1. Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-Executing

a. Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017

b. Grace Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

c. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997.

d. Tanada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997

e. Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 10183, July 30, 1993

f. Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

2. Mandatory vs. Directory

a. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)

b. Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 28196, November 9, 1967

a. Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017

Carpio. meaning. and not to another building or project. Issue: Whether or not Section 15.Florentino P. in its definition. it is open to different possible interpretations which makes it as non self-executing for its possibility to have at least 2 meanings. sightline and setting thereof. or rebuilding of a historical and cultural site if it would cause the diminution of its physical integrity. On its face. there is no clear legal right to the protection of vista. J. Article XIV of the constitution.716. in this case. KOR filed several actions in contradiction to the construction of the said condominium. note. Torre de Manila. . stating that. in this case. that such definition of the powers vested to NCCA. Tijam. sightline and setting of the Rizal monument and the Rizal park has not been established in legislation as an aspect of the constitutional policy to conserve. in his ponencia. i concur in the result reached by my distinguished colleagues. by DMCI Project Developers. In the contention of Section 15. meter lot. In discussing the dissenting and concurring opinions of other justices of the Supreme court. Such construction may not be stopped on the basis of Section 15. Section 15. Torre de Manila would be standing 870 meters outside and to the rear of Luneta park. no. In this regard. the Rizal monument.A. that a clear legal rightt to protection of the vista. J. For the reasons hereinafter set forth. 7. 10066 or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 which delegates right to the National Commission on Culture and Arts to deal with matters involving the preservation and promotion of historical and cultural heritage. R. Inc that is intended for the construction of a 46 floor ranging up to 165 meters building designated to be a condominium. DMCI-PDI was able to satisfy the requirements and secure all necessary permits to carry on with its construction. KOR invoked the provision of Section 15. Article XIV of the constitution on the ground that it is not self-executory in character. The congress passed R. Article XIV of the Constitution may be invoked as the basis to prevent the construction of Torre de Manila Held: No. J.60 sq. Factoran is illuminating. it refers to the building of the historical and cultural heritage itself. promote and popularise the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources” it being a self-executory provision of the constitution due to its completeness. The knights of Rizal saw it as a possible nuisance in the eyes of people who upholds the integrity and beauty of the monument for a 165 meter building could easily make the monument of Rizal as that of one puny monument. the property is located 870 meters behind Luneta park where the Rizal monument is located. 10066 is not applicable. NCCA may stop the construction. Clearly. “the state shall conserve. Article XIV of the constitution. however. renovation.A. it does not cover Torre de Manila because Torre de Manila is not one of the declared anthropological or archeological or heritage zone. Article XIV of the constitution is not a self-executing provision but acts as a mere directory only. Feliciano’s separate concurring opinion in the landmark case of Oposa v. Facts: A lot was acquired.

No. In this light. Perlas-Bernabe. visual corridors and vista points). However. there are several laws which consistently reiterate the state’s policy to protect and conserve the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources. surroundings. Primarily. or if it needs future legislation for completion and enforcement.R. setting or backdrop of a historical or cultural heritage or resource. “Setting” is to be understood as surroundings of the place. operable legal right. none of them definitely map out the boundaries of protection and/or conservation. neighborhood. We should decide this case conscious that we here exercise our symbolic function as an aspect of out power of judicial review. The reason is that if the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self- executing. visual corridors. Article XIV of the Constitution.” the provision must set forth a specific. I join the ponencia in finding that there is currently no such law which specially prohibits the construction of any structure that may obstruct the sightline. it is presumed to be self- executing. involving as they often do fragile and irreplaceable sources of our national identity. Section 15 and 15 of Article XIV of the Constitution is not a self-executing provisions and requires legislative acts for it to give effect to the same. vista and the like of historical monuments are indeed covered by compulsive limitations. To determine whether a provision is self-executing. G. COMELEC. at the time of the enactment of our constitution in 1987. The prohibition is neither explicit nor deducible from any of the statutory laws discuss in the present petition. rather than a constitutional statuary or policy. J.” In constitutional construction. Enabling legislation is still necessary to define the scope. 221697. does not make all constitutional provisions as self-executing. Factoran. “In this case of first impression. In the dissenting opinion of Jardeleza. b. the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. but also its settings (e. however. there has already been a consistent understanding of the term “conservation” in the culture. he states that. Ours is a heavy burden. J. These section mandate the state to conserve and protect our nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources. Section 15 and 16. and heritage context as to cover not only a heritage property’s physical1tangible attributes. how we decide today will define our judicial attitude towards the constitutional values of historic and cultural preservation and protection. This.g. Citing Oposa v. Article XIV of the constitution is not self-executing and are mere statements of principles and policy. sight lines. HOWEVER. Grace Poe-Llamanzares v. 2016 . sites. at least to the extent of providing this court with a reasonable impression that sightlines. permissible measures and possible limitations of such policy. landscapes. the test is whether the provision is “complete in itself as a definitive law. March 8. it is settled that legislative failure to pursue state policies cannot give rise to a cause of action in court. the Court was asked to determine the constitutional dimensions of Section 15 and 16. history.promote and protect historical and cultural heritage and resources.

