People vs Gozo (53 SCRA 476, 1973)

Facts: Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot which was located inside the
US Naval Reservation which is within the territorial jurisdiction of

Held:
1.

government are good and valid. The governments by the

some neighbors, she demolished the house standing thereon without

acquiring the necessary permits and then later on erected another
house. She was then charged by the City Engineers Office for violating a
municipal order which requires her to secure permits for any demolition

Philippines during the Japanese military occupation being de

government by the inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection

facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts

against the parent state.

In re: Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno (210 SCRA

and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy

Olongapo has no administrative jurisdiction over the said lot because it

(postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid

is within a Naval Base of a foreign country.

Issue: Is the Municipal Ordinance enforceable within the US Naval Base?
Held: Yes. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty

itself rightful government

2. Established through Occupation (PARAMOUNT FORCE) Maintained by
the military forces who invade and occupy the territory of the enemy.
3. Established through Insurrection Established as an independent

which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid,

thereof by the lower court. She appealed and countered that the City of

control through the force of the voice of the majority and maintains

Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the

and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments,

and/or construction within the City. She was convicted in violation

completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the

It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts

and proceedings and non-political judgments of a de facto

Olongapo City. Upon the advice of an assistant in the Mayors Office and

over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself

1. Established through Rebellion Governments gets possession and

after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the

American and Filipino forces under the leadership of General
Douglas MacArthur.
2. It should be presumed that it was not, and could not have been, the
"processes of any other government" in said proclamation, to refer to

entire government, including the Judiciary.

e) A Screening Committee for the reorganization of the Intermediate

Government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all

judicial processes, in violation of said principles of international law.

Appelate Court and lower courts recommended the return of petitioner

such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of

The only reasonable construction of the said phrase is that it refers to

as Associate Justice of the new court of Appeals and assigned him the

their own decline to make use of (Military Bases Agreement). Hence, in

governmental processes other than judicial processes of court

the exercise of its sovereignty, the State through the City of Olongapo

proceedings.
"a statute ought never to be construed to violate the law of

rank of number 11 in the roster of appellate court justices.

f) When the appointments were signed by Pres. Aquino, petitioner's

Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on his case saying that the
proclamation of Gen Douglas MacArthur has invalidated and nullified all
judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and

the phrase

Ministry of Justice. Thus, he ceased to be a member of the Judiciary.

d) After February 1986 EDSA Revolution, there was a reorganization of the

preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine

time of the Japanese occupation. After the liberation of Manila Judge

using

Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to BP Blg. 129.

c) On 1984, petitioner was appointed to be Deputy Minister of Justice in the

intention

Naval Base.
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh (75 Phil 113 1945)
Facts:
Petitioner Co Kim Cham had as pending civil Case initiated during the

Douglas MacArthur, in

of the Court of Appeals on 1980.

b) On 1983, the Court of Appeals was reorganized and became the

terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or

does have administrative jurisdiction over the lot located within the US

of General

589, 1992)
Facts:
a) The petitioner, Reynato S. Puno, was first appointed as Associate Justice

nations if any other possible construction remains."

If a belligerent occupant is required to establish courts of justice in the
territory occupied, and forbidden to prevent the nationals thereof
from asserting or enforcing therein their civil rights, by necessary
implication, the military commander of the forces of liberation or the
restored government is restrained from nullifying or setting aside the
judgments rendered by said courts in their litigation during the period

without the enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take

of occupation.
3. The proceedings in cases then pending in said court may continue,

cognizance of proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic

without necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them

of the Philippines under the Japanese.

Issues:
1. Whether the judicial proceedings and decisions during the

to continue said proceedings. The laws and courts of the Philippines

2.

Japanese Occupation were valid and remained valid.

Whether the proclamation of General MacArthur declared that

required by the law of nations. Same courts may continue exercising

the

same jurisdictions and

cases

pending

therein

before the

all laws, regulations and processes of any other Government

restoration of the commonwealth until abolished and replaced by the

other than that of the commonwealth are null and void,

said government.
DECISION: WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS ISSUED to the judge of the Court Of

invalidated and all judgments and judicial acts proceeding

3.

did not become the laws and courts of Japan by being continued as

from the courts.

