You are on page 1of 12

VI.

Principles and State Policies

1. Villavicencio vs. Lukban [GR 14639, 25 March 1919]
En Banc, Malcolm (J): 3 concur, 2 concur in result, 2 dissented in separate opinions

Facts: The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice, ordered the segregated
district for women of ill repute, which had been permitted for a number of years in the city of Manila, closed. Between October
16 and October 25, 1918, the women were kept confined to their houses in the district by the police. Presumably, during this
period, the city authorities quietly perfected arrangements with the Bureau of Labor for sending the women to Davao,
Mindanao, as laborers; with some government office for the use of the coastguard cutters Corregidor and Negros, and with the
Constabulary for a guard of soldiers, At any rate, about midnight of October 25, the police, acting pursuant to orders from the
chief of police, Anton Hohmann and the Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon the houses, hustled some
170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the steamers that awaited their arrival. The women were given no
opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently were under the impression that they were being taken to a police station
for an investigation. They had no knowledge that they were destined for a life in Mindanao. They had not been asked if they
wished to depart from that region and had neither directly nor indirectly given their consent to the deportation. The involuntary
guests were received on board the steamers by a representative of the Bureau of Labor and a detachment of Constabulary
soldiers. The two steamers with their unwilling passengers sailed for Davao during the night of October 25. The vessels reached
their destination at Davao on October 29. The women were landed and receipted for as laborers by Francisco Sales, provincial
governor of Davao, and by Feliciano Yñigo and Rafael Castillo. The governor and the hacendero Yñigo, who appear as parties in
the case, had no previous notification that the women were prostitutes who had been expelled from the city of Manila. Just
about the time the Corregidor and the Negros were putting in to Davao, the attorney for the relatives and friends of a
considerable number of the deportees presented an application for habeas corpus to a member of the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, the application, through stipulation of the parties, was made to include all of the women who were sent away
from Manila to Davao and, as the same questions concerned them all, the application will be considered as including them.
Some of the women married, others assumed more or less clandestine relations with men, others went to work in different
capacities, others assumed a life unknown and disappeared, and a goodly portion found means to return to Manila (7 of which
became witnesses in the present case).

Issue: Whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy to acquire the persons of the prostitutes shipped to
Davao.

Held: A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential object and purpose
of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve
a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The forcible taking
of these women from Manila by officials of that city, who handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in a distant
region, deprived these women of freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned. Placed in Davao
without either money or personal belongings, they were prevented from exercising the liberty of going when and where they
pleased. The restraint of liberty which began in Manila continued until the aggrieved parties were returned to Manila and
released or until they freely and truly waived this right. Further, if the public official is within the jurisdiction of the court and has
it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do so.
Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the
writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could
deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, these same officials must necessarily have the same means to return
them from Davao to Manila. The said officials, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of
her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost
her birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not thus be easily evaded. Both on reason and
authority, that no one of the defenses offered by the respondents constituted a legitimate bar to the granting of the writ of
habeas corpus.

