Who is

Henry Thoreau

Advocated civil
disobedience not only as a
right but as a duty to pro-
actively change an
oppressive system.

Who is
Henry Thoreau

He believed that having no

government at all is better
than having a bad
government.

 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO,
ET AL. v. COMELEC
F
A The Senate adopted Resolution No. 84 certifying “the existence of
a vacancy in the Senate and calling the Commission on Elections

C to fill up such vacancy through election to be held simultaneously

with the regular election on May 14, 2001, and the senatorial
T candidate garnering the thirteenth highest number of votes shall

S
serve only for the unexpired term of former Senator Teofisto T.
Guingona, Jr.” In the deliberations of the Senate on the resolution,
the body agreed that the procedure it adopted for determining
the winner in the special election was for the “guidance” and
“implementation” of the COMELEC.
 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO,
ET AL. v. COMELEC
ISSUE: Whether or not a special election to fill a vacant three-year
term Senate seat was validly held on May 14 2001, despite the
lack of a “call” for such an election & for lack of notice from
COMELEC.

RULING:
YES, a special election to fill a vacant three-year term Senate
seat was validly held on May 14 2001, even if the COMELEC did
not comply with the requirements of RA 6645, either strictly or
substantially, it does NOT invalidate the special election.
 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO,
ET AL. v. COMELEC
D The electorate should have been informed of the time, place, and
I manner of conduct of the May 14, 2001 special election for the
S single senatorial seat for the unexpired term of VP Guingona.
S However, this is NOT the intention of the said laws, for they still
require that the COMELEC issue an official notice of call of
E special elections. Likewise, neither RA 6645 nor RA 7166
N contemplates the integration of the special election into the
T regular election whereby candidates who filed certificates of
I candidacy for the regular elections also automatically stand as
N candidates in the special election. The Omnibus Election Code is
G clear that a candidate can run for only 1 position in an election.
 THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

F
On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were

A scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement of the Ancestral

Domain Aspect of the GRP - MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of

C 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Invoking the right to information on matters of public concern,

T the petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish

them the complete and official copies of the MA-AD and to

S prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD and the holding of

public consultation thereon. They also pray that the MOA-AD be
declared unconstitutional. The Court issued a TRO enjoining the
GRP from signing the same.
 THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

I
1. Whether or not the signing of the MOA, the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines would be binding itself:

S to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity

(BJE) as a separate state, or a juridical, territorial or

S political subdivision not recognized by law;

to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to

U conform to the MOA;

to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic

E Liberation Front for ancestral domain in violation of

Republic Act No. 8371

 THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. THE GOVERNMENT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

R This strand begins with the statement that it is “the birthright of all
Moros and all Indigenous peoples of Mindanao to identify themselves and
U be accepted as ‘Bangsamoros.’” It defines “Bangsamoro people” as the

L
natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands
including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or

I
colonization, and their descendants whether mixed or of full blood, including
their spouses.

In sum, there is no power nor is there any right to violate the Constitution
G on the part of any official of government. No one can claim he has a
blank check to violate the Constitution in advance and the privilege to cure
the violation later through amendment of its provisions. Respondents'
thesis of violate now, validate later makes a burlesque of the Constitution.

 AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. SPOUSES DAVID

ELISEA RAMOS

F
Spouses David Elisea Ramos discovered that a portion of their registered land
in Baguio City was being used as part of the runway and running shoulder of

A
the Loakan Airport being operated by petitioner Air Transportation Office
(ATO). They agreed after negotiations to convey the affected portion by deed
of sale to the ATO in consideration of the amount of P778,150.00. However,

C the ATO failed to pay despite repeated verbal and written demands.
Thus, they filed an action for collection against the ATO and some of its

T
officials in the RTC. In their answer, the ATO and its co-defendants invoked as
an affirmative defense the issuance of Proclamation No. 1358, whereby

S
President Marcos had reserved certain parcels of land that included the
respondents affected portion for use of the Loakan Airport. They asserted
that the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the action without the States
consent considering that the deed of sale had been entered into in the
performance of governmental functions.
 AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. SPOUSES DAVID
ELISEA RAMOS

ISSUE: Could ATO be sued without the State's consent?

RULING: An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its
own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of
sovereignty. Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper;
otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated. However, the need to
distinguish between an unincorporated government agency performing governmental
function and one performing proprietary functions has arisen. The immunity has been
upheld in favor of the former because its function is governmental or incidental to such
function; it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was not in pursuit
of a necessary function of government but was essentially a business.
 PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, ET AL. v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL
ARROYO, ET AL.

FACTS: President Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a state of national

emergency. This case covers the seven consolidated petitions for
certiorari assailing the constitutionality of PP1017 and General
Order No. 5 implenting the former. It is alleged in doing so,
President Gloria Macapagal - Arroyo committed grave abuse of
discretion and that respondent officials of the Government, in
their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic
institutions are actually trampling upon the very freedom
guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
ISSUE: WON PP1017 and GO No. 5 are constitutional
 PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, ET AL. v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL
ARROYO, ET AL.

R The assailed PP1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President

Arroyo the authority to promulgate decrees. Legislative power is peculiary
U within the province of the Legislature, Section 1, Article VI categorically

L
states that "the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a HOR".

To be sure, neither martial law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of

N emergency can justify President Arroyo's exercise of legislative power by

issuing decrees. It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore,
G cannot be enforced. With respect to "laws", she cannot call the military to
enforce or implement cerain laws such as customs laws, laws governing
family and property relations, laws on obligations and contracts, and the
like. She can only order the military under PP1017, to enforce laws
pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence.
 JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: On April 25, 2001, the Sandigan Bayan issued a resolution finding probable
cause that Joseph Estrada has committed the offense of plunder, and
that he be prosecuted under RA 7080. The petitioner contended that RA
7080 was unconstitutional, on the grounds that:
1. It was vague
2. It dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal
prosecutions;
3. It abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable
under the RPC, thus violating the fundamental rights of the accused.

The said law allegedly suffers from vagueness on the terms it uses,
particularly: "combination", "series", and "unwarranted". Based on this,
Estrada used the facial challenge to question the validity of RA 7080.

 JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

ISSUES: 1.
2.
WON the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague.
WON the fact that the Plunder Law requires less evidence for
proving the predicate crimes of plunder leads to its violation of the
right of the accused to due process
3. WON Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum, and if
so, whether it is within the power of Congress to classify it as such.

RULING: 1. NO. A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because of
the employment of general terms or the failure to define the terms
used therein. The validity of a law is sustained, so long as that law
provides some comprehensible guide as to what would render those
subject to the said law liable to its penalties. The petitioner cannot
rely on the void-for-vagueness doctrine, since this doctrine does not
apply to laws that merely consist of imprecise language.
 JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

RULING: 2. NO. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right of the accused in criminal
prosecutions to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Thus he is
entitled to an acquittal unless the State succeeds in demonstrating the
guilt of the accused with proof beyond reasonable doubt. The contention
that Sec. 4 of RA 7080 does away with proof of each and every
component of the crime is a misconception. Rather than proving each and
every criminal act done, it is enough that the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the
crime as a whole.

3. NO. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent.

The legislative declaration in RA No. 7659 (which has been declared as
constitutionally valid in a previous ruling) that plunder is a heinous offense
implies that it is a malum in se.