CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

File No. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

PREAMBLE

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty

God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a
Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote
the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure
to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and
democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this
Constitution.

1. POLITICAL LAW

Is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and
operation of the governmental organs of the State and defines the
relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (Macariola vs.
Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77).

Constitution – the document which serves as the fundamental law of

the state; that written instrument enacted by direct action of the people
by which the fundamental powers of the government are established,
limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among
the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit
of the body politic.

Constitutional Law – designates the law embodied in the Constitution

and the legal principles growing out of the interpretation and application
of its provisions by the courts in specific cases.

2. STATE

a. Definition, distinguished from nation.

State – a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently
occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control,
and possessing a government ti which a great body of the inhabitants
render habitual obedience; a politically organized sovereign community
independent of outside control bound by ties of nationhood, legally
supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning
under a regime of law (CIR v. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23).

State is a political and geopolitical entity; while, Nation is a

cultural and/ or ethnic entity.

While the distinction may be useful for purposes of political sociology, it

is of little consequence for purpose of constitutional law (Bernas)

b. Territory

ARTICLE I
NATIONAL TERRITORY

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all

the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

The national territory of the Philippines comprises:

1) the Philippine archipelago
2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction

Philippine Archipelago – that body of water studded with islands which

is delineated in the Treaty of Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of
Washington (1900) and the Treaty with Great Britain (1930).

- consists of its
a. Terrestrial
b. Fluvial
c. Aerial domains
- including its
a. Territorial sea
b. The seabed
c. The subsoil
d. The insular shelves; and
e. The other submarine areas

Internal Water – the waters around, between and connecting the island
of the archipelago, regardless of their breath and dimensions.

All other Territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or

jurisdiction – includes any territory that presently belongs or might in
the future belong to the Philippines through any of the accepted
international modes of acquiring territory.

Archipelagic Principle

Two elements:
1. The definition of internal waters (supra)
2. The straight baseline method of delineating the territorial sea –
consists of drawing straight lines connecting the outermost points on
the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the
general direction of the coast.

Important distances with respect to the waters around the

Philippines
Territorial Sea 12 nautical miles (n.m.)
Contiguous Zone 12 n.m. from the edge of the
Exclusive Economic Zone territorial sea
200 n.m. from the baseline
(Includes T.S. and C.Z.)

Note: There can be a Continental Shelf without an EEZ, but not an

EEZ without a Continental Shelf.

Territorial Sea – the belt of the sea located between the coast and
internal waters of the coastal state on the one hand, and the high seas
on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low water mark.
(LOS)

Contiguous Zone – extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial

sea. Although not part of the territory, the coastal State may exercise
jurisdiction to prevent infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary laws.
Exclusive Economic Zone – body of water extending up to 200 nautical
miles, within which the state may exercise sovereign rights to explore,
exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources.

The State in the EEZ exercises jurisdiction with regard to:

1. the establishment and use of artificial island, installation, and

structures;
2. marine scientific research;
3. the protection and preservation of marine environment

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The Convention has substantial provision which help in the

understanding of the constitutional text. Some important concept found
are the following;

Archipelagic State - means a State constituted wholly by one or more

archipelagos and may include other island.

Archipelago – means a group of islands… form an intrinsic geographical

economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as
such.

Territorial Sea - (supra)

Baselines - is the law-water line along the coast as mark on large scale
charts officially recognized by the coastal State.

A state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea subject to the right of
innocent passage by other states.

Innocent passage -is a passage not prejudicial to the

interests of the coastal State nor contrary to recognized
principles of international law.

Article 53 of the Convention says that “ archipelagic State may designate

sea lanes and air routes there above, suitable for the continuous and
expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its
archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.”

c. Sovereignty and jurisdiction – Article II, Sec. 1-2,

CONSTITUTION
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of

national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity
with all nations.

i. Sovereignty – definition, aspects, situs,

essential qualities

 Definition

Sovereignty - is the power of the State to regulate matters within its

own territory.

Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates

from them. This power resides in the “people” understood as those who
have a direct hand in the formulation, adoption, and amendment or
alteration of the Constitution.

Political writer distinguish between legal sovereignty and political

sovereignty. The former is described as the supreme power to make laws
and the latter as the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and
non-legal, which determine the course of law.

Sovereign authority, moreover, is not always directly exercised by the

people. It is normally delegated by the people to the government and to
the concrete persons in whose hands the powers of government
temporarily reside. Such authority continues with the consent of the
people.

Finally, is recognition by other states a constitutive element of a state

such that even it has all four elements of the Montevideo Convention it is
not a state if it has not been recognized? In International law, there are
two views on this. One view, the constitutive theory, is that recognition
“constitutes” a state. The other view, “the declaratory theory, is that
recognition is merely “declaratory” of the existence of the state. In
practice, however, whether recognize or not is largely a political decision.
Republican State - It is one wherein all government authority emanates
form the people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people.

Democratic State – This merely emphasizes that the Philippines has

some aspect of direct democracy such as initiative and referendum.

 Aspects

Effect of Belligerent Occupation – No change in sovereignty. However,

political laws, except those of treason, are suspended; municipal laws
remain in force unless changed by the belligerent occupant.

Principle of Jus Postiminium – At the end of the occupation, political

laws are automatically revived.

Effect of Change of Sovereignty – political laws of the former sovereign,

whether compatible or nor with those of the new sovereign, are
automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by the
affirmative act of the new sovereign. Municipals laws remain in force
(Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77).

 Situs

 Essential qualities

CASES

 The Court held: “Section 21, Article VII deals with treaties or
international agreements in general, in which case, the
concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the
Senate is required to make the subject treaty, or international
agreement, valid and binding on the part of the Philippines. This
provision lays down the general rule on treaties or international
agreements and applies to any form of treaty with a wide variety of
subject matter, such as, but not limited to, extradition or tax
treaties or those economic in nature. All treaties or international
agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject
matter, coverage, or particular designation or appellation, requires
the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.

In contrast, Section 25, Article XVIII is a special provision that

applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military
bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines. Under this provision,
the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the requisites to
render compliance with the constitutional requirements and to
consider the agreement binding on the Philippines. Section 25,
Article XVIII further requires that "foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities" may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a
treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so
required by Congress, and recognized as such by the other
contracting state.

It is our considered view that both constitutional provisions, far

from contradicting each other, actually share some common
ground. In both instances, the concurrence of the Senate is
indispensable to render the treaty or international agreement valid
and effective.

It is a finely-imbedded principle in statutory construction that a

special provision or law prevails over a general one. Lex specialis
derogat generali. Thus, where there is in the same statute a
particular enactment and also a general one which, in its most
comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the
former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the
general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within
its general language which are not within the provision of the
particular enactment.

Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats

the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under
international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.
To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an
agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be
taken equally as a treaty: they are equally binding obligations
upon nations.

Worth stressing too, is that the ratification, by the President, of the

VFA and the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as a clear
and unequivocal expression of our nation's consent to be bound by
said treaty, with the concomitant duty to uphold the obligations
and responsibilities embodied thereunder.

In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President

and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the
Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or
concurrence, to the ratification.
 Beyond this, Article 13 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of
States adopted by the International Law Commission in 1949
provides: "Every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its
obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international
law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws
as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

Equally important is Article 26 of the Convention which provides

that "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and
must be performed by them in good faith." This is known as the
principle of pacta sunt servanda which preserves the sanctity of
treaties and have been one of the most fundamental principles of
positive international law, supported by the jurisprudence of
international tribunals (Bayan vs. Zamora, GR 138570, Oct. 10, 2000).”

ii) Jurisdiction – concept, classes

 Concept

Jurisdiction – is the manifestation of sovereignty.

 Classes

1. Territorial – authority to have all persons and things within its

territorial limits be completely subject to its control and protection.

2. Personal – authority over its nationals, their persons, property, or

acts, whether within or outside its territory.