invoking his emergency powers. Some eight years thereafter. they were no longer the owners of the land they had purchased with their hard-earned money.. a piece of land in the latter’s subdivision in Caloocan City. The Tuasons took possession of their property. On the strength of this presidential decree. if it be shown that the acts were done without or in excess of jurisdiction. 6 and they prayed that the Register of Deeds be directed to cancel the derogatory inscription on their title and restore its efficacy. the present bona fide occupants thereof. Said Presidential Decree No. Marcos was never vested with judicial power. in violation not only of the constitutional provisions on due process and eminent domain 5 but also of the provisions of the Land Registration Act on the indefeasibility of Torrens titles. Tuason vs Register of Deeds of Caloocan GR No 70484 29 January 1988 Facts: Spouses Tuason were retired public school teachers. 293 made the finding that Carmel had failed to complete payment of the price. They woke up one morning to discover that by presidential flat. Marcos exercised an obviously judicial function. Inc. The acts were completely alien to his office as chief executive. and applied the law to those facts. or an exercise of jurisdiction — which is the power and authority to hear or try and decide or determine a cause. 293 with immediate effect. Inc. Inc. the Tuasons’ travails began. being vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law — the judicial acts done by him were in the circumstances indisputably perpetrated without jurisdiction. and those between the latter and the subsequent transferees. because done by an officer in the performance of what in essence is a judicial function. With funds from their retirement benefits and savings. such power. are hereby cancelled. in the following imperious manner: order and decree that any and all sales contracts between the government and the original purchasers. He made a determination of facts. The decree invalidated inter alia the title of the Tuasons’ vendor.” On September 14. Since Mr. and that their land and the other lots in the subdivision had been “declared open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association. that their certificate of title is declared invalid and null and void ab initio and considered cancelled as against the Government and the property described herein is declared open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association. The Tuason Spouses thereupon filed with this Court a petition for certiorari assailing the Marcos decree as an arbitrary measure which deprived them of their property in favor of a selected group. and utterly beyond the permissible scope of the legislative power that he had. as everyone knows.2. Marcos disposed of the land of the petitioner spouses and others similarly situated as they. 1973-a year almost to the day after the declaration of martial law Mr. which had earlier purchased from the Government the land it had subsequently subdivided into several lots for sale to the public. and any and all transfers are hereby declared invalid and null and void ab initio as against the Government. they bought from Carmel Farms. Mr. It will also appear that an executive officer had acted without jurisdiction — exercised judicial power not granted to him by the Constitution or the laws — and had furthermore performed the act in violation of the constitutional rights of the parties thereby affected. or with grave abuse of discretion. These acts essentially constitute a judicial function. issued Presidential Decree No. declaring what the legal rights of the parties were in the premises. . These acts may thus be properly struck down by the writ of certiorari. Carmel. Issue: WON the remedy of petition for certiorari was proper Decision: The decree reveals that Mr. the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City caused the inscription on the Tuasons’ title. Marcos. In virtue of this sale. Carmel’s Torrens title was cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the Tuasons. The Court has it in its power to treat the petition for certiorari as one for prohibition if the averments of the former sufficiently made out a case for the latter.

On Dec 3rd. Furthermore. Marcos. 15 September 1989] En Banc. But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements in the military establishment and among rabid followers of Mr. Angara filed before the Elec. 4. No. Col. Cortes (J): 6 concur. the takeover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly. its power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established. Ferdinand E. Article VIII of the Constitution. returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly. Commission denied Angara's petition. Her ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor were candidates voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for the 1st district of Tayabas province. In his stead. that he be declared elected member of the Nat'l Assembly. He then took his oath of office on Nov 15th. The Elec. Nat'l Assembly passed Res. and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. 1 on leave Facts: In February 1986. Marcos. Section 4. Angara prayed for the issuance of writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission taking further cognizance of Ynsua's protest. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution enshrined the victory of "people power" and also clearly reinforced constitutional moorings of Mrs.” In view of the deliberations of the framers of the Constitution. Marcos vs. it is held that the Electoral Commission was acting within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua. On 28 August 1987. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. This did not. ANGARA vs ELECTORAL COMMISSION G. The Judiciary. Aquino's presidency. in turn. Corazon C. both combatants and civilians. 5 dissent in separate opinions. Marcos. and Whether the said Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming cognizance of the protest filed over the election of herein petitioner. to define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support. No 8 which declared with finality the victory of Angara. with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law. He contended that the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the said Electoral Commissions as regards the merits of contested elections to the Nat'l Assembly and the Supreme Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the case. and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. Manglapus [GR 88211. On Oct 17 1935. the National Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain extent.R. however. There were also the communist insurgency and the secessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Mr. Commission a motion to dismiss the protest that the protest in question was filed out of the prescribed period. On Dec 20. but the message they conveyed was the same — a split in the ranks of the military establishment that threatened civilian supremacy over the military and brought to the fore the realization that civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious military. The petition of writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission is hereby denied. dead. 1 concurs in separate opinion. Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from Hawaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. There were several other armed sorties of lesser significance.3. HELD: The National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is necessary in the appointments of certain officers. Electoral Commission passed a resolution in Dec 9th as the last day for the filing of the protests against the election. L-45081 July 15 1936 SEPARATION OF POWERS FACTS: Jose Angara and Pedro Ynsua. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments. the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Angara as member-elect of the Nat'l Assembly for garnering the most number of votes. On Dec 8. Gregorio Honasan. This power of has been stated in Section 2. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. led a failed coup that left scores of people. to the extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own in the areas they effectively control while the separatists are . one of the major players in the February Revolution. stop bloody challenges to the government. Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a motion of protest against the election of Angara. Article VI of the Constitution provides that “x x x The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. ISSUES: Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy.

