B: Explanation; Y: Important; P: Text; O: Case; R: Headings/Subheadings;
dignity, as for instance when the greater majority might want
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.
WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF PREAMBLE IN THE
CONSTITUTION?
The Preamble is not a source of rights or obligations.
Because, however, it sets down the origin, scope, purpose of the
Constitution, it is useful as an aid in ascertaining the meaning of
ambiguous provisions in the body of the Constitution. It is thus a
source of light.
(The Preamble of the Constitution is like an introduction that explains the
reason and purpose for creating the Constitution. It doesn't give specific
rights or duties to people, but it helps us understand the main goals and
intentions of the Constitution. When there are parts of the Constitution that
are not very clear, we can look at the Preamble to get a better understanding
of what the Constitution is trying to achieve. So, it's like a source of
guidance or a helpful tool to interpret the Constitution better.)
What is the origin, scope and purpose of the
Constitution as set out in the Preamble?
Its origin, or authorship, is the will of the "sovereign
Filipino people." Its scope and purpose is "to build a just and
humane society and to 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.”
Why does the Constitution now say "Almighty God"
instead of "Divine Providence," as the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions did?
The phrase "Almighty God" is more personal and more
consonant with personalist Filipino religiosity.
(The phrase "Almighty God" is used in a way that feels more personal and is
in line with the religious beliefs of many Filipinos. It connects to the idea of
a powerful and all-knowing God that is central to their faith and
spirituality. By using this phrase, it reflects the deep sense of devotion and
reverence that many Filipinos have towards their faith and their personal
relationship with God.)
What is the meaning of "common good" and how does it
differ from the "general welfare" of the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions?
The phrase "common good" projects the idea of a social
order that enables every citizen to attain his or her fullest
development economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually.
(the phrase "common good" means creating a society where every person can
grow and flourish in all aspects of life, including economically, politically,
culturally, and spiritually. It aims to ensure that everyone's needs are taken
care of, and they have opportunities to reach their full potential.)
The phrase "general welfare" was avoided because it
could be interpreted as "the greatest good for the greatest number"
even if what the greater number wants does violence to human
the extermination of those who are considered inferior.
(the phrase "general welfare" was not used because it might be interpreted as
prioritizing what benefits the majority, even if it harms the dignity and
rights of some individuals. For example, if the majority wants to harm or
discriminate against a particular group, using "general welfare" could
justify such actions. By using "common good," the focus remains on
promoting the well-being and development of all individuals in a way that
respects their dignity and rights.)
What is the significance of the specification of
"equality?"
It emphasizes that a major problem in Philippine
society is the prevalence of gross economic and political
inequalities.
(that a significant issue in Philippine society is the existence of large gaps in
wealth and power among its people. This situation leads to some individuals
having much more wealth and influence than others, creating an imbalance
in opportunities and resources. Addressing this problem is crucial for
building a fairer and more just society where everyone has equal chances for
success and well-being.)
What is the import of "the rule of law?"
This expresses the concept that government officials
have only the authority given them by law and defined by law,
and that such authority continues only with the consent of the
people. The statement is: "Ours is a rule of law and not of men”.
(In our system of government, officials have power and authority based on
the laws that govern the country. Their authority is not unlimited and can
only be exercised within the boundaries set by the law. Additionally, the
people's agreement and acceptance of the law and the government's actions
are what give legitimacy to the authority of those in power. This principle
emphasizes that no one is above the law, and everyone, including
government officials, must follow the rules and laws of the land.)
EVOLUTION OF THE PREAMBLE
Deliberations on the Committee Report
The very first Committee Report to come out for deliberation by
the 1986 Constitutional Commission was a draft of a preamble.
The draft was a modification of the Preamble of the 1973
Constitution and read thus:
WE, THE SOVEREIGN FlLIPINO PEOPLE, IMPLORING
THE GUIDANCE OF DlVINE PROVIDENCE, TO
ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT SHALL EMBODY
OUR IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS, PROMOTE THE
COMMON GOOD, CONSERVE AND ENHANCE OUR
PATRIMONY, SECURE TO OURSELVES AND OUR
POSTERITY THE BLESSINGS OF PARTICIPATORY
DEMOCRACY UNDER A RULE OF JUSTICE, PEACE,
FREEDOM, AND EQUALITY, DO ORDAIN AND
PROMULGATE THIS CONSTITUTION.