3. Extraterritorial – authority over persons, things or acts, outside its

territorial limits by reason of their effects to its territory.

CASES

 The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is

necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no
limitation imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving
validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its
sovereignty (Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 968).

 Principle of auto – limitation: “any state may, by its consent,

express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign
rights. A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the
 exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence.
Philippine government has not abdicated it sovereignty over the
American bases in the Philippine as part of the Philippine territory
(People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476).

d. Prerogatives

i) imperium – Article II, Secs. 3-8,

CONSTITUTION

Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the

military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the
people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the
State and the integrity of the national territory.

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect

the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the
State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required,
under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or
civil service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of

life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.

Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

STATE POLICIES

Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In

its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be
national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the
right to self-determination.

Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest,

adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its
territory.
Imperium - the State’s authority to govern embraced in the concept of
sovereignty: includes passing laws governing a territory, maintaining
peace and order over it, and defending it against foreign invasion.

CASES

 Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens

from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its
self – preservation or public interest. It is a police measure against
undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is
found to be injurious to the public good and the domestic
tranquility of the people (Harvey vs. Commissioner, 162 SCRA 840).

 Issue: R.A. No. 1180 violated the UN Charter and the Philippine –
Chinese Treaty of Amity, therefore against the principle of Pacta
sunt servanda. The Court held that the Treaty of Amity between
the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China
guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals ‘upon
the same term as the nationals of any other country. But the
nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals
of all other countries, except those of the United States, who are
granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from
engaging in the retail trade. The Retail Trade Nationalization Law
is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the exercise of the
police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium
of a treaty (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 155).

Principle of Pacta sunt servanda – “Every treaty in force is

binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by
them in good faith.”

 Issue: Validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No.

299, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, premised and
based on the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Sings and Signals.
The Court held that the LOI in question is deemed not
unconstitutional as it was in the exercise of police power as such
was established to promote public welfare and public safety. In
fact, the LOI is based on the constitutional provision of adopting to
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land (Agustin vs. Edu, 88 SCRA 195).

 Issue: The validity of the National Defense Law which establishes

compulsory military service is unconstitutional. The Court held
that the National Defense Law does not go against this
 constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful
compliance therewith. The duty of the Government to defend the
State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the
organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make
this duty of the Government excusable should there be no
sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein (People vs. Lagman, et
al., 66 Phil 13).

 Issue: Deployment of US troops in Basilan and

Mindanao as part of “Balikatan” exercises for being illegal and in
violation of the Constitution. The Court held that “in the absence
of concrete proof , petitioners’ allegation that the Arroyo
government is engaged in “doublespeak” in trying to pass off as a
mere training exercise an offensive effort by foreign troops on
native soil. The petitions invite us to speculate on what is really
happening in Mindanao. Wherefore, the petition and the petition-
in-intervention were dismissed (Lim vs. Exec. Sec’y., GR 151445, April 11,
2002).”

ii) Dominium

Dominium – the capacity of the State to own and acquire property.

Regalian Doctrine – all lands of the public domain belong to the State –
the source of any asserted rights to ownership of land. All lands not
appearing to be clearly of public dominium presumptively belong to the
State.

Public Dominion - are those property intended for public use for public
service. They are outside the commerce of men and therefore not subject
for appropriation.

Note:
 Property of public dominion when no longer needed
for public use or public service, shall form part of the patrimonial
property of the state.

 Public Land is equivalent to Public Domain.

 Government Lands include public land and all

other lands of the government already reserved or devoted to
public use or subject to private rights.

Classification of Lands of the Public Domain:

1. Agricultural Lands
2. Forest or Timber Lands
3. Mineral Lands
4. National Parks

CASES

 Issue: The provision of the joint venture agreement for transfer of

title to AMARI of some of the submerged land which had been
reclaimed were unconstitutional. The Court held that such lands
were “alienable or disposable lands of the public domain” which could
be disposed of by PEA under certain conditions (such as public
bidding). However such lands could only be disposed of by means of
an absolute transfer to private individuals who were Philippine
citizens, Under Sec.3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution a disposal to a
corporation could only be by way of a lease, not a sale. Accordingly
the JVA was declared null and void ab initio (Chavez vs. PEA & AMARI, GR
133250, July 9, 2002).