and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action.e. Hence. the maintenance of peace and order. More than that. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. the President is. against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof. the Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "the prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "the maintenance of peace and order. and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. However. the constitutional guarantees must be adjusted to the requirements of equally important public interests." as distinguished from the "right to enter his own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived. in light of the attendant circumstances in the present case. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Mr. under our Constitution. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated. But Mrs. in his deathbed. Marcos and his family. The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. among other things. has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. The efforts at economic recovery. which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel. it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Thus. under the Constitution." which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security. Miriam Defensor Santiago as Immigration Commissioner. the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state. Catalino Macaraig as Executive Secretary. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" separately from the "right to leave any country. three years after Mrs. Since the persons who seek to return to the country are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be ill-gotten wealth are sought to be recovered. Now. and thepromotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. the protection of life. in drawing a plan of government. the right involved is the right to return to one's country." On the other hand. having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution. Marcos. in making any decision as President of the Republic. Not only through resort to arms but also through the use of propaganda have they been successful in creating chaos and destabilizing the country. has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. the right to leave a country. as such are neither absolute nor inflexible. the protection of life. a totally distinct right under international law. Sedfrey Ordonez as Secretary of Justice. Essentially.. and adhere to them.virtually free to move about in armed bands. or from another point of view. public order. considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Marcos and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode. Issue: Whether Ferdinand E. Marcos' petition for mandamus and prohibition. Aquino. and to return to his country. independent from although related to the right to travel. Fidel Ramos as Secretary of National Defense. i. On the other hand. and property. The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. the Court cannot argue with that determination. service and protection of the people. including his own. the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" and the right to "be free to leave any country. promote their welfare and advance the national interest. but the right to return may be considered. public health or morals or the separate rights and freedoms of others. the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people. as a generally accepted principle of international law and. Thus. and in directing implementing action for these plans. Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political." It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. while the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has remained elusive. have yet to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of the masses. Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines. constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. There has been no let up in these groups' determination to wrest power from the government. Held: The individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. Aquino assumed office. in the exercise of presidential functions. and Renato de Villa as Chief of Staff. to issue travel documents to Mr. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge of the state of the economy." Admittedly. asking the court to order Raul Manglapus as Secretary of Foreign Affairs. . liberty and property. liberty. including his own. the President has to consider these principles. is part of the law of the land.

