Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979
LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN, petitioner,
s!
HON. ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner" HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in his
capacity as Minister of National Defense" HON. ALFREDO L. JUINIO, in his capacity as Minister of Public Works,
Transportation


D E C I S I O N
FEN!ND", #$
#he ali$ity of a %etter of &nstruction 1 proi$in' for an early (arnin' $eice for )otor ehicles is assaile$ in this
prohibition procee$in' as bein' iolatie of the constitutional 'uarantee of $ue process an$, insofar as the rules an$
re'ulations for its i)ple)entation are concerne$, for trans'ressin' the fun$a)ental principle of non*$ele'ation of
le'islatie po(er! #he %etter of &nstruction is sti')ati+e$ by petitioner, (ho is possesse$ of the re,uisite stan$in', as
bein' arbitrary an$ oppressie! A te)porary restrainin' or$er as issue$ an$ respon$ents Ro)eo F! E$u, %an$
#ransportation Co))issioner" -uan Ponce Enrile, Minister of National .efense" Alfre$o %! -uinio, Minister of Public
/or0s, #ransportation an$ Co))unications" an$ Balta+ar A,uino, Minister of Public 1i'h(ays" (ere re,uire$ to ans(er!
#hat they $i$ in a plea$in' sub)itte$ by 2olicitor 3eneral Estelito P! Men$o+a! 2 &)presse$ (ith a hi'hly persuasie
,uality, it )a0es ,uite clear that the i)putation of a constitutional infir)ity is $eoi$ of 4ustification! #he challen'e$ %etter
of &nstruction is a ali$ police po(er )easure! Nor coul$ the i)ple)entin' rules an$ re'ulations issue$ by respon$ent
E$u be consi$ere$ as a)ountin' to an e5ercise of le'islatie po(er! Accor$in'ly, the petition )ust be $is)isse$!
#he facts are un$ispute$! #he assaile$ %etter of &nstruction No! 229 of Presi$ent Marcos, issue$ on .ece)ber 2, 1976,
rea$s in full7 89/hereas:, statistics sho( that one of the )a4or causes of fatal or serious acci$ents in lan$ transportation is
the presence of $isable$, stalle$, or par0e$ )otor ehicles alon' streets or hi'h(ays (ithout any appropriate early
(arnin' $eice to si'nal approachin' )otorists of their presence" 9/hereas:, the ha+ar$s pose$ by such obstructions to
traffic hae been reco'ni+e$ by international bo$ies concerne$ (ith traffic safety, the 19;< =ienna Conention on Roa$
2i'ns an$ 2i'nals an$ the >nite$ Nations ?r'ani+ation @>!N!A" 9/hereas:, the sai$ =ienna Conention (hich (as ratifie$
by the Philippine 3oern)ent un$er P!.! No! 2B7, reco))en$e$ the enact)ent of local le'islation for the installation of
roa$ safety si'ns an$ $eices" 9No(, therefore, &, Fer$inan$ E! Marcos:, Presi$ent of the Philippines, in the interest of
safety on all streets an$ hi'h(ays, inclu$in' e5press(ays or li)ite$ access roa$s, $o hereby $irect7 1! #hat all o(ners,
users or $riers of )otor ehicles shall hae at all ti)es in their )otor ehicles at least one @1A pair of early (arnin'
$eice consistin' of trian'ular, collapsible reflectori+e$ plates in re$ an$ yello( colors at least 1C c)s! at the base an$ 6B
c)s! at the si$es! 2! /heneer any )otor ehicle is stalle$ or $isable$ or is par0e$ for thirty @DBA )inutes or )ore on any
street or hi'h(ay, inclu$in' e5press(ays or li)ite$ access roa$s, the o(ner, user or $rier thereof shall cause the
(arnin' $eice )entione$ herein to be installe$ at least four )eters a(ay to the front an$ rear of the )otor ehicle
stalle$, $isable$ or par0e$! D! #he %an$ #ransportation Co))issioner shall cause Reflectori+e$ #rian'ular Early /arnin'
.eices, as herein $escribe$, to be prepare$ an$ issue$ to re'istere$ o(ners of )otor ehicles, e5cept )otorcycles an$
trailers, char'in' for each piece not )ore than 1CE of the ac,uisition cost! 1e shall also pro)ul'ate such rules an$
re'ulations as are appropriate to effectiely i)ple)ent this or$er! 6! All hereby concerne$ shall closely coor$inate an$
ta0e such )easures as are necessary or appropriate to carry into effect these instructions!F D #hereafter, on Noe)ber
1C, 197;, it (as a)en$e$ by %etter of &nstruction No! 679 in this (ise7 8Para'raph D of %etter of &nstructions No! 229 is
hereby a)en$e$ to rea$ as follo(s7 GD! #he %an$ #ransportation Co))issioner shall re,uire eery )otor ehicle o(ner
to procure fro) any source an$ present at the re'istration of his ehicle, one pair of a reflectori+e$ trian'ular early
(arnin' $eice, as $escribe$ herein, of any bran$ or )a0e chosen by sai$ )otor ehicle o(ner! #he %an$ #ransportation
Co))issioner shall also pro)ul'ate such rules an$ re'ulations as are appropriate to effectiely i)ple)ent this or$er!GF 6
