PEOPLE v.

GOZO to apply for license but was repeatedly rejected because it “destroys the
October 26, 1973 | Fernando, J. | Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Loreta Gozo
SUMMARY: Appellant seeks to set aside judgement of the CFI convicting her
of a violation of an ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, requiring a permit from
the municipal mayor for the construction/alteration/modification/demolition of a
bldg. Her main argument is her house was constructed within the naval base
leased to the American armed forces. Court referred to well-settled doctrine that
thereby doe not cease to be Philippine territory. SC affirmed lower court
decision
DOCTRINE:
Art. II, Sec. 1 – The Philippines is a democratic and republican state.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them.
FACTS:
1. Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval Reservation
within the territorial jurisdiction of Longapo City. She demolished the
house, built a new one without a bldg. permit from the City Major of
Olongapo. Acc to her, she was told by an assistant in the City Mayor Office
and neighbors in the area that the permit was not necessary.
2. Juan Malones, bldg. and lot inspector in the City Engineer’s Office and
patrolman from the police force apprehended 4 carpenters working on the
house. They were brought to the police headquarters. After investigation,
Gozo was found guilty by City Court of Olongapo City of violating
Municipal Ordinance and sentenced her to an imprisonment of 1 month.
3. On appeal, Court of First Instance of Zambales found her guilty but
modified sentence to pay a fine of P200 and to demolish the house.
4. Before the Court of Appeals, she brought up the constitutionality of the
ordinance. CA then raised the question to the SC.
view of the public plaza”. Fajardo ended up doing away with the permit
because they needed a place of residence and their former house was stuck
by a typhoon. In contrast, Gozo’s case was a not oppressive, unfair, or
unreasonable. Thus, she was not deprived of due process for not receiving
the same decision as that of Fajardo case.
2 Jurisdiction: Assumption that mere existence of military or naval bases of
a foreign country entails loss of administrative jurisdiction is cuts deeply
into the power to govern. As settled in Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority
may be exercised over its entire domain. Its laws govern therein.
Necessarily, this is exclusive. If not, there is a dimunition of its sovereignty.
- Principle of auto-limitation: any state may by its consent, express or
implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. This is the property
of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination and self-restriction.
- Philippines is not precluded from alloweing another power to
participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain
portions of its territory. If this is the case, by no means does it
follow such areas become impressed with alien character. They
retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to PH
authority. Its jurisdiction might diminish but it does not disappear.
- Thus, bases under lease to the American armed forces (by virtue of
1947 agreement) cannot be a foreign territory.

ISSUE/s: WoN the land leased by US Naval Reservation is part of the Philippine
jurisdiction and can be subject to an ordinance requiring bldg. permits – YES

RULING: Appealed decision AFFIRMED: sentencing her to pay P200 and

imprisonment in case of insolvency. Modification: given 30 days to acquire a permit.
Failure to do so will result in demolition.

RATIO:
1 Gozo tried to invoke the decision in People v. Fajardo that seem to have the
same set of facts. However, conviction of Fajardo was not sustained
because the application of ordinance in that case is oppressive. Fajardo tried