the Supreme Court declared that there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. thus presenting a question of policy. and (5) excessive campaign expenditures and other violations of the 1971 Election Code. the right of respondent (protestee) to continue as mayor rests on the legality of his election which has been protested by herein petitioner. at which time petitioner had already completed presenting his evidence and in fact had rested his case. 1971 elections. herein petitioner. the provisions in the 1935 Constitution relative to all local governments have been superseded by the 1973 Constitution. and that Section 2 of Article XI thereof entrusted to the National Assembly the revamp of the entire local government structure by the enactment of a local government code.. at the time of its ratification and effectivity and are the only ones authorized to continue in office and their term of office as extended now depends on the pleasure of. they were not duly elected to their respective positions and consequently. 1972. enjoy their privileges and emoluments. Until a subsequent law or presidential decree provides otherwise. commenced proceedings beamed mainly at the proper determination in a judicial forum of a proclaimed candidate-elect’s right to the contested office. Thereafter or on October 10. No. then certainly. the incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. 1972. 1973. have no right to hold the same. albeit under protest or contest” and that “subject to the constraints specifically mentioned in Section 9. 1973. Therefore. 1081. who seasonably filed a protest against the election of the former with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Casibang v. placing the entire country under Martial Law.R. for the respondent Judge to still continue assuming jurisdiction over the pending election protest of petitioner is for him to take cognizance of a question or policy in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislative or Executive branch of the government. (2) terrorism. all local government should adhere to our parliamentary form of government. J. Article XVII of the Transitory Provisions. the 1971 Constitutional Convention passed and approved a Constitution to supplant the 1935 Constitution. respondent Yu moved to dismiss the election protest of petitioner on the ground that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the same in view of the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution by reason of which — principally) Section 9 of Article XVII [Transitory Provisions] and Section 2 of Article XI — a political question has intervened in the case.” He further submitted that local elective officials (including mayors) have no more four-year term of office. within the time-frame prescribed in the Election Code of 1971. protected only those incumbents. if in fact and in law. it neither was. 1973. Issue: whether the issue involves a political question and therefore beyond judicial ambit Held: No. This is clear in the New Constitution under its Article XI. The constitutional grant of privilege to continue in office.5. the necessity and expediency of which are outside the range of judicial review. In short. on the grounds of (1) anomalies and irregularities in the appreciation. they should not be allowed to enjoy the indefinite term of office given to them by said constitutional provision. Respondent Yu contended that “. (3) rampant vote buying. by a plurality of 501 votes over his only rival. cannot be fairly construed as indiscriminately encompassing every person who at the time happened to be performing the duties of an elective office. They are only in office at the pleasure of the appointing power embodied in the New Constitution. and on March 31. and two months thereafter. Should the court decide adversely against him . through Section 9 of Article XVII thereof. Facts: Respondent Remigio P. (4) open voting or balloting. like him. counting and consideration of votes in specified electoral precincts. made by the new Constitution for the benefit of persons who were incumbent officials or employees of the Government when the new Constitution took effect. and the same was thereafter overwhelmingly ratified by the sovereign people of the Republic of the Philippines on January 17. 1971 as the elected Mayor of Rosales. L-38025 August 20.. Aquino G. or specifically on November 29. the incumbent President of the Philippines or the Legislative Department. Pangasinan in the 1971 local elections. Therefore. nor could have been the intention of the framers of our new fundamental law to disregard and shunt aside the statutory right of a candidate for elective position who. as the same has been entrusted or committed to. and under Section 9 of Article XVII. The thrust of the political question theory of respondent Yu is that the 1973 Constitution. Yu was proclaimed on November 9. Section 9 of Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution did not render moot and academic pending election protest cases. perform their functions. more or less. In the meantime or on September 21. The right of the private respondents (protestees) to continue in office indefinitely arose not only by virtue of Section 9 of Article XVII of the New Constitution but principally from their having been proclaimed elected to their respective positions as a result of the November 8. 1979 Makasiar.

Nor is there any act of the incumbent President or the Legislative Department to be indirectly reviewed or interfered with if the respondent Judge decides the election protest. after affirming the jurisdiction of the Judiciary to decide in accordance with the existing laws on criminal and civil cases. . modified or repealed by the National Assembly. 3.” and “according to Section 8. such power does not extend to electoral contests concerning municipal elective positions. and all cases pending in said courts shall be heard. In the light of the foregoing pronouncements. 1081. modification or repeal of Section 220 of the Election Code of 1971 which gave the herein petitioners the right to file an election contest against those proclaimed elected. 3-A. issued by the President of the Philippines merely reiterated his powers under Section 9 of Article XVII of the New Constitution. although Section 9. try and decide the election protests filed by herein petitioners. does not expressly include electoral contests of municipal elective positions as among those removed from the jurisdiction of the courts. in an election protest. 2. the term of office of the private respondents expired. of a particular measure”. and that they are now holding their respective offices under a new term. It refers to those questions which under the Constitution. are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. A‘term’ of office is the period during winch an elected officer or appointee is entitled to hold office. General Order No. tried and determined under the laws then in force. or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. ‘And there has been no amendment. General Order No. No political question has ever been interwoven into this case. although the same is now indefinite. There is a difference between the ‘term’ of office and the ‘right’ to hold an office. The term “political question” connotes what it means in ordinary parlance.” and that “it is erroneous to conclude that under Section 9. 3. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom. What has been directly affected by said constitutional provision is the ‘term’ to the office.the electoral protest. The President did not intend thereby to modify the aforesaid constitutional provision. the ‘term’ refers to the period. simply removes from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court certain crimes specified therein as well as the validity. it did not foreclose any challenge by the herein petitioners. and qualifications of members of the National Assembly as well as elective provincial and city officials (par. for said General Order. of the ‘right’ of the private respondents to continue holding their respective office.” While under the New Constitution the Commission on Elections is now the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections. order or acts issued by the President or his duly designated representative or by public servants pursuant to his decrees and orders issued under Proclamation No. The term has been made applicable to controversies clearly non-judicial and therefore beyond its jurisdiction or to an issue involved in a case appropriately subject to its cognizance. respondent (protestee) would cease to be mayor even before a law or presidential decree terminates his tenure of office pursuant to said Section 9 of Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution. namely. They hold their respective offices still under the term to which they have been elected. perform its functions and enjoy its privileges and emoluments. Article XVII of the New Constitution made the term of the petitioners indefinite. In other words. returns. as to which there has been a prior legislative or executive determination to which deference must be paid. not legality. The New Constitution recognized the continuing jurisdiction of courts of first instance to hear. It is thus beyond the competence of the judiciary to pass upon. a question of policy.entitled to stay therein whether such period be definite or indefinite. A ‘right’ to hold a public office is the just and legal claim to hold and enjoy the powers and responsibilities of the office. try and decide election protests: “Section 7 of Article XVII of the New Constitution provides that ‘all existing laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended. Article XVII of the New Constitution. Article XVII of the New Constitution ‘all courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue and exercise their jurisdiction until otherwise provided by law in accordance with this Constitution. Political questions should refer to such as would under the Constitution be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority is vested either in the President or Congress. as amended by General Order No. Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution). the electoral protest case herein involved has remained a justiciable controversy. the Courts of First Instance presided over by the respondent-Judges should continue and exercise their jurisdiction to hear. duration of length of time during which the occupant of an office is . Hence.’ Consequently. although the ‘right’ of the incumbent to an office which he is legally holding is co-extensive with the ‘term’ thereof. legality or constitutionality of any decree. 2 of Sec.