#here (as issue$ accor$in'ly, by respon$ent E$u, the i)ple)entin' rules an$ re'ulations on .ece)ber 1B, 197;! C
#hey (ere not enforce$ as Presi$ent Marcos, on -anuary 2C, 1977, or$ere$ a si5*)onth perio$ of suspension insofar as
the installation of early (arnin' $eice as a pre*re'istration re,uire)ent for )otor ehicles (as concerne$! ; #hen on
-une DB, 197<, another %etter of &nstruction 7 or$ere$ the liftin' of such suspension an$ $irecte$ the i))e$iate
i)ple)entation of %etter of &nstruction No! 229 as a)en$e$! < &t (as not until Au'ust 29, 197< that respon$ent E$u
issue$ Me)oran$u) Circular No! D2, (or$e$ thus7 8&n pursuance of %etter of &nstructions No! 71;, $ate$ -une DB, 197<,
$irectin' the i)ple)entation of %etter of &nstructions No! 229, as a)en$e$ by %etter of &nstructions No! 679, re,uirin' the
use of Early /arnin' .eices @E/.A on )otor ehicles, the follo(in' rules an$ re'ulations are hereby issue$7 1! %#C
A$)inistratie ?r$er No! 1, $ate$ .ece)ber 1B, 197;" shall no( be i)ple)ente$ proi$e$ that the $eice )ay co)e
fro) (hateer source an$ that it shall hae substantially co)plie$ (ith the E/. specifications containe$ in 2ection 2 of
sai$ a$)inistratie or$er" 2! &n or$er to insure that eery )otor ehicle, e5cept )otorcycles, is e,uippe$ (ith the $eice,
a pair of serially nu)bere$ stic0ers, to be issue$ free of char'e by this Co))ission, shall be attache$ to each E/.! #he
E/. serial nu)ber shall be in$icate$ on the re'istration certificate an$ official receipt of pay)ent of current re'istration
fees of the )otor ehicle concerne$! All ?r$ers, Circulars, an$ Me)oran$a in conflict here(ith are hereby superse$e$,
#his ?r$er shall ta0e effect i))e$iately!F 9 &t (as for i))e$iate i)ple)entation by respon$ent Alfre$o %! -uinio, as
Minister of Public /or0s, #ransportation, an$ Co))unications! 1B
Petitioner, after settin' forth that he 8is the o(ner of a =ol0s(a'en Beetle Car, Mo$el 1DBDC, alrea$y properly e,uippe$
(hen it ca)e out fro) the asse)bly lines (ith blin0in' li'hts fore an$ aft, (hich coul$ ery (ell sere as an early (arnin'
$eice in case of the e)er'encies )entione$ in %etter of &nstructions No! 229, as a)en$e$, as (ell as the i)ple)entin'
rules an$ re'ulations in A$)inistratie ?r$er No! 1 issue$ by the %an$ #ransportation Co))ission,F 11 alle'e$ that sai$
%etter of &nstruction No! 229, as a)en$e$, 8clearly iolates the proisions an$ $ele'ation of police po(er, 9sic: ! ! !7F For
hi), they are 8oppressie, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional an$ contrary to the precepts of our
co)passionate Ne( 2ociety!F 12 1e conten$e$ that they are 8infecte$ (ith arbitrariness because it is harsh, cruel an$
unconscionable to the )otorin' public"F 1D are 8one*si$e$, onerous an$ patently ille'al an$ i))oral because 9they: (ill
)a0e )anufacturers an$ $ealers instant )illionaires at the e5pense of car o(ners (ho are co)pelle$ to buy a set of the
so*calle$ early (arnin' $eice at the rate of PC;!BB to P72!BB per set!F 16 are unla(ful an$ unconstitutional an$ contrary
to the precepts of a co)passionate Ne( 2ociety 9as bein': co)pulsory an$ confiscatory on the part of the )otorists (ho
coul$ ery (ell proi$e a practical alternatie roa$ safety $eice, or a better substitute to the specifie$ set of E/.s!F 1C
1e therefore praye$ for a 4u$')ent $eclarin' both the assaile$ %etters of &nstructions an$ Me)oran$u) Circular oi$
an$ unconstitutional an$ for a restrainin' or$er in the )ean(hile!
1
A resolution to this effect (as han$e$ $o(n by this Court on ?ctober 19, 197<7 8%*69112 @%eoillo C! A'ustin ! 1on!
Ro)eo F! E$u, etc!, et al!A Consi$erin' the alle'ations containe$, the issues raise$ an$ the ar'u)ents a$$uce$ in the
petition for prohibition (ith (rit of preli)inary prohibitory an$Hor )an$atory in4unction, the Court Resole$ to 9re,uire: the
respon$ents to file an ans(er thereto (ithin ten @1BA $ays fro) notice an$ not to )oe to $is)iss the petition! #he Court
further Resole$ to 9issue: a 9te)porary restrainin' or$er: effectie as of this $ate an$ continuin' until other(ise or$ere$
by this Court!F 1;
#(o )otions for e5tension (ere file$ by the ?ffice of the 2olicitor 3eneral an$ 'rante$! #hen on Noe)ber 1C, 197<, he
Ans(er for respon$ents (as sub)itte$! After a$)ittin' the factual alle'ations an$ statin' that they lac0e$ 0no(le$'e or
infor)ation sufficient to for) a belief as to petitioner o(nin' a =ol0s(a'en Beetle car, 17 they 8specifically $eny the
alle'ations in para'raphs I an$ I& @inclu$in' its subpara'raphs 1, 2, D, 6A of Petition to the effect that %etter of &nstruction