Whether they were invalidated (reference to No. 2), the courts
can continue hearing the cases pending before them

First Instance of Manila ordering him to take cognizance and continue to

final judgment the proceedings in Case No. 3012.
3 Kinds of De Facto Government:

seniority ranking changes from number 11 to 26.

g) Then, petitioner alleged that the change in seniority ranking was due to
"inadvertence" of the President, otherwise, it would run counter to the
provisions of Section 2 of E.O. No. 33.
h) Petitioner Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote a letter to the Court seeking the
correction of his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals.
i) The Court en banc granted Justice Puno's request.
j) A motion for reconsideration was later filed by Associate Justices
Campos Jr. and Javellana who are affected by the ordered correction.
k) They alleged that petitioner could not claim reappointment because the
courts where he had previously been appointed ceased to exist at the
date of his last appointment.
Issue: Whether the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of
the old Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court existing
before the promulgation of E.O. No. 33.
Held: The Court held that the Court of Appeals and Intermediate
Appellate Court existing prior to E.O. No. 33 phased out as part of the
legal system abolished by the 1987 Revolution. The Court of Appeals
that was established under E.O. No. 33 is considered as an entirely new
court.
The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from
the courts existing before E.O. No. 33. It was created in the wake of the

massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of

revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to

Corazon Aquino in the aftermath of the people power in 1986.

Revolution is defined as "the complete overthrow of the established

observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration, because it didnt

government in any country or state by those who were previously

subject to it." or "as sudden. radical and fundamental change in the
government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least
some acts of violence."
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (407 SCRA 10 July 21, 2003)
Nature of Action: Petition for review on certiorari
Facts: The PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government)
created an AFP Anti-Graft Board tasked to scrutinize the reports of
unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by any AFP personnel (active
or retired). The AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged illgotten wealth of respondent Maj. Gen. Josephus Ramas. Along with this,
the Constabulary raiding team served a search and seizure warrant on
the premises of Ramas alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano. The Board
then concluded that Ramas be prosecuted for violating the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and Forfeiture of unlawfully
Acquired Property (RA 1379).
Thereafter, they filed a petition for forfeiture against him before the
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on several
grounds one of which is that there was an illegal search and seizure of
the items confiscated.
Issues:
1. Whether the PCGG has the authority to investigate Ramas and Dimaano
2. Whether the properties and other belongings confiscated in Dimaanos
house

were

illegally

seized

which

will

consequently

make

it

inadmissible
Held: The petition was dismissed. Even in the absence of a Constitution,
the right against unlawful seizure can be found in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Nevertheless, even during the interregnum, the Filipino
people under the Covenant and Declaration continued to enjoy almost
the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. As
stated in Article 2(1) of the Convenant, the State is required to respect
and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant. Further,
under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had
the duty to insure that [n]o one else shall be subjected to arbitrary or
unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
The Declaration also provides in its Article 17(2) that [n]o one shall be
arbitrarily

deprived

of his property.

The Court has taken

into

consideration the Declaration as part of the generally accepted

principles of international law and binding on the State. Hence, the

repudiated

either

the

Covenant

or

the

Declaration

during

the

interregnum.
MMDA vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (G.R. Nos. 17194748 December 18, 2008)
Facts: In 1999, the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (CROMB) filed an
action for mandamus to compel the Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority (MMDA) and other government agencies to clean up the Manila

Oposa vs Factoran, JR. (224 SCRA 792 July 30, 1993)

Keywords: taxpayers class suit; intergenerational responsibility; right to
a balanced and healthful ecology; timber license agreements
Quick Guide: Petitioners personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful environment is
concerned.
Facts: The controversy begun as Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed
before the RTC of Makati City Branch 66.

Bay. CROMB argued that the environmental state of the Manila Bay is
already dangerous to their health and the inaction of MMDA and the

a) The principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by

other concerned government agencies violates their rights to life, health,

their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the

and a balanced ecology guaranteed by the Constitution. CROMB also

Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and

averred under the Environmental Code, it is MMDAs duty to clean up the

non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia,

Manila Bay.
The trial court agreed with CROMB and ordered MMDA et al to clean up

engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our

environment and natural resources.

the Manila Bay. MMDA assailed the decision on the ground that MMDAs
duty under the Environmental Code is merely a discretionary duty hence

b) The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then

it cannot be compelled by mandamus. Further, MMDA argued that the

Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

RTCs order was for a general clean up of the Manila Bay yet under the

(DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the

Environmental Code, MMDA was only tasked to attend to specific

Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper

incidents of pollution and not to undertake a massive clean-up such as

motion by the petitioners.

that ordered by the court.

