Tanada v angara Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO

) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a ³free market´ espoused by WTO. Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention. Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement. Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution ³adopts 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. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda ± international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the ³concept of sovereignty as autolimitation.´ What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

n.cotabato v rp
The Government and the MILF were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The GRP-MILF agreement is the result of a formal peace talks between the parties in Tripoli, Libya in 2001. The pertinent provisions in the MOA-AD provides for the establishment of an associative relationship between the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) and the Central Government. It speaks of the relationship between the BJE and the Philippine government as ³associative,´ thus implying an international relationship and therefore suggesting an

and RA 8371. it virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. (GR No. Republic. by itself. 1986 IN RE: SATURNINO V. government. the observance of the free and prior informed consent (FPIC) of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples. under the MOA-AD. Republic. 3. which entails. While the MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral declaration binding on the Philippines under international law. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people.´ (GR No. Neither the GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee. October 14. respondents¶ act of guaranteeing amendments is. Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress. BERMUDEZ. for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference with that process. 2008) Notes: In this case. already a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally defective. Province of North Cotabato v. 2008) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila G.R. RA 7160. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them. Is the said MOA-AD constitutional? ANSWER: No. petitioner. R E S O L U T IO N PER CURIAM: . 3 is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building.autonomous state. 76180 October 24. Justice Santiago said. No. RA 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991) requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any project or program critical to the environment and human ecology including those that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality. for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence. RA 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral domain. are unconstitutional. Province of North Cotabato v. namely. or the people themselves through the process of initiative. as the clause is worded. the GRP Peace Panel guarantees that necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. is implemented therein.´ She further said that had the MOA-AD been signed by parties. Furthermore. Moreover. it said. among others. The Court explained that the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process. the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE. a Constitutional Convention. EO No. October 14. and armed forces«The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines would have been compromised. among other things. as mandated by EO No. 183591. civil institutions. that the MOA-AD ³contains provisions which are repugnant to the Constitution and which will result in the virtual surrender of part of the Philippines¶ territorial sovereignty. ³would have bound the government to the creation of a separate Bangsamoro state having its own territory. The SC ruled that the MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. 183591. which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total environment.

and provides for the extension of their term to noon of June 30. J. among the present incumbent President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Laurel and the elected President Ferdinand E.. quotes the first paragraph of Section 5 (not Section 7 as erroneously stated) of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution. Hence. President Corazon C. . and it is equally elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure. Aquino. hereby extended to noon of June 30. concurring: FELICIANO. Laurel are the incumbent and legitimate President and Vice-President of the Republic of the Philippines.]. We agree that the petition deserves outright dismissal as this Court has no original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. . The petitioner asks the Court to declare who are "the incumbent President and Vice President elected in the February 7. Aquino was likewise sought to be questioned with the claim that it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. As to lack of cause of action. 1986 election is. 1992. For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter..]) For the above-quoted reason. as reorganized.In a petition for declaratory relief impleading no respondents. J. The 1935 Constitution. Teehankee. there can be no question that President Corazon C. 1986 in G. et al. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. 1986 elections should be addressed not to this Court but to other departments of government constitutionally burdened with the task of making that declaration.J. 43 SCRA 677). Alampay and Paras. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. . (Joint Resolution of May 22.. the petition amounts in effect to a suit against the incumbent President of the Republic. etc. Section 5 of the Draft Constitution adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986. Narvasa. have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government. 73990 [Councilor Clifton U. President Corazon C. 1986 elections" as stated in Article XVIII.. he then asks the Court "to declare and answer the question of the construction and definiteness as to who. petitioner. Fernan. Jr. Cory Aquino. Moreover. it is elementary that this Court assumes no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief.R. which provides in full as follows: Sec. Aquino.R. Laurel... All the eleven members of this Court. And the people have made the judgment. Petitioner's allegation of ambiguity or vagueness of the aforequoted provision is manifestly gratuitous. the 1913 Constitution as amended... the petitioner's prayer for a declaration as to who were elected President and Vice President in the February 7. The certified returns are transmitted to the legislature which proclaims.]. Corazon C. Mrs. 73972 [People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. G. vs. (Tan vs. Prescinding from petitioner's lack of personality to sue or to bring this action. 5. The petition is dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction and for lack for cause of action. Claiming that the said provision "is not clear" as to whom it refers. and to no other persons. through the designated Presiding Head. which are fully applicable to the petition at bar. and G. concurring. Tolentino being referred to under the said Section 7 (sic) of ARTICLE XVIII of the TRANSITORY PROVISIONS of the proposed 1986 Constitution refers to. JJ. 73748 [Lawyers League for a Better Philippines. the petition is hereby dismissed. C. Feria. JJ. Aquino. et al. who were duty elected. which are fully applicable to the petition at bar. MELENCIO-HERRERA. concur.R. for purposes of synchronization of elections. The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May. ACCORDINGLY.or the above-quoted reasons. Yap. Marcos and Vice-President Arturo M. and the 1986 Draft Constitution uniformly provide 'that boards of canvassers in each province and city shall certified who were elected President and Vice President in their respective areas. it being a matter of public record and common public knowledge that the Constitutional Commission refers therein to incumbent President Corazon C. In previous cases. vs. et al. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. Macapagal. 1992 of the first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under said 1986 Constitution. the legitimacy of the government of President Corazon C. 1992 for purposes of synchronization of elections. mutatis mutandis. the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of tlie present government. as a lawyer. The said cases were dismissed outright by this court which held that: Petitioners have no personality to sue and their petitions state no cause of action. The petition furthermore states no cause of action. etc. Ganay vs. No. No. 1992. concurring: GUTIERREZ. No. the second paragraph of the cited section provides for the holding on the second Monday of May. More importantly. they have accepted the government of President Corazon C.

73972. we agree that there is no doubt the 1986 Constitutional Commission referred to President Corazon C.Copies of the certified returns from the provincial and city boards of canvassers have not been furnished this Court nor is there any need to do so. vs. For the foregoing reasons. Finally. 97 Phil. Haworth. 73748. we vote to DISMISS the instant petition. Secretary of Education. J.. 806. we cannot assume the function of stating. concurring: I vote to dismiss this petition on the ground that the Constitution we are asked to interpret has not yet been ratified and is therefore not yet effective. Laurel. I see here no actual conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination at this time. In the absence of a legislature.S. 1986 elections.R.) . Aquino and Vice President Salvador H. Nos. and 73990. CRUZ. 300 U. PACU vs. who were elected President and Vice President in the February 7. 227. As to who are the incumbent President and Vice President referred to in the 1986 Draft Constitution. we agree with the Resolution of the Court in G. (Aetna Life Insurance Co. and neither do we have any factual or legal capacity to officially declare.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.