No! 229 as a)en$e$ by %etters of &nstructions Nos! 679 an$ 71; as (ell as %an$ #ransportation Co))ission
A$)inistratie ?r$er No! 1 an$ its Me)oran$u) Circular No! D2 iolates the constitutional proisions on $ue process of
la(, e,ual protection of la( an$ un$ue $ele'ation of police po(er, an$ that the sa)e are li0e(ise oppressie, arbitrary,
confiscatory, one*si$e$, onerous, i))oral, unreasonable an$ ille'al, the truth bein' that sai$ alle'ations are (ithout le'al
an$ factual basis an$ for the reasons alle'e$ in the 2pecial an$ Affir)atie .efenses of this Ans(er!F 1< >nli0e
petitioner (ho contente$ hi)self (ith a rhetorical recital of his litany of 'rieances an$ )erely ino0e$ the sacra)ental
phrases of constitutional liti'ation, the Ans(er, in $e)onstratin' that the assaile$ %etter of &nstruction (as a ali$
e5ercise of the police po(er an$ i)ple)entin' rules an$ re'ulations of respon$ent E$u not susceptible to the char'e that
there (as unla(ful $ele'ation of le'islatie po(er, there (as in the portion captione$ 2pecial an$ Affir)atie .efenses, a
citation of (hat respon$ents beliee$ to be the authoritatie $ecisions of this #ribunal callin' for application! #hey are
Calalan' ! /illia)s, 19 Morfe ! Mutuc, 2B an$ E$u ! Ericta! 21 Reference (as li0e(ise )a$e to the 19;< =ienna
Conentions of the >nite$ Nations on roa$ traffic, roa$ si'ns, an$ si'nals, of (hich the Philippines (as a si'natory an$
(hich (as $uly ratifie$! 22 2olicitor 3eneral Men$o+a too0 pains to refute in $etail, in lan'ua'e cal) an$ $ispassionate,
the i'orous, at ti)es inte)perate, accusation of petitioner that the assaile$ %etter of &nstruction an$ the i)ple)entin'
rules an$ re'ulations cannot surie the test of ri'orous
scrutiny! #o repeat, its hi'hly*persuasie ,uality cannot be $enie$!
#his Court thus consi$ere$ the petition sub)itte$ for $ecision, the issues bein' clearly 4oine$! As note$ at the outset, it is
far fro) )eritorious an$ )ust be $is)isse$!
1! #he %etter of &nstruction in ,uestion (as issue$ in the e5ercise of the police po(er! #hat is conce$e$ by petitioner an$
is the )ain reliance of respon$ents! &t is the sub)ission of the for)er, ho(eer, that (hile e)brace$ in such a cate'ory, it
has offen$e$ a'ainst the $ue process an$ e,ual protection safe'uar$s of the Constitution, althou'h the latter point (as
)entione$ only in passin'! #he broa$ an$ e5pansie scope of the police po(er (hich (as ori'inally i$entifie$ by Chief
-ustice #aney of the A)erican 2upre)e Court in an 1<67 $ecision, as 8nothin' )ore or less than the po(ers of
'oern)ent inherent in eery soerei'ntyF 2D (as stresse$ in the afore)entione$ case of E$u ! Ericta thus7 8-ustice
%aurel, in the first lea$in' $ecision after the Constitution ca)e into force, Calalan' ! /illia)s, i$entifie$ police po(er
(ith state authority to enact le'islation that )ay interfere (ith personal liberty or property in or$er to pro)ote the 'eneral
(elfare! Persons an$ property coul$ thus Jbe sub4ecte$ to all 0in$s of restraints an$ bur$ens in or$er to secure the
'eneral co)fort, health an$ prosperity of the state!G 2hortly after in$epen$ence in 196<, Pri)icias ! Fu'oso reiterate$
the $octrine, such a co)petence bein' referre$ to as Jthe po(er to prescribe re'ulations to pro)ote the health, )orals,
peace, e$ucation, 'oo$ or$er or safety, an$ 'eneral (elfare of the people!G #he concept (as set forth in ne'atie ter)s
by -ustice Malcol) in a pre*Co))on(ealth $ecision as Jthat inherent an$ plenary po(er in the 2tate (hich enables it to
prohibit all thin's hurtful to the co)fort, safety an$ (elfare of society!G &n that sense it coul$ be har$ly $istin'uishable as
note$ by this Court in Morfe ! Mutuc (ith the totality of le'islatie po(er! &t is in the aboe sense the 'reatest an$ )ost
po(erful attribute of 'oern)ent! &t is, to ,uote -ustice Malcol) ane(, Jthe )ost essential, insistent, an$ at least
illi)itable po(ers,G e5ten$in' as -ustice 1ol)es aptly pointe$ out Jto all the 'reat public nee$s!G &ts scope, eer e5pan$in'
to )eet the e5i'encies of the ti)es, een to anticipate the future (here it coul$ be $one, proi$es enou'h roo) for an
efficient an$ fle5ible response to con$itions an$ circu)stances thus assurin' the 'reatest benefits! &n the lan'ua'e of
-ustice Car$o+o7 JNee$s that (ere narro( or parochial in the past )ay be inter(oen in the present (ith the (ell*bein' of
the nation! /hat is critical or ur'ent chan'es (ith the ti)e!G #he police po(er is thus a $yna)ic a'ency, suitably a'ue
an$ far fro) precisely $efine$, roote$ in the conception that )en in or'ani+in' the state an$ i)posin' upon its