Issue: Whether or not MMDA may be compelled by mandamus to clean
up Manila Bay.
Held: Yes. It is true that in order for MMDA to implement laws like the

c) The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suitand alleges that

the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines,

Environmental Code, the process of implementing usually involves the

taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the

exercise of discretion i.e., where to set up landfills. But this does not

natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests."

mean that their function or mandate under the law is already

discretionary. Looking closer, MMDAs function to alleviate the problem

d) The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally

on solid and liquid waste disposal problems is a ministerial function. In

concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so

short, MMDA does not have the discretion to whether or not alleviate the

numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court."

garbage disposal problem in Metro Manila, particularly in the Manila Bay

area. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may

e) The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as

entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very

well as generations yet unborn."

act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and
may be compelled by mandamus.
Anent the issue on whether or not MMDAs task under the Environmental
Code involves a general clean up, the Supreme Court ruled that MMDAs
mandate under the Environmental Code is to perform cleaning in
general and not just to attend to specific incidents of pollution. Hence,
MMDA, together with the other government agencies, must act to clean
up the Manila Bay as ordered by the RTC.

f) It is prayed for that judgment be rendered

ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons

acting in his behalf to:

(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) in the

m)

country;

In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain

Even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is

that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of

well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the

action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a

public interest so requires.

justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion.

(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing

or approving new TLAs.

q) Respondents:
n) On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the

(3) granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable under

aforementioned motion to dismiss. In the said order, not only was the

the premises.

defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of action

legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief

against him and that it raises a political question sustained, the

is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and

g) The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine

respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed

nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which

archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million

for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by

supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in

(30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant

the fundamental law of the land.

its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them,

do not reveal a valid cause of action.

rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna
may be found.

o) Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and asked the Court to rescind

h) These rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which

is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine

They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging

and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent

should be permitted in the country is a political question which

Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.

should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative

cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time

immemorial.

Aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific

branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners'

p) Petitioners:

resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before

Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.

i) Scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and

Contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause

healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the

of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right

basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-

to a sound environment, the right of the people to a balanced and

that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of

six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial

healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide and the

law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of

and other uses.

concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-

time usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the

perpetuation.

same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has

Rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O.

terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations.

No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.

Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately

cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the

k) Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences

of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable

l)

As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit

been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the

j) The distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of

deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.

It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's

requirements of due process.

demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial

alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License

notice.

Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is

Issue/s: Whether the petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the

available involves a judicial question.

misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and arrest the

unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed

a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely:
(1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the

Non-impairment clause does not apply in this case because TLAs

continued rape of Mother Earth. (YES.)

are not contracts.

issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly

Ruling: the instant Petition is granted, and the challenged Order of

pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government.

respondent Judge is set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend

their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the
questioned timber license agreements.

Ratio:
Locus standi:
a) The said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the

a) The complaint focuses on the right to a balanced and healthful ecology

j) Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful

which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is

ecology and the right to health, then President Corazon C. Aquino

solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law (Section 16, Article II of

promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, Section 4 of which

the 1987 Constitution).

expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural

complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to

all citizens of the Philippines.

Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for

the conservation, management, development and proper use of the

b) This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the

country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and

Section 15 of the same article.

b) Consequently,

since

the

parties

are

so

numerous,

it,

becomes

impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the

court. The SC likewise declares that the plaintiffs therein are
numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of
all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid
class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are
present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter
being but an incident to the former.
c) This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors
assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn. The SC finds no difficulty in ruling that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the "rhythm
and harmony of nature."
d) Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and
harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and
other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development
and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to
the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment
of a balanced and healthful ecology.

grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and

c) While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under

watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the

the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill

licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided

of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the

for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived

civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.

there from for the welfare of the present and future generations of
Filipinos."

d) Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it

concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation the

k) This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of

advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments

the Administrative Code of 1987. It stresses "the necessity of

and constitutions.

maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing

the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the

e) As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the

other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however,

Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of

it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject

humankind.

to law and higher authority.

f) If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is

l) Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the

because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights

objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and

to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as

have defined the powers and functions of the DENR.

state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their

continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn

m)

On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and

obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second,

P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. As its goal,

the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for

it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and

the present generation, but also for those to come generations

guardian of the environment for succeeding generations." The latter

which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of

statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.

sustaining life.
n) Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a
g) The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under

its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No.
192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance

e) The minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes,

at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.
Right to a balanced and healthful ecology:

h) The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious

the said right.

management and conservation of the country's forests.

o) A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative
i) Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be
irreversibly disrupted.

duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause

of action.

b) The court declared that to cancel all existing timber license agreements
in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
Cause of action:

contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in

the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare.

processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements

amount to impairment of contracts abhorred by the fundamental law.

j) In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the
state.

a) A cause of action is defined as:

c) The respondent Secretary did not even invoke in his motion to dismiss
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or

the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA (GR No. 120865-71,

rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the

with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and

plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission

unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders

Dec. 7 1995)
Facts: The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created

of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly

through Republic Act No. 4850. It was granted, inter alia, exclusive

respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions

jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any

regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and

project or activity in or affecting the said region including navigation,

welfare.

construction, and operation of fish-pens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and

b) The question submitted to the court for resolution involves the

sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself.
c) Falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is

d) Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:

deemed hypothetically admitted.

d) It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs
is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party defendants, the

mean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments the
exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal

may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession,

waters.
Issue: Who should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its

permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . .

environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishing privileges is

f) Tan vs. Director of Forestry:. . .A timber license is an instrument by

concerned, the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising the

which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest

region?
Held: LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters because the charter of

resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license

a) The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a

is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is

political question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive

only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever

or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue.

dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case.

What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis

policies already formulated and expressed in legislation.

municipalities in the Laguna Lake region interpreted its provisions to

e) . . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President

grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.

Political question:

the like.
There came RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The

g) Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause

cannot be invoked.

the LLDA prevails over the Local Government Code of 1991. The said
charter constitutes a special law, while the latter is a general law. It is
basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation
which is a general law, cannot be construed to have repealed a special
law. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in
the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion.
In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police
power for the purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna Lake

b) It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine

is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial

h) Even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case

region, as opposed to the Local Government Code, which grants powers

power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and

does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the

legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review.

cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the

to municipalities to issue fishing permits for revenue purposes.

Thus it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail

non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.

over the Local Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de

i) Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corporation: The freedom of contract, under our

Bay.\
Garcia Vs Board of Investments (224 SCRA 792, 1990)
Facts: The Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), a Taiwanese private

a) The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is

system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is

corporation, applied for registration with the Board of Investments (BOI)

the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution.

understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at

in February 1988 as a new domestic producer of petrochemicals in the

the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other

Philippines. It originally specified the province of Bataan as the site for

words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of

the proposed investment but later submitted an amended application to

Non-impairment of contracts:

change the site to Batangas. Unhappy with the change of the site,

Congressman Enrique Garcia of the Second District of Bataan requested

and/or not nominated by a political party or are not supported by

amorphous foundation from which innately unenforceable rights may be

a copy of BPCs original and amended application documents. The BoI

registered political party with a national constituency.

b) Pamatong filed a Petition for Writ of Certioari with the Supreme Court

sourced.
The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be

claiming that the COMELEC violated his right to equal access to

subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the

opportunities for public service under Section 26, Article II of the

privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the

1987 constitution, by limiting the number of qualified candidates only

Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates. As long as the

to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are

limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination, however,

nominated by political parties. The COMELEC supposedly erred in

the equal access clause is not violated. Equality is not sacrificed as long

disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the

as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne by

presidential candidates (he possesses all the constitutional and legal

anyone who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy. In the case at

qualifications for the office of the president, he is capable of waging a

bar, there is no showing that any person is exempt from the limitations

national campaign since he has numerous national organization under

or the burdens which they create.