 Issue: Whether the agreement entered into by Pasay City Council

and the Republic Real Estate Corporation which involved the transfer
of reclaimed foreshore lands is constitutional. The Court held that
the agreement cannot operate to give title to “foreshores”, the areas
between the high tide and low tide marks, rendering the agreement
null and void for being ultra vires (Republic vs CA, GR No. 103882, Nov. 25,
1998).

 The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) was challenged

as unconstitutional for allegedly colliding with the principle of jura
regalia (Regalian Doctrine). Under IPRA, indigenous peoples may
obtain the recognition of their right of ownership over ancestral lands
and ancestral domains by virtue of native title. Seven members of the
Supreme Court voted to dismiss the petition while seven others voted
to grant the same. As the votes were equally divided, the petition was
dismissed pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court with the
result that the constitutionality of the IPRA is deemed upheld (Cruz vs
DENR, GR No. 135385, Dec. 06, 2000).

 Issue: R.A. 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining

Act, along with DENR AO No. 96-04 and the Financial and Technical
Assistance Agreement (FTAA) is unconstitutional for: allowing foreign-
owned companies to extend more than mere financial or technical
assistance to the State, and even permitting to “operate and manage
mining activities”; and allowing both technical and financial
assistance, instead of “either technical or financial assistance.” The
Court held certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO No. 96-40, as well as
of the entire FTAA as unconstitutional, mainly on the finding that
 FTAAs are “service contracts” prohibited by the 1987 Constitution for
being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural
resources, because they allowed foreign control over the exploitation
of our natural resources, to the prejudice of Filipino nation ( La Bugal-
B’laan TA vs DENR, GR No. 127882, Jan. 27, 2004).

iii)

parens patriae – Article II, Secs. 9-28,

CONSTITUTION

Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order
that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and
free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living,
and an improved quality of life for all.

Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right
and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency
and the development of moral character shall receive the support of
the Government.

Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in
nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the
youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement
in public and civic affairs.

Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-

building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men.

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

Section 16. 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.

Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development.

Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic

force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare.

Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent

national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the

private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides
incentives to needed investments.

Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural

development and agrarian reform.

Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of

indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national
unity and development.

Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental,

community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the
welfare of the nation.

Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication

and information in nation-building.

Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local

governments.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities
for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined
by law.

Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the
public service and take positive and effective measures against graft
and corruption.

Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the

State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all
its transactions involving public interest.

Doctrine of Parens Patriae – government as guardian of the rights of

people (Gov’t. of Phil. Island v. El Monte de Piedad).

CASES

 The funds collected as a result of the national subscription opened

in Spain by royal order of the Spanish Government and which were
remitted to the Philippine government to be distributed among the
earthquake sufferers by the Central Relief Board constituted, under
article 1 of the law of June 20, 1849, and article 2 of the instructions
of April 27, 1875, a special charity of a temporary nature as
distinguished from a permanent public charitable institution. As the
Spanish Government initiated the creation of the fund and as the
donors turned their contributions over to that Government, it became
the duty of the latter, under article 7 of the instructions, to exercise
supervisions and control over the monies thus collected to the end
that the will of the donors should be carried out. The relief board had
no power whatever to dispose of the funds confided to its charge for
other purposes than to distribute them among the sufferers, because
paragraph 3 of article 11 of the instructions conferred the power upon
the secretary of the interior of Spain, and no other, to dispose of the
surplus funds, should there be any, by assigning them to some other
charitable purpose or institution. The secretary could not dispose of
any of the funds in this manner so long as they were necessary for the
specific purpose for which they were contributed. The secretary had
the power, under the law above mentioned to appoint and totally or
partially change the personnel of the relief board and to authorize the
board to defend the rights of the charity in the courts. The secretary
of the interior, as the representative of His Majesty's Government,
exercised these powers and duties through the Governor-General of
the Philippine Islands. The Governments of Spain and of the
Philippine Islands in complying with their duties conferred upon them
 by law, acted in their governmental capacities in attempting to carry
out the intention of the contributors. It will thus be seen that those
governments were something more, as we have said, than mere
trustees of the fund.

