retains
full residual control of the business

Sarmiento vs Mison, 156 SCRA 549


F: Petitioners brought this suit for prohibition in their capacity as taxpayers, members of the Bar and law
professors, to enjoin respondent Commissioner of Customs from performing his functions on the ground that his
appointment, w/o confirmation by the CA, is unconstitutional.
HELD: Art. VII, Sec. 16, as orginally proposed by the Committe on Executive Power of the 1986 Con Com read:
Sec. 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of a Commission on Appointment, shall appoint the
heads of executive departments and bureaus, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain and all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
The Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the courts, or in the
heads of departments.
However, on motion of Comm. Foz, 2 changes were approved in the text of the provision. The first was to delete
the phrase "and bureaus," and the second was to place a period (.) after the word "captain" and substitute the

phrase "and all" w/ the phrase "HE SHALL ALSO APPOINT ANY." The first amendment was intended to
exempt the appointment of bureau directors from the requirement of confirmation on the ground that this
position is low and to require confirmation would subject bureau directors to political influence. On the other
hand, the 2nd amendment was intended to subject to confirmation only those mentioned in the frist sentence,
namely:
The heads of the exec. depts, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from
the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Consti, i.e.,
(1) Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council [Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2)]
(2) Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission [Art. IX-B, Sec. 1 (2)];
(3) Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC [Art. IX-C, Sec. 1 (2)];
(4) Chairman and Commissioners of the COA [Art. IX-D, Sec. 1 (2)];
(5) Members of the regional consultative commission (Art. X, Sec. 18.)
The rest of the appointments mentioned in sec. 16 are not subject to confirmation. These are: (1) all other
officers of the Govt whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; (2) those whom the Pres. may be
authorized by law to appoint; and (3) officers lower in rank whose appointments Congress may by law vest in
the Pres. alone

BP v. Zamora
Aug. 15 2000Background information:-There was a rash of bombings and robberies throughout Metro
Manila. To counter it, then President Joseph E. Estrada commanded the Marines to join the PNP in visibility
patrols around the Metro.-These visibility patrols were referred to as Task Force Tulungan, and were
under the leadership of the Police Chief of Metro Manila.-In compliance with presidential mandate,
PNP Chief of Staff formulated Letter of Instructions 02/2000 (LOI)
o
The joint visibility patrols was meant to suppress crime and other threats to national security and willbe applied to
eradicate high-profile crimes perpetrated by organized crime syndicates
o
Visibility patrols are to be under the authority of the PNP, not the militaryCase at bar: Special Civil Action in the
Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition The IBP prays for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to
nullify
the Presidents order of deploying theMarines to help the PNP. The IBP argue that the deployment is null and void because its
unconstitutional because:
o
There is no Emergency Situation

In derogation of Art 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution


o
The deployment is an insidious incursion by the military into a civilian function of government

In derogation of Art 16, Sec. 5 of the Constitution


o
The deployment creates a dangerous tendency to rely on the military for civilian government functionsIBP says that it has standing
because it is the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the bounden duty touphold the rule of law and the
Constitution The Solicitor General says:
o
Petitioner has no legal standing
o
The question of the Marines deployment is a political question and not proper for judicial scrutiny
o

The organization of Task Force Tulungan does not violate the civilian supremacy clause of theConstitutionISSUES:1.Does the
petitioner have legal standing?2.Is the Presidents factual determination of the necessity of calling the
armed forces subject to judicial review?3.Does the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility
patrols violate constitutional provisionson civilian supremacy?DECISION: Petition is DISMISSED as being without
meritWhy?1.
No, the petitioner does NOT have legal standing.
Its only basis for legal standing is its bounden duty,which is insufficient.
o
Its too general; its an interest shared by the whole citizenry and the IBP hasnt sufficiently showed a

sufficient and substantial interest in the resolution of the case


o
IBPs fundamental purpose is to elevate the standards of the law profession and to improve theadministration of justice. That
has NOTHING to do with the deployment of Marines.
o
Despite the fact that the petitioner has no legal standing though, the Court has decided to takecognizance of the
issues raised, because of their transcendental significance and their seriousness,novelty, and weight as precedents, and because the issues
will probably not go away until theyvebeen resolved.2.The President has full discretion to call out the military
o
The question is a JUSTICIABLE question, and not a political one; it involves a question of legality andnot
wisdom
o
The Court cannot overrule the Presidents wisdom; it can only
determine whether or not he hascommitted any abuse of discretion
(a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patentand gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined bylaw)
o
Petitioner has failed to show that the exercise of that discretion was gravely abused3.The deployment of the
Marines is not a breach of the civilian supremacy clause
o
The provisions of the LOI outline how the Marines will participate in the visibility patrols and what theirlimits are
o
The overall authority here will always belong to the PNP; the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overallleader of the PNPPhilippine Marines joint visibility patrols
o
Just because the Marines help the PNP doesnt mean that the PNP will no longer be a civilian institution