'oern)ent li)itations to safe'uar$ constitutional ri'hts $i$ not inten$ thereby to enable an in$ii$ual citi+en or a 'roup
of citi+ens to obstruct unreasonably the enact)ent of such salutary )easures calculate$ to insure co))unal peace,
safety, 'oo$ or$er, an$ (elfare!F 26
2! &t (as thus a heay bur$en to be shoul$ere$ by petitioner, co)poun$e$ by the fact that the particular police po(er
)easure challen'e$ (as clearly inten$e$ to pro)ote public safety! &t (oul$ be a rare occurrence in$ee$ for this Court to
inali$ate a le'islatie or e5ecutie act of that character! None has been calle$ to our attention, an in$ication of its bein'
non*e5istent! #he latest $ecision in point, E$u !
Ericta, sustaine$ the ali$ity of the Reflector %a(, 2C an enact)ent conceie$ (ith the sa)e en$ in ie(! Calalan' !
/illia)s foun$ nothin' ob4ectionable in a statute, the purpose of (hich (as7 8#o pro)ote safe transit upon, an$ aoi$
obstruction on roa$s an$ streets $esi'nate$ as national roa$s ! ! !F 2; As a )atter of fact, the first la( sou'ht to be
nullifie$ after the effectiity of the 19DC Constitution, the National .efense Act, 27 (ith petitioner failin' in his ,uest, (as
li0e(ise pro)pte$ by the i)peratie $e)an$s of public safety!
D! #he futility of petitionerGs effort to nullify both the %etter of &nstruction an$ the i)ple)entin' rules an$ re'ulations
beco)es een )ore apparent consi$erin' his failure to lay the necessary factual foun$ation to rebut the presu)ption of
ali$ity! 2o it (as hel$ in Er)ita*Malate 1otel an$ Motel ?perators Association, &nc! ! City Mayor of Manila! 2< #he
rationale (as clearly set forth in an e5cerpt fro) a $ecision of -ustice Bran$eis of the A)erican 2upre)e Court, ,uote$
in the opinion7 8#he statute here ,uestione$ $eals (ith a sub4ect clearly (ithin the scope of the police po(er! /e are
as0e$ to $eclare it oi$ on the 'roun$ that the specific )etho$ of re'ulation prescribe$ is unreasonable an$ hence
$epries the plaintiff of $ue process of la(! As un$erlyin' ,uestions of fact )ay con$ition the constitutionality of
le'islation of this character, the presu)ption of constitutionality )ust preail in the absence of so)e factual foun$ation of
recor$ in oerthro(in' the statute!F 29
6! Nor $i$ the 2olicitor 3eneral, as he ery (ell coul$, rely solely on such rebutte$ presu)ption of ali$ity! As (as pointe$
out in his Ans(er7 8#he Presi$ent certainly ba$ in his possession the necessary statistical infor)ation an$ $ata at the
ti)e he issue$ sai$ letter of instructions, an$ such factual foun$ation cannot be $efeate$ by petitionerGs na0e$ assertion
that early (arnin' $eices Jare not too ital to the preention of ni'htti)e ehicular acci$entsG because alle'e$ly only D9B
or 1!C per cent of the suppose$ 2;,BBB )otor ehicle acci$ents that occurre$ in 197; inole$ rear*en$ collisions @p! 12
of petitionA! PetitionerGs statistics is not bac0e$ up by $e)onstrable $ata on recor$! As aptly state$ by this 1onorable
Court7 JFurther7 8&t a$)its of no $oubt therefore that there bein' a presu)ption of ali$ity, the necessity for ei$ence to
rebut it is unaoi$able, unless the statute or or$inance is oi$ on its face, (hich is not the case hereFJ ! ! ! But een
2
assu)in' the erity of petitionerGs statistics, is that not reason enou'h to re,uire the installation of early (arnin' $eices
to preent another D9B rear*en$ collisions that coul$ )ean the $eath of D9B or )ore Filipinos an$ the $eaths that coul$
li0e(ise result fro) hea$*on or frontal collisions (ith stalle$ ehiclesKF DB &t is ,uite )anifest then that the issuance of
such %etter of &nstruction is encase$ in the ar)or of prior, careful stu$y by the E5ecutie .epart)ent! #o set it asi$e for
alle'e$ repu'nancy to the $ue process clause is to 'ie sanction to con4ectural clai)s that e5cee$e$ een the broa$est
per)issible li)its of a plea$erGs (ell*0no(n penchant for e5a''eration!
C! #he rather (il$ an$ fantastic nature of the char'e of oppressieness of this %etter of &nstruction (as e5pose$ in the
Ans(er of the 2olicitor 3eneral thus7 82uch early (arnin' $eice re,uire)ent is not an e5pensie re$un$ancy, nor
oppressie, for car o(ners (hose cars are alrea$y e,uippe$ (ith 1A Jblin0in'*li'hts in the fore an$ aft of sai$ )otor
ehicles,G 2A Jbattery*po(ere$ blin0in' li'hts insi$e )otor ehicles,G DA Jbuilt*in reflectori+e$ tapes on front an$ rear
bu)pers of )otor ehicles,G or 6A J(ell*li'hte$ t(o @2A petroleu) la)ps @the Lin0eA ! ! ! because7 Bein' uniersal a)on'
the si'natory countries to the sai$ 19;< =ienna Conentions, an$ isible een un$er a$erse con$itions at a $istance of