In the course of the initial deliberations there were
two sides:
1. There were those who felt that the Preamble should be
formulated only after the body of the Constitution had
been completed. Their contention was that, since the
Preamble is a distillation of the ideals and aspirations
of the Filipino people, it should not be finalized until
after those ideals and aspirations had been hammered
out especially after widespread consultation in public
hearings. (They thought this way because the Preamble is a
summary of the hopes and dreams of the Filipino people, so it
B: Explanation; Y: Important; P: Text; O: Case; R: Headings/Subheadings;
should reflect their final decisions. They wanted to ensure that
the Preamble truly represented the ideals and aspirations of the
people, which could be achieved through public discussions and
hearings to get the people's input before finalizing it. They
believed that widespread consultation would help capture the
true essence of what the Filipino people wanted for their
country.)
2. Others, however, thought that, since the
Commissioners themselves were in a position to
enumerate, at least tentatively, the ideals and
aspirations of the Filipino people, a Preamble
formulated in advance could serve as a guide for the
rest of the work of the Commission. (Some people believed
that the commissioners working on the Constitution should first
list the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people before
writing the Preamble. They thought this way because having a
tentative Preamble could guide the rest of the work on the
Constitution.)
HOWEVER, a compromise was reached when it was agreed that
the Preamble would still be subject to modifications after the
formulation of the body of the document. It was a reasonable
compromise, because a constitution essentially consists of an
enumeration of fundamental values and goals and of devices for
achieving and protecting these goals. An enumeration of the
values and goals, therefore, albeit tentative, could be a useful aid
for future deliberations. As it turned out, however, the
Commission did not go back to the Preamble after the
completion of the body of the document. (Others felt that the
commissioners were already in a good position to list these ideals and
aspirations, so they agreed to have a Preamble formulated in advance. The
compromise was to allow for modifications to the Preamble after finishing
the rest of the Constitution. It was a reasonable compromise because a
constitution outlines the fundamental values and goals of a country and how
to achieve and protect them. Having a tentative list of these values and goals
could be helpful for future discussions.)
The Commission deliberations took up most of the plenary
session time on June 10 and ll. The draft was approved on 2nd
reading on the eve of Independence Day, June 11, 1986.
a. The Committee's "guidance" gave way to "aid" as the
more all-embracing term.
b. The word "enhance" yielded to the 1935's and 1973's
"conserve and develop."
c. The addition of the more dynamic word "aspirations"
to the passive sounding "ideals" was accepted.
d. But the modifier “participatory”, which the Committee
said was meant to introduce the element of direct
democracy and "people power," was deleted as being
tautological.
e. An attempt to restore the phrase "general welfare" in
place of the Committee's phrase "common good" was
not accepted. It was intended to project the idea of a
social order that enables every citizen to attain his or
her fullest development economically, politically,
culturally and spiritually.
f. The phrase “Almighty God” was chosen as being more
personal than “Divine Providence” and therefore more
consonant with Filipino religiosity.
g. The insertion of the phrase “a just and humane society”,
that constitution not merely sets up a government but
is also an instrument for building the larger society of
which government is merely a part.
h. The 1973 Preamble had added “equality” to reflect the
mounting wave of protests against basic social
inequalities.
i. Substitute “rule” for “regime” was rejected, instead it
was inserted, “rule of law”.
j. The concluding litany was made to read “truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality and peace”. “LOVE” makes the
Philippines the only nation to enshrine the word in its
Constitution and serve as a monument that prevented
bloodshed in the February revolution of 1986. “TRUTH”,
a protest against the deception from the Marcos
regime.
Declaration of Principles and State Policies
The "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" is a
statement of the basic ideological principles and policies that
underlie the Constitution. As such, the provisions shed light on
the meaning of the other provisions of the Constitution and they
are a guide for all departments of the government in the
implementation of the Constitution. (a set of fundamental ideas and
policies that support the Constitution. These principles help us understand
the other parts of the Constitution and provide guidance to all branches of
the government when they apply the Constitution in practice. They serve as
a compass to ensure that the government stays true to its core values and
goals while carrying out its duties and responsibilities.)
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them. (the people
have the power, and the government gets its authority from them. The
ultimate authority and decision-making come from the citizens of the
country, and the government's role is to represent and serve the people.)