foreigners is downright discriminatory. Facts: The case rooted from the filing of certificate of candidacy of Grace Poe-Llamanzares. It just doesn't make any sense. There is no reason why this honorable Court should use an improbable hypothetical to sacrifice the fundamental political rights of an entire class of human beings. cannot be considered natural-born Filipino citizens since blood relationship is determinative of natural-born status. Grace was found in Iloilo and was legally adopted. they eventually moved back to the U. The contention is untenable. foundlings are as a class. she went home and met her husband. the burden lies on petitioner to prove that she is a natural-born citizen. However.S and settled down.S. persons of unknown parentage. international conventions and treaties are not self-executory and that local legislations are necessary in order to give effect to treaty obligations assumed by the Philippines. While the 1935 Constitution's enumeration is silent as to foundlings. she was able to secure all of transactions and documents needed for her to permanently stay here in the Philippines. We find no such intent or language permitting discrimination against foundlings. He averred that the fact that foundlings were not expressly included in the categories of citizens in the 193 5 Constitution is indicative of the framers' intent to exclude them. Neither can petitioner seek refuge under international conventions or treaties to support her claim that foundlings have a nationality. Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to foundlings. As a matter of law.9% that any child born in the Philippines would be a natural born citizen. After college. Prior to the elections. and unjust. Upon settling here in the Philippines. He also stressed that there is no standard state practice that automatically confers natural-born status to foundlings. To deny full Filipino citizenship to all foundlings and render them stateless just because there may be a theoretical chance that one among the thousands of these foundlings might be the child of not just one. they were forced to hurry back to the Philippines due to her father’s failing condition and decided to live in the Philippines sometime on December of 2005. a decision denying foundlings such status is effectively a denial of their birthright. Given the statistical certainty 99. there is a need to examine the intent of the framers. Therefore. According to Tatad. Her qualification to join in the presidential election race was tenable considering that she was a foundling. Issue: Whether the contention that international conventions and treaties cannot be taken as a refuge for foundlings to have a state on the ground that it is not self-executory Held: No. Constitutional interpretation and the use of common sense are not separate disciplines. . natural-born citizens. irrational. Tatad theorized that since the Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Estrella Elamparo questioned her being a filipino citizen on the ground that being a foundling. Tatad invoked the rule of statutory construction that what is not included is excluded. particularly foundlings. but two. a requirement to run for presidency. there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings either. it is impossible to determine whether or not she is a natural-born filipino. Grace took up her primary and secondary schooling here in the Philippines but continued her college in the U.

par. In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation. The winning bidder.42 more than the bid of petitioner. Manila Prince Hotel v. is to provide management expertise and/or an international marketing/reservation system. and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel. Issue: Whether or not Sec. and Renong Berhad. Art. which bid for the same number of shares at P44.c. a Malaysian firm.58 per share. No. Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). 122156.R. Facts: The case involved a question as to whether or not The Filipino First policy enshrined under the 1987 constitution is one of self-executing wherein the state shall give preference to qualified filipinos in cases involving concessions covering the national economy and patrimony.000 shares at P41. To all intents and purposes. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self- executing provision with respect to 51% as concessions covering national economy and patrimony Held: Yes. or P2. 50 dated 8 December 1986. pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. or the eventual strategic partner. a Filipino corporation. which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15. 10. 3 February 1997. decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC.00 per share. . G.300. with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator. 2. GSIS.

self- executing unless the contrary is clearly intended. if the provision of the constitution is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation.it has become a part of the national patrimony. we must follow the doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy wherein the constitution is supreme. Generally. In addressing the issue on whether or not the provisions invoked by petitioner is one of self- executing provision. the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self- executing. the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self- executing . Hence. Since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS. In the case at bar. the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non. some constitutions are merely declaration of policies and principles which carries with it the fact that it calls for a legislative act be it be enforced and recognised as an enforceable right. a controlled government-owned and corporation. absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. the hotel business of respondent GSIS is unquestionably a part of the national economy. unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate. it is self-executing. imperious. However.