at least 6BB )eters, any )otorist fro) this country or fro) any part of the (orl$, (ho sees a reflectori+e$ rectan'ular
early (arnin' $eice installe$ on the roa$s, hi'h(ays or e5press(ays, (ill conclu$e, (ithout thin0in', that so)e(here
alon' the traelle$ portion of that roa$, hi'h(ay, or e5press(ay, there is a )otor ehicle (hich is stationary, stalle$ or
$isable$ (hich obstructs or en$an'ers passin' traffic! ?n the other han$, a )otorist (ho sees any of the afore)entione$
other built*in (arnin' $eices or the petroleu) la)ps (ill not i))e$iately 'et a$e,uate a$ance (arnin' because he (ill
still thin0 (hat that blin0in' li'ht is all about! &s it an e)er'ency ehicleK &s it a la( enforce)ent carK &s it an a)bulanceK
2uch confusion or uncertainty in the )in$ of the )otorist (ill thus increase, rather than $ecrease, the $an'er of
collision!F D1
;! Nor $i$ the other e5traa'ant assertions of constitutional $eficiency 'o unrefute$ in the Ans(er of the 2olicitor
3eneral7 8#here is nothin' in the ,uestione$ %etter of &nstruction No! 229, as a)en$e$, or in A$)inistratie ?r$er No! 1,
(hich re,uires or co)pels )otor ehicle o(ners to purchase the early (arnin' $eice prescribe$ thereby! All that is
re,uire$ is for )otor ehicle o(ners concerne$ li0e petitioner, to e,uip their )otor ehicles (ith a pair of this early
(arnin' $eice in ,uestion, procurin' or obtainin' the sa)e fro) (hateer source! &n fact, (ith a little of in$ustry an$
practical in'enuity, )otor ehicle o(ners can een personally )a0e or pro$uce this early (arnin' $eice so lon' as the
sa)e substantially confor)s (ith the specifications lai$ $o(n in sai$ letter of instruction an$ a$)inistratie or$er!
Accor$in'ly, the early (arnin' $eice re,uire)ent can neither be oppressie, onerous, i))oral, nor confiscatory, )uch
less $oes it )a0e )anufacturers an$ $ealers of sai$ $eices Jinstant )illionaires at the e5pense of car o(nerGs as
petitioner so s(eepin'ly conclu$es ! ! ! PetitionerGs fear that (ith the early (arnin' $eice re,uire)ent Ja )ore subtle
rac0etG )ay be co))itte$ by those calle$ upon to enforce it ! ! ! is an unfoun$e$ speculation! Besi$es, that unscrupulous
officials )ay try to enforce sai$ re,uire)ent in an unreasonable )anner or to an unreasonable $e'ree, $oes not ren$er
the sa)e ille'al or i))oral (here, as in the instant case, the challen'e$ %etter of &nstruction No! 229 an$ i)ple)entin'
or$er $isclose none of the constitutional $efects alle'e$ a'ainst it!F D2
7! &t $oes appear clearly that petitionerGs ob4ection to this %etter of &nstruction is not pre)ise$ on lac0 of po(er, the
4ustification for a fin$in' of unconstitutionality, but on the pessi)istic, not to say ne'atie, ie( he entertains as to its
(is$o)! #hat approach, it put it at its )il$est, is $istin'uishe$, if that is the appropriate (or$, by its unortho$o5y! &t bears
repeatin' 8that this Court, in the lan'ua'e of -ustice %aurel, J$oes not pass upon ,uestions of (is$o), 4ustice or
e5pe$iency of le'islation!G As e5presse$ by -ustice #uason7 J&t is not the proince of the courts to superise le'islation
an$ 0eep it (ithin the boun$s of propriety an$ co))on sense! #hat is pri)arily an$ e5clusiely a le'islatie concern!G
#here can be no possible ob4ection then to the obseration of -ustice Monte)ayor7 JAs lon' as la(s $o not iolate any
Constitutional proision, the Courts )erely interpret an$ apply the) re'ar$less of (hether or not they are (ise or
salutary!G For they, accor$in' to -ustice %abra$or, Jare not suppose$ to oerri$e le'iti)ate policy an$ ! ! ! neer in,uire
into the (is$o) of the la(!G &t is thus settle$, to paraphrase Chief -ustice Concepcion in 3on+ales ! Co))ission on
Elections, that only con'ressional po(er or co)petence, not the (is$o) of the action ta0en, )ay be the basis for
$eclarin' a statute inali$! #his is as it ou'ht to be! #he principle of separation of po(ers has in the )ain (isely allocate$
the respectie authority of each $epart)ent an$ confine$ its 4uris$iction to such a sphere! #here (oul$ then be intrusion
not allo(able un$er the Constitution if on a )atter left to the $iscretion of a coor$inate branch, the 4u$iciary (oul$
substitute its o(n! &f there be a$herence to the rule of la(, as there ou'ht to be, the last offen$er shoul$ be courts of
4ustice, to (hich ri'htly liti'ants sub)it their controersy precisely to )aintain uni)paire$ the supre)acy of le'al nor)s
an$ prescriptions! #he attac0 on the ali$ity of the challen'e$ proision li0e(ise insofar as there )ay be ob4ections, een