A republican state is a state wherein all government
authority emanates from the people and is exercised by
representatives chosen by the people. (a republican state is a type of
government where the people have the power, and they choose
representatives to make decisions and govern on their behalf. The
government's authority comes from the people, and the elected
representatives act in the best interest of the citizens. It's a system designed
to ensure that the people's voices are heard and that they have a say in how
the country is run.)
RATIONALE — To prevent concentration of authority
in one person or group of persons that might lead to an
irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the
detriment of republican institutions. To secure action,
to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to
obtain efficiency. (Pangasinan Transportation Co. v.
Public Service Commission)
In the view of the new Constitution the Philippines is
not only a representative or republican state but also shares
some aspects of direct democracy such as "initiative and
referendum" in Article VI, Section 32, and Article XVII, Section 2.
The word "democratic" is also a monument to the February
Revolution which re-won freedom through direct action of the
people. (The new Constitution of the Philippines describes the country as
both a representative or republican state and also has elements of direct
democracy. In a representative state, people elect representatives to make
decisions on their behalf. However, in the Philippines, there are provisions
for "initiative and referendum," which means that the people can directly
propose or approve laws or changes to the Constitution. The term
"democratic" in the Constitution also represents the February Revolution,
where the people took direct action to regain their freedom. So, the
Constitution acknowledges the importance of people's direct involvement in
making decisions for their country.)
B: Explanation; Y: Important; P: Text; O: Case; R: Headings/Subheadings;
NOTE — Constitutional authoritarianism," as understood and
practiced in the Marcos regime under the 1973 Constitution, was
the assumption of extraordinary powers by the President,
including legislative and judicial and even constituent powers.
Constitutional authoritarianism is compatible with a republican
state if the Constitution upon which the Executive bases its
assumption of power is a legitimate expression of the people's
will and if the Executive who assumes power received his office
through a valid election by the people. (refers to a situation where the
President of a country, in this case, the Philippines under the Marcos regime
and the 1973 Constitution, takes on extraordinary powers beyond what is
normally allowed by the Constitution. This includes powers usually reserved
for the legislature and the judiciary. However, for this to be acceptable, the
Constitution that grants these powers must be legitimately approved by the
people, and the President assuming these powers must have been elected
through a valid election by the people. In other words, if the people
themselves agree to the Constitution and elect the President, the idea of
constitutional authoritarianism might be seen as compatible with the
principles of a republican state)
Define STATE and enumerate its elements?
It is a community of persons more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,
independent of external control, and possessing an organized
government to which the great body of inhabitants render
habitual obedience. (a state is a group of people living in a specific area,
like a country, with their own government. They have their own rules and
are not controlled by any other outside authority. The people in the state
follow the government's laws and regulations as part of their normal way of
life.)
FOUR ELEMENTS:
1. People
2. Territory
3. Sovereignty
4. Government
Distinguish “state” from “nation”
Although, for the purpose of political sociology a state,
which is a legal concept, may be distinguished from nation,
which is an ethnic concept, for the purpose of constitutional law
the two terms are not distinct. The constitution uses them
interchangeably to designate the legal concept of state.
("State" - refers to a country or a political entity with its
government and laws. It's a legal concept.
"Nation" - refers to a group of people who share common cultural
or ethnic characteristics. It's more about identity and belonging.
These two terms have different meanings in political sociology
because they focus on different aspects - one is about governance
and laws, and the other is about cultural or ethnic identity.
However, in constitutional law:
The terms "state" and "nation" are used interchangeably to mean
the same thing - the legal concept of a "state."
So, in the context of constitutional law, when the constitution
mentions "state" or "nation," it is talking about the same idea: the
political entity with its government and laws.
In summary, in political sociology, "state" and "nation" are
different concepts, but in constitutional law, they are used as
synonyms to refer to the legal concept of a "state.")
CONSTITUENT VS. MINISTRANT
"Constituent" refers to essential government functions
and services that are directly related to the protection of
fundamental rights and the maintenance of law and order. These
are the core functions that must be provided by the government
to ensure the well-being and safety of its citizens, such as law
enforcement, defense, and the justice system.
"Ministrant" functions are non-essential government
services that are more discretionary and can be provided by the
government, but are not absolutely necessary for the
functioning of society. These may include services like public
transportation, parks and recreation facilities, and social welfare
programs.