The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the

denied the request on the basis that the investors in BPC had declined to
give their consent to the release of the documents requested, and that
Article 81 of the Omnibus Investments Code protects the confidentiality
of these documents absent consent to disclose. The BoI subsequently
approved the amended application without holding a second hearing or
publishing notice of the amended application. Garcia filed a petition
before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the BoI committed grave abuse of discretion in yielding
to the wishes of the investor, national interest notwithstanding.
Ruling: The Court ruled that the BoI violated Garcias Constitutional
right to have access to information on matters of public concern under
Article III, Section 7 of the Constitution. The Court found that the
inhabitants of Bataan had an interest in the establishment of the

his leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an international

campaign since he has practiced law in the other countries, and he

disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention

to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to

petrochemical plant in their midst [that] is actual, real, and vital because

has a platform of government.

Issue: Whether the petitioners interpretation of the Constitutional

it will affect not only their economic life, but even the air they breathe

provision under Section 26, Article II gives him a constitutional right to

Towards

The Court also ruled that BPCs amended application was in fact a

run or hold for public office?

Ruling: No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the

considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the

second application that required a new public notice to be filed and a

new hearing to be held.
Although Article 81 of the Omnibus Investments Code provides that all

Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. It

neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an

applications and their supporting documents filed under this code shall

enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision,

be confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except with the

which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.

The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the

consent of the applicant, the Court emphasized that Article 81 provides

for disclosure on the orders of a court of competent jurisdiction. The
Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to order disclosure of the application,
amended application, and supporting documents filed with the BOI
under Article 81, with certain exceptions.
The Court went on to note that despite the right to access information,

Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The

provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing,
and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to
the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in
Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable

the Constitution does not open every door to any and all information

constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or

because the law may exempt certain types of information from public

executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any

scrutiny. Thus it excluded the trade secrets and confidential,

cause of action before the courts.

Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact

commercial, and financial information of the applicant BPC, and matters

affecting national security from its order. The Court did not provide a
test for what information is excluded from the Constitutional privilege to
access public information, nor did it specify the kinds of information that
BPC could withhold under its ruling.
Pamatong vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004)
Facts:
a) Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
President. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as
nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign

positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible

into public office. Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to be
desired if it is to be regarded as the source of positive rights. It is difficult

ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly.
this

end,

the

State

takes

into

account

the

practical

number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical

confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources
in preparation for the election. The organization of an election with bona
fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix
candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable
campaign would actually impair the electoral process. This is not to
mention the candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to
constitute a one-note joke. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant
minutiae covering every step of the electoral process, most probably
posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. It would be a
senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.
The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is
both legal and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not
before this Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of
further evidence is in order. The SC remanded to the COMELEC for the
reception of further evidence, to determine the question on whether
petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as

effective means and reach are not properly defined. Broadly written, the

contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Taada, et al., v. Angara, et al., (G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997)
Facts: Petitioners Senators Taada, et al. questioned the

myriad of claims that can be subsumed under this rubric appear to be

constitutionality of the concurrence by the Philippine Senate of the

entirely open-ended. Words and phrases such as "equal access,"

Presidents ratification of the international Agreement establishing the

"opportunities," and "public service" are susceptible to countless

World Trade Organization (WTO). They argued that the WTO Agreement

interpretations owing to their inherent impreciseness. Certainly, it was

violates the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a self-reliant

not the intention of the framers to inflict on the people an operative but

and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . .

to interpret the clause as operative in the absence of legislation since its

(to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the

Independence refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the

to the national interest to strike down Senate Resolution No. 97. But that

preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally

national economy, especially in such strategic industries as in the

is not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate

produced goods. Further, they contended that the national treatment

development of natural resources and public utilities.

The WTO reliance on most favored nation, national treatment, and

and to nullify its decision. To do so would constitute grave abuse in the

and parity provisions of the WTO Agreement place nationals and

products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local
products,

in contravention of the Filipino First policy of our

Constitution, and render meaningless the phrase effectively controlled

by Filipinos.
Issue: Does

the

1987

Constitution

prohibit

our

country

from

trade without discrimination cannot be struck down as unconstitutional

as in fact they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO
members. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on equality and
reciprocity, the fundamental law encourages industries that are
competitive

in

both

domestic

and

foreign

markets,

thereby

participating in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization

demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade

and from integrating into a global economy that is liberalized,

environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust

deregulated and privatized?