if ali$ an$ co'ent, on is (is$o) cannot be sustaine$!F DD
<! #he alle'e$ infrin'e)ent of the fun$a)ental principle of non*hi)self (ith authoritatie pronounce)ents fro) this
#ribunal, he (oul$ not hae the te)erity to )a0e such an assertion! An e5cerpt fro) the aforecite$ $ecision of E$u !
Ericta she$s li'ht on the )atter7 8#o aoi$ the taint of unla(ful $ele'ation, there )ust be a stan$ar$, (hich i)plies at the
ery least that the le'islature itself $eter)ines )atters of principle an$ lays $o(n fun$a)ental policy! ?ther(ise, the
char'e of co)plete ab$ication )ay be har$ to repel! A stan$ar$ thus $efines le'islatie policy, )ar0s its li)its, )aps out
its boun$aries an$ specifies the public a'ency to apply it! &t in$icates the circu)stances un$er (hich the le'islatie
co))an$ is to be effecte$! &t is the criterion by (hich le'islatie purpose )ay be carrie$ out! #hereafter, the e5ecutie or
a$)inistratie office $esi'nate$ )ay in pursuance of the aboe 'ui$elines pro)ul'ate supple)ental rules an$
re'ulations! #he stan$ar$ )ay be either e5press or i)plie$! &f the for)er, the non*$ele'ation ob4ection is easily )et! #he
stan$ar$ thou'h $oes not hae to be spelle$ out specifically! &t coul$ be i)plie$ fro) the policy an$ purpose of the act
consi$ere$ as a (hole! &n the Reflector %a(, clearly, the le'islatie ob4ectie is public safety! /hat is sou'ht to be
attaine$ as in Calalan' ! /illia)s is 8safe transit upon the roa$s!F #his is to a$here to the reco'nition 'ien e5pression
by -ustice %aurel in a $ecision announce$ not too lon' after the Constitution ca)e into force an$ effect that the principle
of non*$ele'ation 8has been )a$e to a$apt itself to the co)ple5ities of )o$ern 'oern)ents, 'iin' rise to the a$option,
(ithin certain li)its, of the principle of 8subor$inate le'islationF not only in the >nite$ 2tates an$ En'lan$ but in practically
all )o$ern 'oern)ents!G 1e continue$7 JAccor$in'ly, (ith the 'ro(in' co)ple5ity of )o$ern life, the )ultiplication of the
sub4ects of 'oern)ental re'ulation, an$ the increase$ $ifficulty of a$)inisterin' the la(s, there is a constantly 'ro(in'
ten$ency to(ar$ the $ele'ation of 'reater po(ers by the le'islature an$ to(ar$ the approal of the practice by the
courts!G Consistency (ith the conceptual approach re,uires the re)in$er that (hat is $ele'ate$ is authority non*
le'islatie in character, the co)pleteness of the statute (hen it leaes the han$s of Con'ress bein' assu)e$!F D6
9! #he conclusion reache$ by this Court that this petition )ust be $is)isse$ is reinforce$ by this consi$eration! #he
petition itself ,uote$ these t(o (hereas clauses of the assaile$ %etter of &nstruction7 89/hereas:, the ha+ar$s pose$ by
such obstructions to traffic hae been reco'ni+e$ by international bo$ies concerne$ (ith traffic safety, the 19;< =ienna
Conention on Roa$ 2i'ns an$ 2i'nals an$ the >nite$ Nations ?r'ani+ation @>!N!A" 9/hereas:, the sai$ =ienna
Conention, (hich (as ratifie$ by the Philippine 3oern)ent un$er P!.! No! 2B7, reco))en$e$ the enact)ent of local
le'islation for the installation of roa$ safety si'ns an$ $eices" ! ! !F DC &t cannot be $ispute$ then that this .eclaration of
Principle foun$ in the Constitution possesses releance7 8#he Philippines ! ! ! a$opts the 'enerally accepte$ principles of
3
international la( as part of the la( of the lan$, ! ! !F D; #he 19;< =ienna Conention on Roa$ 2i'ns an$ 2i'nals is
i)presse$ (ith such a character! &t is not for this country to repu$iate a co))it)ent to (hich it ha$ ple$'e$ its (or$! #he
concept of Pacta sunt seran$a stan$s in the (ay of such an attitu$e, (hich is, )oreoer, at (ar (ith the principle of
international )orality!
1B! #hat is about all that nee$s be sai$! #he rather court reference to e,ual protection $i$ not een elicit any atte)pt on
the part of petitioner to substantiate in a )anner clear, positie, an$ cate'orical, (hy such a casual obseration shoul$
be ta0en seriously! &n no case is there a )ore appropriate occasion for insistence on (hat (as referre$ to as 8the 'eneral
ruleF in 2antia'o ! Far Eastern Broa$castin' Co!, D7 na)ely, 8that the constitutionality of a la( (ill not be consi$ere$
unless the point is specially plea$e$, insiste$ upon, an$ a$e,uately ar'ue$!F D< 8E,ual protectionF is not a talis)anic
for)ula at the )ere inocation of (hich a party to a la(suit can ri'htfully e5pect that success (ill cro(n his efforts! #he
la( is anythin' but that!
WHEREFORE, this petition is $is)isse$! #he restrainin' or$er is lifte$! #his $ecision is i))e$iately e5ecutory! No costs!
4
Republic of the Philippines
2>PREME C?>R#
Manila