The distinction between these two types of functions is
important in understanding the role of government in providing
services to its citizens and in determining the extent of
government intervention in various areas of public life.
CASES:
Bacani v. NACOCO - 100 Phil. 486 [1956]
Facts:
- Herein petitioners are stenographers in Branch VI
of the CIF Manila. In a pending civil case where the
public respondents are involved, they requested for
the services of the stenographers and thereby paid
them for the said transcript at the rate of P1 per
page, amounting to P714 in total. (In a civil case that is
still pending and involves government officials (public
respondents), they asked for the assistance of stenographers
to make a written record of what was said during the
proceedings. The stenographers provided this service and
charged them P1 for each page of the transcript they
produced. In total, the payment for the transcript amounted
to P714.)
- However, upon inspecting the books of the
corporation, the Auditor General disallowed the
payment of such fees and sought for the recovery of
the amounts paid. Consequently, the AGe required
the petitioners to reimburse the amounts invoking
that the National Coconut Corporation is a
government entity within the purview of section 2
of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 which
states that: “‘The Government of the Philippine
Islands’ is a term which refers to the corporate
governmental entity through which the functions of
government are exercised throughout the
Philippine Islands, including, save as the contrary
appears from the context, the various arms through
which political authority is made effective in said
Islands, whether pertaining to the
centralGovernment or to the provincial or
municipal branches or other form of local
government.”, hence,exempted from the payment of
the fees in question. (The Auditor General found that the
payment of fees to stenographers by the National Coconut
Corporation was not allowed. The Auditor General believed
that the corporation is a government entity based on the
definition in the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. As a
government entity, it should be exempt from paying these
fees. The Auditor General asked the corporation to return the
money paid for the stenographers' services because of this
exemption.)
B: Explanation; Y: Important; P: Text; O: Case; R: Headings/Subheadings;
ISSUE: Whether the NCC is a government entity and is
exempted from the payments in question?
RULING:
- The Court held No. Discussing, there are two-fold
functions of the government namely:constituent
and ministrant. The constituent function refers to
the bonds of society and are compulsory in nature,
while ministrant is more on public welfare like
public works, education,charity, health and safety.
From such, we may infer that there are functions
which our government is required to exercise to
promote its objectives as expressed in our
Constitution and which are exercised by it as an
attribute of sovereignty, and those which it may
exercise to promote merely the welfare, progress
and prosperity of the people.
- The NCC has that function because the corporation
promotes certain aspects of the economic life of the
people. In short, NCC belongs to what we call the
government-owned and controlled corporation
which is governed by Corporation Law.
- Albeit the NCC performs governmental functions
for the people’s welfare, however, it was given a
corporate power separate and distinct from our
government, for it was made subject to the
provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its
corporate existence and the powers that it may
exercise are concerned.
- To recapitulate, we may mention that the term
“Government of the Republic of the
Philippines”used in section 2 of the Revised
Administrative Code refers only to that government
entity through which the functions of the
government are exercised as an attribute of
sovereignty, and in this are included those arms
through which political authority is made effective
whether they be provincial,municipal or other form
of local government.
- Therefore, NCC is not a government entity and is
not exempted from the payment of fees in question;
petitioners are not subject to reimbursement.
- Petition GRANTED.
The court ruled that the National Coconut Corporation (NCC)
is not considered a government entity. The government has
two main functions: the compulsory function (constituent)
that involves the essential duties of society, and the optional
function (ministrant) that focuses on public welfare, like
public works, education, charity, health, and safety.
Although the NCC performs functions for the welfare of the
people, it has a separate corporate power under the
ISSUES: Whether or not National Coconut Corporation
Corporation Law, making it distinct from the government.
(NACOCO), which performs certain functions of government,
Therefore, the NCC is not exempt from paying fees. The court
makes them a part of the Government of the Philippines.
granted the petition, meaning the petitioners are not
required to reimburse the fees paid.
DISCUSSIONS:
—----------------------------------
FACTS:
- Plaintiffs Bacani and Matto are both court
stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of
First Instance of Manila.
- During the pendency of a civil case in the said court,
Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation,
Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala,
counsel for Defendant, requested stenographers for
copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes
taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs
complied with the request by delivering to Counsel
Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages
and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the
payment of their fees. (During a civil case called
"Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation," the
lawyer representing the defendant, Assistant Corporate
Counsel Federico Alikpala, asked for copies of the written
records (transcript) of what was said during the court
hearings. The plaintiffs (the other party) provided the
transcript, which contained 714 pages, and later gave them
bills for the payment of the stenographers' fees for preparing
the transcript.)