of course. . No. 7.6. tonnage and wharfage dues. by law. Araneta v Dinglasan G. He applied for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Treasurer of the Philippines from disbursing the funds by virtue of this EO. within the province of the Legislative rather than the Executive Department. L-2044 August 26. is under prosecution in the CFI for violation of the provisions of this EO 62 and prays for the issuance of the writ of prohibition. the President may not assume such power by issuing Executive Orders Nos. revenue or tariff bills. CA 671 declared a state of emergency as a result of war and authorized the President to promulgate rules and regulations to meet such emergency. 475 and 478 which are in the nature of revenue-generating measures. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. like all other bills is. . In the same year. Araneta. bills authorizing increase of the public debt. Enrique Garcia vs Executive Secretary (1992) 211 SCRA 219 – Political Law – Congress Authorizing the President to Tax In November 1990. Sr. J. 1950. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution provides as follows: (2) The Congress may. 4. are prohibited to be exercised by the President. and other duties or imposts . revenue and tariff bills. Both officials refuse to issue the required export license on the ground that the exportation of shoes from the Philippines is forbidden by this EO. the enactment of appropriation. HELD: Under Section 24. EO 62 regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings. However. a representative from Bataan. taxes and charges imposed by law on all articles imported into the Philippines. including crude oil and other oil products imported into the Philippines. 438 which imposed. and for other purposes was assailed by petitioner Eulogio Rodriguez. authorize the President to fix within specified limits. . . it is the Tariff and Customs Code which authorized the President ot issue the said EOs. Leon Ma. and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. 2. . the Act did not fix the duration of its effectivity. avers that EO 475 and 478 are unconstitutional for they violate Section 24 of Article VI of the Constitution which provides: All appropriation. 671 or the Emergency Powers Act. assuming they may be characterized as revenue measures. The petitions challenged the validity of executive orders issued by virtue of CA No. bills of local application.: Facts: 1. elector. as a tax-payer. Enrique Garcia. EO 443 increased the additional duty to 9%. 475 and 478. There is thus explicit constitutional permission to Congress to authorize the President “subject to such limitations and restrictions as [Congress] may impose” to fix “within specific limits” “tariff rates . EO 225. Guerrero seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Administrator of the Sugar Quota Office and the Commissioner of Customs to permit the exportation of shoes. import and export quotas. 1949 to June 30. EO 475 was passed reinstating the previous 5% duty except that crude oil and other oil products continued to be taxed at 9%. Article VI of the Constitution. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. aims to control exports from the Philippines. In 1991. President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 3. EO 192. that therefore Executive Orders Nos. This additional duty was imposed across the board on all imported articles. an additional duty of 5% ad valorem tax. which appropriates funds for the operation of the Government during the period from July 1. . tariff rates. The petitioner. in addition to any other duties. It does not follow. 1949 Tuason. ISSUE: Whether or not EO 475 and 478 are constitutional. He contends that since the Constitution vests the authority to enact revenue bills in Congress. however.R.. and president of the Nacionalista Party.” In this case. that they must be enacted instead by the Congress of the Philippines.