EN BANC

BAYAN MUNA, ! "#$"#!#%&#' () R#$. SATUR OCAMPO, R#$.
CRISPIN BELTRAN, %' R#$. LI*A L. MA*A,
Petitioner,




* ersus *






ALBERTO ROMULO, +% ,+! -$-+&) ! E.#-/&+0# S#-"#&"), %'
BLAS F. OPLE, +% ,+! -$-+&) ! S#-"#&") o1 Fo"#+2% A11+"!,
Respon$ents!
G.R. No. 139415

Present7

C?R?NA, C%#%,
CARP&?,
CARP&? M?RA%E2,
=E%A2C?, -R!,
NAC1>RA,
%E?NAR.?*.E CA2#R?,
BR&?N,
PERA%#A,
BER2AM&N,
.E% CA2#&%%?,
ABA.,
=&%%ARAMA, -R!,
PEREM,
MEN.?MA, an$
2EREN?, ##!

Pro)ul'ate$7

February 1, 2B11
5*****************************************************************************************5

D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.6

T,# C!#

#his petition91: for certiorari, )an$a)us an$ prohibition un$er Rule ;C assails an$ see0s to nullify the Non*
2urren$er A'ree)ent conclu$e$ by an$ bet(een the Republic of the Philippines @RPA an$ the >nite$ 2tates of A)erica
@>2AA!

T,# F-&!

Petitioner Bayan Muna is a $uly re'istere$ party*list 'roup establishe$ to represent the )ar'inali+e$ sectors
of society! Respon$ent Blas F! ?ple, no( $ecease$, (as the 2ecretary of Forei'n Affairs $urin' the perio$ )aterial to
this case! Respon$ent Alberto Ro)ulo (as i)plea$e$ in his capacity as then E5ecutie 2ecretary!92:

Ro7# S&&/&# o1 &,# I%&#"%&+o%8 C"+7+%8 Co/"&

1ain' a 0ey $eter)inatie bearin' on this case is the Ro)e 2tatute9D: establishin' the &nternational
Cri)inal Court @&CCA (ith 8the po&er to e'ercise its (urisdiction o)er persons for the most serious crimes of international
concern 5 5 5 and shall be complementary to the national criminal (urisdictions!F96: #he serious cri)es a$erte$ to coer
those consi$ere$ 'rae un$er international la(, such as 'enoci$e, cri)es a'ainst hu)anity, (ar cri)es, an$ cri)es of
a''ression!9C:

?n .ece)ber 2<, 2BBB, the RP, throu'h Char*e d+!ffaires Enri,ue A! Manalo, si'ne$ the Ro)e 2tatute
(hich, by its ter)s, is 8sub4ect to ratification, acceptance or approalF by the si'natory states!9;: As of the filin' of the
instant petition, only 92 out of the 1D9 si'natory countries appear to hae co)plete$ the ratification, approal an$
concurrence process! #he Philippines is not a)on' the 92!

RP-US No%-S/""#%'#" A2"##7#%&

?n May 9, 2BBD, then A)bassa$or Francis -! Ricciar$one sent >2 E)bassy Note No! B67B to the
.epart)ent of Forei'n Affairs @.FAA proposin' the ter)s of the non*surren$er bilateral a'ree)ent @!*reement,
hereinafterA bet(een the >2A an$ the RP!