- The National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) paid
the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacaniand P150
to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of
P1 per page. But the Auditor Generalrequired the
plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts by virtue of a
Department of Justice circular which stated that
NACOCO, being a government entity, was exempt
from the payment of the fees in question. For
reimbursement to take place, it was further ordered
that the amount of P25 perpayday be deducted from
the salary of Bacani and P10 from the salary of
Matoto. (The National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) paid
P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for a
transcript they prepared during a court case. However, the
Auditor General said that NACOCO, being a government
entity, should not have paid for the transcript and asked the
plaintiffs to reimburse the money. To do this, they were told
that P25 per payday would be deducted from Bacani's salary
and P10 from Matoto's salary until the amount is fully
reimbursed.)
- Petitioners filed an action in Court countering that
NACOCO is not a government entity within the
purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
On the other hand, the defendants set up a defense
that NACOCO is a government entity within the
purview of section 2 of the RevisedAdministrative
Code of 1917 hence, it is exempted from paying the
stenographers’ fees under Rule130 of the Rules of
Court. (petitioners filed a lawsuit arguing that the National
Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) is not considered a
government entity according to Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. However, the defendants in the case claimed that
NACOCO is indeed a government entity based on the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917 and is therefore exempt from
paying stenographers' fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.)
- NACOCO is not considered a government entity and
is not exempted from paying the stenographer's
fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
- Sec. 2 of the Revised Administrative Code defines
the scope of the term “Government of theRepublic of
the Philippines”. The term “Government'' may be
defined as “that institution or aggregate of
B: Explanation; Y: Important; P: Text; O: Case; R: Headings/Subheadings;
institutions by which an independent society makes
and carries out those rules of action which are
necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or
which are imposed upon the people forming that
society by those who possess the power or
authority of prescribing them” (U.S.vs. Dorr, 2 Phil.,
332). This institution, when referring to the national
government, has reference to what our Constitution
has established composed of three great
departments, the legislative,executive, and the
judicial, through which the powers and functions of
government are exercised.These functions are
twofold: constitute and ministrant. The former are
those which constitute the very bonds of society
and are compulsory in nature; the latter are those
that are undertaken only byway of advancing the
general interests of society, and are merely optional.
RULING:
No. NACOCO does not acquire that status for the simple
reason that they do not come under the classification of
municipal or public corporation. While NACOCO was
organized for the purpose of “adjusting the coconut industry
to a position independent of trade preferences in the
UnitedStates” and of providing “Facilities for the better
curing of copra products and the proper utilization of
coconut by-products”, a function which our government has
chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry. It was
given a corporate power separate and distinct from the
government, as it was made subject to the provisions of the
Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the
powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4,
Commonwealth Act No. 518). It May sue and be sued in the
same manner as any other private corporations, and in this
sense it is an entity different from our government.
How were the functions of government classified in
Bacani versus Nacoco?
The functions of government were classified into
constituent and ministrant functions. The former are the
compulsory functions, which constitute the very bonds of
society. For example, the keeping of order and providing for the
protection of persons and property from violence and robbery,
or the fixing of the legal relations between man and wife, and
between parents, and children are obligatory or constituent
functions of government. (The functions of government can be divided
into two types: constituent functions and ministrant functions. Constituent
functions are essential and compulsory tasks that hold society together. They
include maintaining law and order, protecting people and their property
from violence and theft, and defining legal relationships between
individuals, like those between spouses or parents and children. These
functions are necessary for the stability and well-being of society.)
Ministrant functions are the optional functions of
government. “The principles for determining whether or not a
government shall exercise certain of these optional functions
are: (1) that a government should do for the public welfare those
things which private capital would not naturally undertake, and
(2) that the government should do those things which, by its very
nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare
than is any private individual or group of individuals.”
(Ministrant functions are the optional tasks of the government. It means
that the government can choose to perform these functions or not,
depending on the situation and the needs of the people. There are two
principles that guide the government in deciding whether to take on these
optional functions:
1. If private businesses or individuals are not naturally inclined to
do something that benefits the public, the government may step
in and perform that task for the welfare of the people.