6734 is unconstitutional because it unduly delegates legislative power to the President by authorizing him to merge by administrative determination the existing regions or at any rate provides no standard for the exercise of the power delegated and that the power granted is not expressed in the title of the law. No. HELD: No. which voted for the creation of such region were later on known as the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Congress passed R. 429 providing for the Reorganization of the Administrative Regions in Mindanao. No.al. municipalities and barangays but are "mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes.O. ISSUE: Whether or not the R. The Act fixed a definite limited period.O No." ISSUE: Whether or not CA 671 ceased to have any force and effect HELD: YES. spending or otherwise disposing of that amount or any part of it. Finally.al. was questioned by Antonio Barredo. G. President Corazon Aquino issued E.A 6734. 225 and 226 (dated June 15. The choice of the President as delegate is logical because the division of the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only the administration of local governments but also the direction of executive departments which the law requires should have regional offices. COMELEC) The regions themselves are not territorial and political divisions like provinces. The Court held that it became inoperative when Congress met during the opening of the regular session on May 1946 and that EOs 62. which appropriated P6M to defray the expenses in connection with the national elections in 1949. 96754 June 22. EO 226. et. Nos. it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments. No. and the second appropriating funds for election expenses in November 1949. 62 (dated June 21. 1949 to June 30.R. 1947) regulating house and lot rentals. tax-payer and voter. Section 13 of R. 429 on the ground that the power granted by RA 6734 to the President is only to merge regions IX and XII but not to reorganize the entire administrative regions in Mindanao and certainly not to transfer the regional center of Region IX from Zamboanga City to Pagadian City.” (Pelaez v. This is based on the language of Act 671 that the National Assembly restricted the life of the emergency powers of the President to the time the Legislature was prevented from holding sessions due to enemy action or other causes brought on by the war. 1995 FACTS: Pursuant to the Constitution. 192. Executive Orders No. 1948) regulating exports.A. Section 13 of RA 6734 which authorizes the President to merge the existing regions. 1950. as a citizen. were therefore declared null and void for having been issued after Act No. Consistent with the authority granted by Article XIX. The session of the Congress is the point of expiration of the Act and not the first special session after it. 225 and 226 were issued without authority of law . 192 (dated December 24. The provinces of Lanao Del Sur. It involves no more than are definition or redrawing of the lines separating administrative regions for the purpose of facilitating the administrative supervision of local government units by the President and insuring the efficient delivery of essential services .aw They also challenge the validity of E. Petitioners contend that Art. While the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution. 5. The power conferred on the President is similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which has been described as "administrative in nature. No. Congress merely followed the pattern set in previous legislation dating back to the initial organization of administrative regions in 1972. Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. 8. 1. 2.1949) the first appropriation funds for the operation of the Government from July 1. Auditor General)Thus. the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao calling for a plebiscite to create an autonomous region. cities. He asked the Court to prevent "the respondents from disbursing. XIX. the regrouping is done only on paper. v. Maguindanao. in conferring on the President the power to merge by administrative determination the existing regions following the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. CHIONGBIAN.A 6734 is invalid because it contains no standard to guide the President’s discretion. (Abbas v. ORBOS et. 671 had lapsed and/or after the Congress had enacted legislation on the same subjects.

O. KURODA vs JALANDONI 83 Phil. E. the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U. of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor. 68. He further underscores the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague Convention on the Rules and Regulations Covering Land Warfare hence we cannot impose against him any criminal charges because it has no laws to base on. due to the atrocities that were done against non combatant civilians and prisoners during the war. ISSUE: Was E. the warrant of arrest issued by the U. PD 1069. national or international.S. 171 – Political Law – Generally Accepted Principles of International Law FACTS: Shigenori Kuroda was the highest ranking Japanese officer stationed in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. Note Verbale No. 139465 Jan. 68 valid and constitutional. In facts these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations the United State and Japan who were signatories to the two Convention. No. Kuroda is questioning the legality of the said EO arguing that the same is not provided for in the Constitution. Hon. No. Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. No. He was then charged before the Military Commission. J. 68 which established the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals.9.] YES. Lessons: Extradition Process Laws: Extradition Treaty between the Philippines and the United States.S. Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. District Court. Southern District of Florida. Justice v. headed by Major General Rafael Jalandoni. 68 valid and constitutional? HELD: [The Court DENIED the petition and upheld the validity and constitutionality of E. and other .O.O. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States attached with the Grand Jury Indictment. part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. Lantion GR No. Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3. It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form. His trial was in pursuant to Executive Order No. that – The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those person military or civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war. 18 2000 MELO. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted and policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution. xxx xxx xxx Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947. Bill of Rights FACTS: In accordance to "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America" (RP-US Extradition Treaty).