It was further contended that such policy of the constitution is one of self-executing for it is clear as to its scope and application. Held: No. In the petition filed. Angara.R. In the case at bar. No. renewing or approving new timber license agreements. The trial court dismissed the . goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy” in the international community. Tanada v. a statement which contends that such act of the government is in clear violation of the Constitutional policy which provides that the state shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos and to give preference to qualified Filipinos as well as to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor. then secretary of DENR. The defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint on two grounds: 1) lack of cause of action against him and 2) the issue raised was a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches. No. this only applies to fair competition of enterprise. guided by their respective parents. 10183. domestic materials and locally produced goods. Issue: Whether or not such ratification by the state of the World Trade Organisation may be held as unconstitutional for its clear violation of the Constitutional policy. 1997 Facts: The conflict ensued when a petition was filed questioning the validity of the concurrence of Senate to President’s ratification to the World Trade Organisation. 118295. Factoran. in the patronisation of goods as well as labor. July 30.d. May 2. G. Oposa v. the state is resilient in saying that it favors the filipino manufactured goods and labor for it does not disallow the entry of foreign goods in the country. The constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments. accepting. in favour of filipinos. processing. While it is true that the state shall promote and be bias. filed a complaint praying to order Factoran. his agents.R. G. 1993 Facts: A group or minors. representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing timber license agreement in the country and to cease and desist form receiving. It concluded that such provision of the constitution requires a legislative act before it be considered as a source of enforceable rights e.

E. As a matter of fact. No. Thus. the primary government agency for the proper use and development of the countries natural resources. it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have cause of action in instituting the complaint on the ground of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which serve as the bases for policy formulation and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR.complaint based on the aforementioned grounds. The petitioners have a cause of action. A denial or violation of that right by the owner who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights. Moreover. . the petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to rescind and set aside.O. these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. Section 16. Held: Yes. The right of the petitioners and all they represent to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR‘s duty to protect and advance the said right.

Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the “equal access” provision. The decision. What is recognised is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a . Article II of the 1987 of the Constitution or the equal access to opportunities for public office vested him the constitutional right to run for presidency Held: No. urged Pamatong to file a motion for reconsideration and was docketed in COMELEC.R. The argument of Pamatong is without merit.f. 6558 of 2004. Article II of the 1987 Constitution Issue: Whether or not Pamatong is correct in contending that Section 26. together with 35 other aspiring candidates as nuisance candidates who could not wage national campaign and/or not nominated by any political party nor supported by the same. petitioner seeks to reverse the resolutions which were allegedly rendered in violation of his right to ―equal access to opportunities for public service‖ under Section 26. was not unanimous. Section 26. No. G. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II. The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing. the same was not given due course through COMELEC’s resolution no. April 13. There is none. though. 2004 Facts: the sequence of events started when Pamatong filed his certificate of candidacy for president. 161872. COMELEC. Petitioner argues that the COMELEC indirectly amended the constitutional provisions on the electoral process and limited the power of the sovereign people to choose their leaders. Pamatong v. In addressing his issue on the “equal access to opportunities for public office” vested him an enforceable right to pursue his candidacy. In his Petition For Writ of Certiorari. the same was reviewed and declared Pamatong.

As earlier noted. the privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations as such that the COMELEC consider as “nuisance candidates”. In the case at bar. there is no showing that any person is exempt from the limitations or the burdens which they create.guideline for legislative or executive action.[3] The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts. .

