ART 7 SEC 21 USAFFE v.

Treasurer of the Philippines (1959)

FACTS: Romulo-Snyder Agreement (1950): RP Govt undertook to return to the US Govt in 10 annual installments, a total of about $35M advanced by the US to, but unexpended by, the Natl Defense Forces of the RP. ISSUE WON the officers who promised to repay had authority to bind this Govt YES (They have authority to bind Govt even w/o Senate concurrence) There is no doubt Pres Quirino approved the negotiations. And he had the power to contract budgetary loans under RA 213, amending RA 16. The most impt argument, however, rests on the lack of ratification of the Agreement by RP Senate to make it binding on the Govt. The ff explanation of the defendant was considered persuasive by the Court The agreement is not a treaty as that term is used in CONSTI. However, a treaty is not the only form that an intl agreement may assume. For the grant of treatymaking power to the Executive & the Senate does not exhaust the power of the govt over intl relations. Executive agreements may be entered into w/ other states & are effective even w/o concurrence of Senate. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT ART 8 SEC 1 VINUYA vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FACTS: Petitioners claim that since 1988, they have reproached the Exec Dept through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese military officials; however, Exec Dept declined to assist them. ISSUE: W/N the Exec Dept acted with grave abuse of discretion? W/N the court has jurisdiction? RULING: No. The Exec dept did not commit grave abuse of discretion. It has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners claim against Japan. In this case, the Exec Dept decided that it is best interest of the country to waive all claims of nationals in the Treaty of Peace 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the court to question.

Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals FACTS

Facts: Mantruste Systems, Inc. (MSI) entered into an interim lease agreement dated August 26, 1986 with the Development Bank of the Philippines, the owner of Bayview Plaza Hotel. The agreement provides that MSI would operate the hotel for a minimum of three months or until such time that the said properties are sold to MSI or other third parties by DBP. During the said period, the President issued Proclamation No. 50 entitled Launching a Program for the Expeditious Disposition or Privatization of certain Government Corporations and/or the (acquired) assets thereof and creating a Committee on Privatization and the Asset Privatization Trust The CA rejected the lower courts opinion that said proclamation is unconstitutional, rather it upheld that it continues to be operative after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution by virtue of Section 3 Art. XVIII.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in holding that MSIs rights to the property are non-existent except its right to use the refund of its alleged advances; and in not declaring unconstitutional Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50.

HELD The Court upheld the ruling of the CA. It affirmed the Court of appeals finding that MSIs claim to a patent contractual right to retain possession of the Bayview Hotel until all its advances are paid is non-existent; and as the right of retention does not exist, neither does the right to the relief demanded. -main point There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business of an administrative agency, except when it violates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, or without jurisdiction.

- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset Privatization Trust (administrative body), nor block, by an injunction, the discharge of its functions and the implementation of its decisions in connection with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it.

.LINA VS. PURISIMA 82 SCRA 344 (1978) FACTS: Lualhati Lina was a bookkeeper at PVB. Petitioner files for mandamus to compel Cabanos (President of Phil. Veterans Bank) to restore Lina to her position. Lina claims she was removed from office by Cabanos who acted in gadalej. It appeared from the annexes of the amended petition that Lina was dismissed by Cabanos pursuant to LOI # 13 / LOI # 19 for being notoriously undesirable. The RTC dismissed the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the removal of Lina was pursuant to LOI issued by the President pursuant to Proclamation 1081, the validity or legality of said act is beyond the power of the courts to review, much less modify, or reverse. This is one of the express limitations upon the power of the Courts in GENERAL ORDER # 3 by President Marcos.

HELD: The petitioners right to redress is beyond dispute. When the RTC invoked General Order #3, it was nothing short of an unwarranted abdication of judicial authority. The judge was apparently unaware that the Court has always deemed General Order # 3 as practically inoperative even in the light of Proclamation 1081. There is unanimity among Us in the view that it is for the Court rather than the Executive to determine whether or not We make take cognizance of any given case involving the validity of the acts of the Executive purportedly under the authority of martial law proclamations.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND GMA NETWORK, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Petitioner Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. is an organization of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies. They are suing as citizens, taxpayers, and registered voters Petitioners challenge the validity of COMELECS Omnibus Election Code, with respect to print media, and 92, with respect to broadcast media. In the present case, we consider the validity of 92 of B.P. Blg. No. 881 92 on the ground (1) that it takes property without due process of law and without just compensation; (2) that it denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal protection of the laws; and (3) that it is in excess of the power given to the

COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of media of communication or information during the period of election Issue: WON petitioners has standing in filing the case I Court upheld their standing in view of the transcendental importance of the constitutional question raised which justified the granting of relief. In contrast, in the case at bar, as will presently be shown, petitioners substantive claim is without merit. To the extent, therefore, that a partys standing is determined by the substantive merit of his case or a preliminary estimate thereof, petitioner TELEBAP must be held to be without standing. Indeed, a citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.[3] Members of petitioner have not shown that they have suffered harm as a result of the operation of 92 of B.P. Blg. 881.

David v Arroyo GR No. 171396, May 3, 2006 Facts: As the nation celebrated EDSAs 20th anniversary, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency and thereby commanded the AFP and PNP to immediately carry out necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence. This declaration led to cancellation of all programs and activities related to the EDSA People Power I celebration. Rally permits were revoked and warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including the media, were implemented. Assemblies and rallyists were dispersed. Along with the dispersal, petitioner was arrested without warrant. A week after PP 1017, PP1021 was issued lifting the state of emergency. Issue: Whether or not there is an actual controversy or case subject for judicial review. Whether or not there petition is with legal standing particularly on his qualification to sue. held The Solicitor Generals refute that the case has been moot and academic was not upheld by the Court. According to the Supreme Court, courts will decide cases otherwise found moot and academic if: there is grave Constitutional violation, the situations exceptional character and paramount public interest involved, issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and public, and lastly it is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Petitioner was found to be of legal standing on the grounds that his personal rights were involved. The petitioner qualifies under the direct injury test. The personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury qualifies him to impugn the validity of the statute. To wit some of these direct injuries he sustained are the illegal arrest and unlawful search he experienced. Given this fact, the court entertained his petition as he has adequately shown that he entitled to judicial protection.

In a public suit, where the plaintiff asserts a public right in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, our Court adopted the direct injury test in our jurisdiction. (David v. Arroyo)

Direct Injury Test: The persons who impugn the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury as a result