Whether or NOT the right of the people to information on matters of public concern granted under Sec. Jimenez request for extradition documents based on the following: i. 99-94684 and the TRO and proceded on the issues. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith". Evaluation by the Department of the documents is not a preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary investigation of criminal cases. ii. it must comply with the request of the United States Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the subject information. Extradition is a tool of criminal law enforcement and to be effective. and other supporting documents and the right to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents within 10 days from receipt is dispensable iii. Petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers. Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty provides that the Philippine Government must represent the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. 2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another. Lantion to cease and desist from enforcing the order. III of the 1987 Constitution is violated HELD: DISMISSED for lack of merit. After the filing of the petition for extradition. the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation to maintain the status quo by refraining from committing the acts complained of. 3. the affidavits. from conducting further proceedings in connection with the request of the United States Government. Hon. Lantion ordered the Secretary of Justice. and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. Jimenez filed with filed with the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region a petition presided over by the Honorable Ralph C. Whether or NOT the twin basic due process rights granted by Sec.D. the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. 1069. Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count) v. No. the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions are not available. 26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax. Maximum Penalty:5 years/count) iii. Jr. the person sought to be extradited will be furnished by the court with copies of the petition. 6 counts. It merely determines the compliance of the Requesting Government with the procedures and requirements under the relevant law and treaty. Thus. Whether or NOT the evaluation procedure is not a preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary investigation of criminal cases ii. 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court on the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint. radio. Jimenez was charged with the following: i. Maximum Penalty: less than 1 year) The Department of Justice denied Mr. or television. Evidentiary requirements are under Section 4 of P.. and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation: i. 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States. 33 counts. the Court brushed aside peripheral procedural matters which concern the proceedings in Civil Case No. enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from performing any act directed to the extradition v. prohibition to restrain the Department from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in court iv. Due to transcendental importance. from filing the corresponding Petition with a Regional Trial court and from performing any act directed to the extradition for a period of 20 days from service of the order. Lantion against the Secretary of Justice. application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction Honorable Ralph C. Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count) ii. ISSUE: i.D. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines ordered Hon. Furthermore. .supporting documents on June 18. Thus. iii. 7 of Art. Davide. 2 counts.4 counts. mandamus to compel the Department to furnish the extradition documents ii. No. 1999 denying his request iii. Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty between the Philippines and the United States enumerates the documentary requirements and establishes the procedures under which the documents submitted shall be received and admitted as evidence. Hilario G. The Department of Justice under P. Mr. certiorari to set aside Department’s letter dated July 13. 1999. Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count) iv. 2 counts. 1069 is the counsel of the foreign governments in all extradition requests. Mr. 18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries. requests for extradition or surrender of accused or convicted persons must be processed expeditiously.