2. The government may take on tasks that it is better equipped to
handle for the benefit of the public compared to private
individuals or groups. This ensures that these tasks are managed
efficiently and effectively.
In essence, ministrant functions are additional roles that the
government can choose to undertake to enhance the well-being and welfare
of its citizens.)
Republic v. Judge of CFI of Rizal - 99 SCRA 660 [1980]
Facts:
- April 11, 1970, Respondent Sison filed a complaint
against Rice & Corn Administration (RCA) for a sum
of money with the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
presided by the respondent Judge.
- The RCA filed a motion to dismiss the said
complaint on the ground of non-sustainability of
the RCA as a mere governmental agency but it was
denied by the respondent Judge. (The RCA asked the
court to dismiss the complaint filed against them, claiming
that they cannot be sued because they are just a part of the
government. However, the judge did not agree with this
argument and denied the motion to dismiss.)
- May 10, 1972, after trial, the respondent Judge ruled
in favor of Sison and ordered the RCA to pay the
corn grains it purchased from Sison (P1,628,451.54)
and the attorney's fees (P250,000.00) and the costs
of the suit.
- May 24, 1972, RCA filed a notice of appeal as well as a
motion for extension (30 days from June 16, 1972)
within which to file the record on appeal (granted).
(They filed a notice to officially inform the court of their
intention to appeal. They also requested extra time (30 days)
to prepare all the necessary documents for the appeal, which
the court granted.)
- Before expiration of original period to file the
record, RCA files its appeal on June 15, 1972
- Sison filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the
RCA's failure to post an appeal bond and the RCA,
represented by the office of the Solicitor General,
filed an opposition to Sison's motion to dismiss the
appeal. (Sison filed a motion to dismiss the RCA's appeal
because they didn't pay an "appeal bond." The RCA,
represented by the Solicitor General's office, responded by
disagreeing with Sison's request and argued that they should
not be required to post the appeal bond.)
- The record on appeal filed by the RCA was approved
by the respondent Judge but the RCA's exemption
from the payment of legal fees and from posting of
the appeal bond was denied. (The court allowed the RCA
to submit the necessary documents for their appeal. However,
the court also decided that the RCA should not be exempt
from paying certain fees and posting an appeal bond as
requested by the RCA.)
- The respondent Judge issued an order giving the
RCA 5 days within which to post an appeal bond.
The RCA filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging
that they are exempt from posting an appeal bond.
- Sison filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the
ground of petitioner's refusal to file the appeal
bond.
B: Explanation; Y: Important; P: Text; O: Case; R: Headings/Subheadings;

- The respondent Judge dismissed the RCA's appeal

and ruled that the RCA, being a mere
instrumentality of the Government of the
Philippines, is not exempt from the payment of legal
fees and from posting of an appeal bond.

Issues: Whether or not the petitioner RCA (Rice and Corn

Administration) is exempt from paying legal fees and from
posting an appeal bond.

Ruling::
- Yes. RCA is a governmental agency of the Republic
of the Philippines without a separate, distinct and
independent legal personality from the latter thus
exempt from the payment of legal fees as well as the
posting of an appeal bond. (Legal basis: Under the
decisional laws which form part of the legal system
of the PH, the Republic of the PH is exempted;
practically a matter of public knowledge and matter
of judicial notice on the part of the courts).
- The legal character of RCA was passed upon in the
case Ramos vs. Court of Industrial Relations. In that
cited case, the court held:
Congress, by said RA 3452, approved June 14, 1962,
created RCA in pursuance of its declared policy
+ That in order to stabilize the price of
palay, rice and corn, it shall engage in the
purchase of these basic foods directly
from those farmers in the Philippines who
wish to dispose their produce at a price
that will afford them a fair and just return
for their labor and capital investment.
- Therefore, RCA is a governmental machinery to
carry out a declared government policy, and not for
profit. It is not possessed of a separate & distinct
corporate existence. It is an office directly under
the Office of the President of the Philippines.

The RCA is a government agency of the Philippines, and it

doesn't have its own separate legal identity. It was created by
Congress to carry out a specific government policy, which is
to stabilize the prices of certain agricultural products and
help farmers get a fair return for their produce. The RCA
operates under the direct authority of the Office of the
President. Because it is part of the government, it is exempt
from certain legal fees and requirements. This exemption is
based on existing laws and is widely known and recognized in
the legal system of the Philippines.