Ocampo vs.

Enriquez
G.R. No. 225973
November 8, 2016

Facts:

President Duterte, through the Secretary of National Defense, Secretary Delfin

Lorenzana, issued a memorandum to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief
of Staff, General Ricardo Visaya to undertake the necessary preparations to facilitate
the internment of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani (LNMB).

Issue:

Whether or not the internment of Marcos at the LNMB is constitutional

considering the petitioners’ contention that it constitutes illegal disbursement of public
funds, and considering further the respondent’s contention that the act involves a
political question and not a justifiable controversy.

Ruling:

Yes, the internment of Marcos at the LNMB is constitutional.

Under the Constitution, the President has the power and duty to ensure that
the laws are faithfully executed.

In the present case, the internment is constitutional since the decision is a

lawful exercise of the power of the President under the Constitution and Executive
Order No. 929.
 Ceniza vs COMELEC
G.R. No. L- 52304
January 28, 1980

Facts:

Pursuant to Batas Blg. 51, COMELEC adopted Resolution No. 1421 which
effectively bars voters in chartered cities, highly urbanized cities, and component cities
from voting in provincial elections.

Issue:

Whether or not the resolution barring voters from voting in provincial elections
is constitutional considering the petitioner’s contention that it would subvert the
principle of republicanism, and considering further the respondent’s contention that
the provincial government has no governmental supervision over highly urbanized
cities.

Ruling:

Yes, Batas Blg. 51 and Resolution No. 1421 is constitutional.

Under the 1973 Constitution, autonomy of local government units shall be

guaranteed and promoted by the State.

In this case, it is only proper to exclude the aforementioned voters from

provincial elections since their cities are independent of the province in the
administration of their affairs.
 Mejoff vs Director of Prisons
G.R. No. L-4254
September 26, 1951

Facts:

Two years had elapsed since the first Mejoff decision was promulgated, yet the
Government has not yet found any way to remove Mejoff from the country although it
should be said in fairness to the deportation authorities that it was through no fault of
theirs that no ship or country would take Mejoff.

Issue:

Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison considering his

contention that aliens illegally staying in the Philippines, even if stateless, have the
right to asylum therein, and considering further the respondent’s contention that
temporary detention is a necessary step in the process of exclusion and expulsion of
undesirable aliens.

Ruling:

Yes, Mejoff should now be released from prison.

Under the Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted

principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.

In this case, the Doctrine of Incorporation holds sway, specifically under the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as approved by the General Assembly of the
United Nations of which the Philippines is member, the right to life and liberty and all
other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed.
 Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
G.R. No. L-2662
March 26, 1949

Facts:

Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese

Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, was charged
before the Philippine Military of War Crimes.

He challenged the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 86 (E.O.

No. 86) that created the National War Crime Office and Prescribed Rules on the Trial
of Accused War Criminals contending that the Philippines is not a signatory to the
Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore,
he is charged of crimes not based on law, national and international.

Issue:

Whether or not the said order creating National War Crime Office and
Prescribed Rules on the Trial of Accused War Criminals is constitutional considering
the petitioner’s contention that Philippines is not a signatory to the agreement, and
considering further the respondent’s contention that said agreement embodied
generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all states.

Ruling:

Yes, E.O. No. 86 is valid and constitutional.

Sec. 3, Art. II of the 1935 Constitution provides: “The Philippines renounces

war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as a part of the law of the Nation.”

In this case, the promulgation and enforcement of E.O. No. 68 is valid and
constitutional since the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva Convention
over which the petitioner was being prosecuted, form part of and are wholly based on
the generally accepted principles of international law which are part of our
Constitution.