Art. PD 1069). The presiding judge shall issue an order summoning the prospective extraditee to appear and to answer the petition. 2. addressed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Sec. Extradition Petition After delivery of the Extradition Request by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Secretary of Justice. the Department of Foreign Affairs failed to discharge its duty of evaluating the same and its accompanying documents. 1999 (the following day the Department of Justice received the request). the Court laid down the test of determining whether an administrative body is exercising judicial functions or merely investigatory functions applies to an administrative body authorized to evaluate extradition documents. If the only purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before it based on the facts and circumstances presented to it. 9 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty) to prevent flight but he shall be automatically discharged after 60 days (Par. Otherwise. At such stage. a preliminary investigation. BUT 2) it results in an administrative if adverse to the person involved. 20[d] PD 1069) if no request is submitted. It is not a criminal investigation but it is also erroneous to say that it is purely an exercise of ministerial functions. which is a useful aid or tool in an administrative agency's performance of its rule-making or quasi-judicial functions. then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment. 6. Extradition Request The Extradition Request (Sec. the role of the administrative body is limited to an initial finding of whether or not the extradition petition can be filed in court. may cause his immediate incarceration The evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. 5. PD 1069) is made by the Foreign Diplomat of the Requesting State. can possibly lead to his arrest. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs has the executive authority to conduct the evaluation process which. 5. belongs to a class by itself or is sui generis. The attorney shall file a written Extradition Petition with the proper regional trial court. just like the extradition proceedings proper. with a prayer that the court take the extradition request under consideration (Par. 2[c] of PD 1069) at 2 stages: 1) provisional arrest of the prospective extraditee pending the submission of the request This is because the Treaty provides that in case of urgency. or that the offense is a military one which is not punishable under non-military penal legislation. 1. PD 1069). Sec. 5. which may result in the filing of an information against the respondent. the latter shall designate and authorize an attorney in his office to take charge of the case (Par. a contracting party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought pending presentation of the request (Par. organizing and analyzing evidence. Thus. PD 1069 and Pars. the executive authority has the power: 1) to make a technical assessment of the completeness and sufficiency of the extradition papers in form and substance 2) to outrightly deny the request if on its face and on the face of the supporting documents the crimes indicated are not extraditable 3) to make a determination whether or not the request is politically motivated. 1. RP-US Extradition Treaty) 2) temporary arrest of the prospective extraditee during the pendency of the extradition petition in court (Sec. Art. The power of investigation consists in gathering. 1. the extradition request was delivered to the Department of Foreign Affairs on June 17. Torres. Extradition Hearing . 4 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty) or 20 days (Sec. PD 1069). 5. subsequently rearrested (Par. 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty) that is indispensable to prosecution. Similar to the evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. Art 9. and if the agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties. 2 and 3. The judge may issue a warrant of arrest if it appears that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice or to prevent flight (Par. The peculiarity and deviant characteristic of the evaluation procedure is that: 1) there is yet no extradite. NO. PD 1069). The court has the power to determine whether or not the extradition should be effected. Thus. and hearing. and to the deprivation of his liberty. The characterization of a treaty in Wright was in reference to the applicability of the prohibition against an ex post facto law. he can be continuously detained. information. In this case. Sec. In Ruperto v. The process may be characterized as an investigative or inquisitorial process (NOT an exercise of an administrative body's quasi- judicial power) (Sec. 4.i. 6. or if not. It had nothing to do with the denial of the right to notice. The evaluation procedure (in contrast to ordinary investigations) may result in the deprivation of liberty of the prospective extraditee or accused (Sec.

which cannot just be completed in an abbreviated period of time due to its intricacies and certain problems in the extradition papers (such as those that are in Spanish and without the official English translation. . ii. Petitioner contends that United States requested the Philippine Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. and those that are not properly authenticated) it cannot to be said to be urgent. The Court’s decision on whether the petition is extraditable based on the application of the dual criminality rule and other conditions mentioned in Article 2 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty or whether or not the offense for which extradition is requested is a political one (Par. the veil of secrecy cannot be lifted at any stage of the extradition proceedings. iii. however has been overturned by petitioner's revelation that everything it refuses to make available at this stage would be obtainable during trial. PD 1069). we must apply the rules of fair play." since private respondent's due process rights. no official governmental action of our own government has as yet been done. and in contrast. 12. PD 1069) The attorney may represent the Requesting state. Later. PD 1069). although not guaranteed by statute or by treaty. 3. NO. with the meticulous nature of the evaluation. PD 1069) and appealable with the Court of Appeals where the provisions of the Rules of Court governing appeal in criminal cases in the Court of Appeals shall apply except for the required 15-day period to file brief (Sec. because our government by then shall have already made an official decision to grant the extradition request. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes the twin rights of notice and hearing from a prospective extradite. YES. records of the extradition hearing would already fall under matters of public concern. If the information is truly confidential. insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the proceedings. shall apply during the Extradition Hearing (Par. Therefore. The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for "justice outside legality. Sec. (Sec. In the absence of a law or principle of law. 9. The provisions of the Rules of Court. Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty) shall be final and immediately executory (Sec. 1. 8. Such argument. 13. hence the invocation of the right is premature. However in this case. During the evaluation procedure. notice and hearing requirements of administrative due process cannot be dispensed with and shelved aside. are protected by constitutional guarantees.