Effect of laws on transfer of sovereignty: there is abrogation of

laws in conflict with the political character of the substitute sovereign
(political law); great body of municipal law regarding private and
domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by new
ruler (Gov’t of PI vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728).

 Issue: Questioning the validity of EO No. 30 creating a trust under

the name and style of the Cultural Center of the Philippines. The
petition was dismissed. The Court held that the funds administered
by the Center came from donations and contributions, not by
taxation. The duty of caring for governmental property is neither
judicial nor legislative in character is it as surely executive. In behalf
of the State as parens patriae, the President has authority to
implement for the benefit of the Filipino people to administer the
private contributions and donations. It would be an unduly narrow or
restrictive view of such a principle if the public funds that accrued by
way of donation from the US and financial contributions for the
Cultural Center project could not be legally considered as
“governmental property” (Gonzales vs Marcos, 65 SCRA 624).

 Issue: Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the

Director of Public Works prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles from
passing along specifically designated place and time infringe upon the
constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to
insure the well-being and economic security of all people. The Court
held that social justice must be founded on recognition of the
necessity of interdependence diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as
a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the State of promoting the
health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the
greatest good to the greatest number” (Calalang vs Williams, 70 Phil 726).

 Issue: Whether the CHR has the power to issue the “order to
desist” against the demolition of Fermo et. al.'s stalls, and to cite
Mayor Simon et. al. for contempt for proceeding to demolish said
stalls despite the CHR order. The Court held as a reiteration in Export
Processing Zone Authority vs CHR that “the constitutional provision
directing the CHR to 'provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection' may not be construed to confer
 jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of
injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have
expressly said so. Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution
of by law. It is never derived by implication. Not being a court of
justice, the CHR has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of
preliminary injunction may only be issued by the judge of any court
in which the action is pending, or by a Justice of the Court of
Appeals, or of the Supreme Court (Simon vs CHR, GR No. 100150, January
5, 1994).

 Issue: Whether or not the exercise of the freedom of assembly on

the part of a certain students could be a basis for their being barred
from enrollment. The Court held that respect for the constitutional
rights of peaceable assembly and free speech could not be a basis for
barring students from enrollment. The academic freedom enjoyed by
“institutions of higher learning” includes the right to set academic
standards. Once it has done so, however, that standard should be
followed meticulously and cannot be utilized to discriminate against
those students which exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable
assembly and free speech. The constitutional provision also
maintains “a system of free public elementary education and, in areas
where finances permit, establish and maintain a system of free public
education (Villar vs TIP, 135 SCRA 706).

 Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that

respondent's doctoral degree cannot be recalled without violating her
right to enjoyment of intellectual property and to justice and equity.
The Court held that academic freedom is guaranteed to institutions of
higher learning by Art. XIV of the 1987 Constitution. This freedom
includes deciding whom a university will confer degrees on. If the
degree is procured by error or fraud then the Board of Regents,
subject to due process being followed, may cancel that degree. The CA
decision was wrong and was reversed (UP Bd. Of Regents vs. CA, GR No.
134625, August 31, 1999).

 Issue: Whether the trial court erred in upholding respondent's

contention that they qualify as small property owners and are thus
exempt from expropriation. The question now is whether respondents
qualify as “small property owners” as defined in Sec. 3 (q) of RA 7279.
“Small-property owners” are defined by two elements: (1) those
owners of real property whose property consists of residential lands
with an area of not more than 300 square meters in highly urbanized
cities and 800 square meters in other urban areas; and (2) that they
do not own real property other than the same. The share of each
respondents did not exceed 300, and they also claim that the subject
 lots are their only real property. Thus, the Court denied the petition
(Mandaluyong vs. Francisco, GR No. 137152, January 29, 2001).