in nominating two senators from Nationalista party in order to fill in the deficiency of Tanada valid Held: No. (a) To increase the number of seats from 120 to 180. Issue: Whether the act of Primicias.2 and 3. The most vital feature of the Electoral Tribunal is the equal representation of said parties. 1967 Facts: That sometime on March. alone. Primicias. taking the word “shall” as compulsory in the text of Section 11. In the election of Electoral Tribunal. the Nationalista party dominated majority of the seats in senate. It shall be taken into account the intention behind the law of the its framers.R. COMELEC. was represented by him. with Citizen’s party occupying the second largest of votes in the senate with Tanada as a senator and the president of the same. Such nominations by the nationalist party is deemed null and void. pursuant to Section 11 of Article VI of the constitution wherein the word “shall” was taken by its compulsory form or made it mandatory by the respondents to fill in the remaining two other members of the Electoral Tribunal which tanada failed to provide. (c) and to amend Section 16 of Article VI of the constitution in order to make themselves as delegates to the convention. 103 Phil. Lopez. resulting to equilibrium maintained by the justices of the SC as member of the said tribunals. in its strict form. 4913. 1967. Tanada v. 1. Article VI of the Constitution. As supplementary. On the other hand. it ignored the fact that it is used with respect to the method prescribed for their election. 1 and 3. in a course of special elections and not of a general one as to be construed in the text of the law. Gonzales v. 1051 (1957) Facts: In the 1955 elections. 1967. Cuenco. b. was represented by Laurel. It was later questioned through a case filed by Ramon Gonzales and another by PHILCONSA questioning that such approval by people be held. . Nationalista party. the word “shall” as taken by the Nationalista party as compulsory is a clear violation to the very spirit of the law. It is clear that the intention of the framers of the law intended to avoid the majority of a party to dominate over the Electoral Tribunal for it would naturally defeat the purpose of equal and impartial representation. G. upon nomination of Primicias.VI. RA no. No. Citizen’s party. Primicias nominated Cuenca and Delagado. a bill was passed and was approved by the president on June. upon nomination of Tanada. it is only in cases of substantial doubt and ambiguity that the construction of the laws may be allowed. The Congress passed Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) nos. Subsequently. Mandatory vs. 28196. Directory a. (b) to call for Constitutional Convention. November 9. as a requirment. which provides for the amendments aforementioned in the RBH no. As a general rule. While it is true that the word “shall” carries with it the nature of being a compulsion.

We underscore this. which would require such amendments to be adopted by a constitutional convention. as enjoined in Section 1. Justice Sanchez. the Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the provision which dictates that the extension to people of the constitutional amendments for their ratification be held though special elections. one higher even than that required in order to declare war (Sec. we are sure.. stating that. J. At the outset. nothing there is in the books or in the Constitution itself. We believe it to be beyond debate that in some such situations the amendments ought to call for a constitutional convention rather than a legislative proposal. In the foregoing decision of this court. I believe that intrinsically.. And so. I concur in the result with the opinion penned by Mr. The opinion prepared by the Chief Justice discusses the matter with a fullness that erases doubts and misgivings and clarifies the applicable principles. XV) a three-fourths (3/4) vote of all the members of each legislative chamber.. . J. 24. Issue: Whether or not a Constitutional amendment be submitted for ratification of the people in a general elections? Held: Yes. because it is within the realm of possibility that a Constitution maybe overhauled. other Justices of the Supreme Court concurred the decision. d. As far as the law is concerned. also concurred. states that. To approve a mere proposal to amend the Constitution requires (Art. And yet.. the proposal is to eliminate the all important. b. concurred. Article XV of the Constitution. c. and following the statements expressly provided under Article 15 of the 1935 Constitution. J.. that no one can exercise any authority over the rights and interests of others except pursuant to and in the manner authorized by law. J. that is. Reyes. Fernando. J. with all its dire consequences. J. It is the glory of our institutions that they are founded upon law. Supposing three-fourths of the Constitution is to be amended.Bengzon. the spirit of the supreme enactment. a. Makalintal. Sanchez. However. we are faced with a question of jurisdiction. forbids that proposals therefor be initiated by Congress and thereafter presented to the people for their ratification. Bill of Rights in its entirety. The basis of past cases which followed the “special election” requirement is one of only preferential in nature and does not necessarily negate its authority in submitting the constitutional amendments in general elections. And then. the highest majority ever demanded by the fundamental charter. stating that.L.. J. Or. shared a separate opinion. our approach to the problem of the mechanics of submission for ratification of amendments is that reasoning on the basis of the spirit of the Constitution is just as important as reasoning by a strict adherence to the phraseology thereof. the manner prescribed in the aforesaid provisions is sufficient for the purpose of having the proposed amendments submitted to the people for their ratification.P. too. Article VI).B. A few words may however be added. considered in itself and without reference to extraneous factors and circumstances.