Ruling: [The Court DISMISSED the petition. It sustained the concurrence

industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. Indeed,

of the Philippine Senate of the Presidents ratification of the Agreement

establishing the WTO.]
NO, the 1987 Constitution DOES NOT prohibit our country from
participating in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization
and from integrating into a global economy that is liberalized,
deregulated and privatized.
There are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the
Senate to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement.
[W]hile the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino
goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes
the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases
of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises
only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In
other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist
policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the
development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not
encourage

the

unlimited

entry

of

foreign

goods,

services

and

investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it
allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning
only on foreign competition that is unfair.
xxx
xxx
xxx
[T]he constitutional policy of a self-reliant and independent national
economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,

Filipino managers and Filipino enterprises have shown capability and

tenacity to compete internationally. And given a free trade environment,
Filipino entrepreneurs and managers in Hongkong have demonstrated
the Filipino capacity to grow and to prosper against the best offered
under a policy of laissez faire.
xxx
xxx
xxx
It is true, as alleged by petitioners, that broad constitutional principles
require the State to develop an independent national economy

Moreover, there are other equally fundamental constitutional principles

relied upon by the Senate which mandate the pursuit of a trade policy
that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements
of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity and the promotion
of industries which are competitive in both domestic and foreign
markets, thereby justifying its acceptance of said treaty. So too, the
alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and
judicial powers is balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and the
adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity

duty and power. We find no patent and gross arbitrariness or

Villegas,

sponsor

of

that is keenly aware of overdependence on external assistance for even

its most basic needs. It does not mean autarky or economic seclusion;
rather, it means avoiding mendicancy in the international community.

political desire of a member.

AKBAYAN vs. Aquino (G.R. No. 170516 July 16, 2008)
Facts: The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership
Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki
in September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi

and

Philippine President Gloria

Macapagal

Arroyo

as

milestone in the continuing cooperation and collaboration, setting a

new chapter of strategic partnership for mutual opportunity and growth

encompasses even our commitments to the WTO.

The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the Senate

constitutional policy:
Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a developing country

Bernardo

WTO Agreement allows withdrawal of membership, should this be the

removing barriers and restrictions on investments. It is a deal that

it a part of the law of the land is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign

Commissioner

our people should determine in electing their policy makers. After all, the

legislative guides are not in themselves sources of causes of action.

this

Constitutional

explained

toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that

plan for opening up of markets in goods and services as well as

overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making

As

people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march

equally true that such principles while serving as judicial and

by

community.

review. That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the

labor, products, domestic materials and locally produced goods. But it is

mendicancy

international

wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and

(for both countries).

JPEPA which has been referred to as a mega treaty is a comprehensive

goods and services. It contemplates neither economic seclusion nor

the

did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was

effectively controlled by Filipinos; and to protect and/or prefer Filipino

with all nations.

That the Senate,

in

exercise of our own judicial power and duty. Ineludibly, what the Senate

after

deliberation

and

voting,

voluntarily

and

despotism by reason of passion or personal hostility in such exercise.

It is not impossible to surmise that this Court, or at least some of its
members, may even agree with petitioners that it is more advantageous

hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and Commerce last

November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar Roxas, heard
differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the committee
heard Governments rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA
and on the other hand the views of environmental and trade activists
who raised their very serious concerns about the country being turned
into Japans toxic waste basket. The discussion in the Senate showed
that JPEPA is not just an issue concerning trade and economic relations
with Japan but one that touches on broader national development
concerns.
Issues:
1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for
mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the Republic, as taxpayers,
and as members of the Congress
2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of this case and
take cognizance of the instant petition.
3. Are the documents and information being requested in relation to the
JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and full public

disclosure such that the Philippine government is justified in denying

fully share. The Court, however, in its endeavour to guard against the

into a basic formula that contains the details that take these factors into

access thereto.
Rulings:
The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its ruling on

abuse of executive privilege, should be careful not to veer towards the

account.

opposite extreme, to the point that it would strike down as invalid even a

That the RTC-SAC must consider the factors mentioned by the law (and

legitimate exercise thereof.