 The deceased insured himself and instituted as beneficiary, his

child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his
death, the proceeds were paid to him. Hence filed complaint by the
mother, with whom the child is living, seeking the delivery of such
sum. The lower court rendered a decision ordering the uncle to
deliver the proceeds of the policy in question to the mother. In an
appeal from a question of law, the Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the lower court, emphasizing that “the State shall
strengthen the family as a basic social institution. If , as the
Constitution so wisely dictates, it is the family as a unit that has to be
strengthened, it does not admit of doubt that even if a stronger case
were presented for the uncle, still deference to a constitutional
mandate would have led the lower court to decide as it did (Cabanas vs
Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94).

 A college, or any school for that matter, has a dual responsibility to

its students. One is to provide opportunities for learning and the
other is to help them grow and develop into mature, responsible,
effective and worthy citizens of the community. Discipline is one of
the means to carry out the second responsibility. The general rule is
that the authority of the school is co-extensive with its territorial
jurisdiction, or its school grounds, so that any action taken for acts
committed outside the school premises should, in general, be left to
the police authorities, the court of justice, and the family concerned.
However, this rule is subject to following exceptions: (1) violations of
school policies and regulations occurring in connection with a school-
sponsored activity off-campus; and (2) misconduct of student
involves his status as a student or affects the good name or
reputation of the school. The true test of a school's right to
investigate, or otherwise, suspend or expel a student for a misconduct
committed outside the school premises and beyond school hours is
not the time or place of the offense, but its effect upon the morale
and efficiency of the school and whether it, in fact, is adverse to the
school's good order welfare and advancement of its students (Angeles vs
Judge Sison, 112 SCRA 26).

 The concern of the government is not necessarily to maintain

profits of business firms. In the ordinary sequence of events, it is
profits that suffer as a result of Government regulation. The interest
of the State is to provide a decent living to its citizen. The
government has convinced the court that it is its intent. The Court
 did not find the impugned Order to be tainted with grave abuse of
discretion (PASEI vs Drilon, 163 SCRA 386).

 The right of government employees to organize does not include the

right to strike. But the current ban on them against strikes is
statutory and may be lifted by statute (SSSEA vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686).

 Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that

rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
healthful ecology. The case at bar is the minors’ assertion of their
right to a sound environment, and at the same time, the performance
of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
generation to come (Oposa vs Factoran, GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993).

 The United States Supreme Court liberalizes abortion laws up to

the sixth month of pregnancy at the discretion of the mother anytime
during the first six months when it can be done without danger to
the mother (Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113).

 The constitutional right to information on matters of public

concern is self-executing without the need for any ancillary act of
legislation. When the question is one of public right and the object of
mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people
are regarded as the real party interest, and the person at whose
instigation the proceeding are instituted need not show that he is a
citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws (Legaspi vs
CSC, 150 SCRA 530).

 Issue: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was challenged

as an unconstitutional treaty for placing foreign investors on the
same level as Filipinos. The Court held that while the Constitution
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 interests only against
foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. The
constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national
economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic
seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international community (Tanada vs
Angara, GR No. 118295, May 02, 1997).”

 The interconnection which has been required of PLDT is a form of

‘intervention’ with property rights dictated by ‘the objective of the
government to promote the rapid expansion of telecommunications
 services in all areas of the Philippines… at an acceptable standard of
service at reasonable cost.’… The decisive considerations are public
need, public interest, and the common good…. A modern and
dependable communications network rendering efficient and
reasonably priced services is also indispensable for accelerated
economic recovery and development to these public and national
interests, public utility companies must bow and yield (PLDT vs
NTC,190 SCRA 717).

 The applicable provision of law requiring publication in the Official

Gazette is found in Art, 2 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
The court succinctly construed that cited provision of law in point,
holding that “all statutes including those of local application and
private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectively,
which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different
effectively date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are
presidential decrees and executive orders. Administrative rules and
regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative
regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating
only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public,
need not be published (De Jesus vs. COA, GR 1090023, August 12, 1998).