Land bank of the Philippines vs. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises

consequently the DAR implementing formula) is not a novel concept. In

the case of Akbayan Citizens Action Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et

al (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal dismissed the Petition for
mandamus and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents

(G.R. No. 17255 January 15, 2014)

FACTS: Respondent Yatco Agricultural Enterprises (Yatco) was the

Department of Trade Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al

registered of owner of a 27-hectare parcel of agricultural land (property)

to furnish petitioners the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic

in Calamba, Laguna. On April 30, 1999, the government placed the

Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and

property under the coverage if its Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all

Program (CARP).
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the property at P1,126,132.89.

pertinent attachments and annexes thereto.

In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has been

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, we said that the RTC-SAC
must consider the factors enumerated under Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657, as translated into a basic formula by the DAR, in determining just
compensation.
In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms
Corporation, we again affirmed the need to apply Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657 and DAR AO5-98 in just compensation cases. There, we considered

Yatco did not find the valuation acceptable and thus elevated the matter

the CA and the RTC in grave error when they opted to come up with their

made accessible to the public since 11 September 2006, and thus the

to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Provincial Agrarian Reform

own basis for valuation and completely disregarded the DAR formula.

demand to be furnished with copy of the said document has become

Adjudicator (PARAD), which then conducted summary administrative

The need to apply the parameters required by the law cannot be

moot and academic. Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily

proceedings

compensation.

doubted; the DAR administrative issuances, on the other hand, partake

discussed the substatives issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners'

The PARAD valued the property at P16,543,800.00, using the property

of the nature of statutes and have in their favor a presumption of

demand for access to the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of

current market value. LBP did not move to reconsider the PARAD ruling.

legality. Unless administrative orders are declared invalid or unless the

the negotiations.
The Court held: Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it

Instead it filed with the RTC-SAC a petition for the judicial determination

cases before them involve situations these administrative issuances do

is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually

of just compensation.
RTC-SAC fixed the just compensation for the property at P200 per square

not cover, the courts must apply them.

The RTC-SAC adopted Branch 36 valuation without any qualification or

confidential since there should be 'ample opportunity for discussion

meter based on the RTC branch 35 and 36. RTC-SAC did not give weight

condition. Yet, in disposing of the present case, the just compensation

before [a treaty] is approved' the offers exchanged by the parties

to the LBP evidence in justifying its valuation, pointing out that the LBP

that it fixed for the property largely differed from the former. Note that

during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is

failed to prove that it complied with the prescribed procedure and failed

Branch 36 fixed a valuation of P20.00 per square meter; while the RTC-

published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japenese representatives

to consider the valuation in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

SAC, in the present case, valued the property at P200.00 per square

submitted

(CARL).

meter. Strangely, the RTC-SAC did not offer any explanation nor point to

The CA dismissed LBP appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC-SAC determination of just compensation

any evidence, fact or particular that justified the obvious discrepancy

their

offers

with

the

understanding

that

'historic

confidentiality' would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could

impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with

for

the

determination

of

just

between

these

amounts.

for the property was proper?

HELD: The RTC-SAC determination of just compensation for the property

In ascertaining just compensation, the fair market value of the

taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the

from frankly expressing their views during negotiations. The Highest

was not proper.

Civil law: determination of just compensation under the DAR
The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial

Tribunal recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve a process

function. Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 explicitly vests the RTC-SAC the

of quid pro quo, where negotiators would willingly grant concessions in

original and exclusive power to determine just compensation for lands

an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more favorable terms in

under CARP coverage. To guide the RTC-SAC in the exercise of its

Rules of Court.
As a final note and clarificatory reminder, we agree that the LBP is

an area of greater national interest.

In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent of Chief

function, Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the factors required to

primarily charged with determining land valuation and compensation for

be taken into account to correctly determine just compensation. The law

all private lands acquired for agrarian reform purposes. But this

(under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657) likewise empowers the DAR to issue

determination is only preliminary. The landowner may still take the

rules for its implementation. The DAR thus issued DAR AO 5-

matter of just compensation to the court for final adjudication.

GRANTED.

other foreign governments in future negotiations.

It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine offers
in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippine representatives

Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: We are aware that behind the dissent of
the Chief Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our people's right to
information against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We

98incorporating the law listed factors in determining just compensation

expropriated property is determined as of the time of taking. The time of

use and benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the
property or as of the filing of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the