=ia E5chan'e of Notes No! BF?*B2<*BD97: $ate$ May 1D, 2BBD @EHN BF?*B2<*BD, hereinafterA, the RP,
represente$ by then .FA 2ecretary ?ple, a'ree$ (ith an$ accepte$ the >2 proposals e)bo$ie$ un$er the >2 E)bassy
Note a$erte$ to an$ put in effect the !*reement (ith the >2 'oern)ent! ,n esse, the !*reement ai)s to protect (hat it
refers to an$ $efines as 8personsF of the RP an$ >2 fro) friolous an$ harass)ent suits that )i'ht be brou'ht a'ainst
the) in international tribunals!9<: &t is reflectie of the increasin' pace of the strate'ic security an$ $efense partnership
bet(een the t(o countries! As of May 2, 2BBD, si)ilar bilateral a'ree)ents hae been effecte$ by an$ bet(een the >2
an$ DD other countries!99:

#he !*reement pertinently proi$es as follo(s7

1! For purposes of this A'ree)ent, 8personsF are current or for)er 3oern)ent
officials, e)ployees @inclu$in' contractorsA, or )ilitary personnel or nationals of one Party!

2! Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the
5
e5press consent of the first Party,

@aA be surren$ere$ or transferre$ by any )eans to any international tribunal for any
purpose, unless such tribunal has been establishe$ by the >N 2ecurity
Council, or

@bA be surren$ere$ or transferre$ by any )eans to any other entity or thir$ country,
or e5pelle$ to a thir$ country, for the purpose of surren$er to or transfer to any
international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been establishe$ by the >N
2ecurity Council!

D! /hen the 9>2: e5tra$ites, surren$ers, or other(ise transfers a person of the
Philippines to a thir$ country, the 9>2: (ill not a'ree to the surren$er or transfer of that person by
the thir$ country to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been establishe$ by the
>N 2ecurity Council, absent the e5press consent of the 3oern)ent of the Republic of the
Philippines 93RP:!

6! /hen the 93RP: e5tra$ites, surren$ers, or other(ise transfers a person of the
9>2A: to a thir$ country, the 93RP: (ill not a'ree to the surren$er or transfer of that person by the
thir$ country to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been establishe$ by the >N
2ecurity Council, absent the e5press consent of the 3oern)ent of the 9>2:!

C! #his A'ree)ent shall re)ain in force until one year after the $ate on (hich one
party notifies the other of its intent to ter)inate the A'ree)ent! #he proisions of this A'ree)ent
shall continue to apply (ith respect to any act occurrin', or any alle'ation arisin', before the
effectie $ate of ter)ination!


&n response to a ,uery of then 2olicitor 3eneral Alfre$o %! Benipayo on the status of the non*surren$er
a'ree)ent, A)bassa$or Ricciar$one replie$ in his letter of ?ctober 2<, 2BBD that the e5chan'e of $iplo)atic notes
constitute$ a le'ally bin$in' a'ree)ent un$er international la(" an$ that, un$er >2 la(, the sai$ a'ree)ent $i$ not
re,uire the a$ice an$ consent of the >2 2enate!91B:

&n this procee$in', petitioner i)putes 'rae abuse of $iscretion to respon$ents in conclu$in' an$ ratifyin' the
!*reement an$ prays that it be struc0 $o(n as unconstitutional, or at least $eclare$ as (ithout force an$ effect!

For their part, respon$ents ,uestion petitionerGs stan$in' to )aintain a suit an$ counter that the !*reement,
bein' in the nature of an e5ecutie a'ree)ent, $oes not re,uire 2enate concurrence for its efficacy! An$ for reasons
$etaile$ in their co))ent, respon$ents assert the constitutionality of the !*reement!

T,# I!!/#!


&! /1E#1ER #1E 9RP: PRE2&.EN# AN. #1E 9.FA: 2ECRE#ARN 5 5 5 3RA=E%N AB>2E.
#1E&R .&2CRE#&?N AM?>N#&N3 #? %ACL ?R EICE22 ?F ->R&2.&C#&?N F?R
C?NC%>.&N3 #1E RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT BN MEAN2 ?F 9E-N:
.F"/012/03 D!TED 43 M!5 1003, /1EN #1E P1&%&PP&NE 3?=ERNMEN# 1A2
A%REA.N 2&3NE. #1E "ME 6T!T7TE "F T8E 9,CC: A%#1?>31 #1&2 &2 PEN.&N3
RA#&F&CA#&?N BN #1E P1&%&PP&NE 2ENA#E!
A! /hether by enterin' into the 5 5 5 A2"##7#%& Respon$ents 'raely abuse$ their
$iscretion (hen they capriciously aban$one$, (aie$ an$ relin,uishe$ our only
le'iti)ate recourse throu'h the ome 6tatute of the 9,CC: to prosecute an$ try
8personsF as $efine$ in the 5 5 5 A2"##7#%&, 5 5 5 or literally any con$uit of
A)erican interests, (ho hae co))itte$ cri)es of 'enoci$e, cri)es a'ainst
hu)anity, (ar cri)es an$ the cri)e of a''ression, thereby ab$icatin' Philippine
2oerei'nty!

B! /hether after the si'nin' an$ pen$in' ratification of the ome 6tatute of the 9,CC: the
9RP: Presi$ent an$ the 9.FA: 2ecretary 5 5 5 are obli'e$ by the principle of 'oo$
faith to refrain fro) $oin' all acts (hich (oul$ substantially i)pair the alue of the
un$erta0in' as si'ne$!

C! /hether the 5 5 5 A2"##7#%& constitutes an act (hich $efeats the ob4ect an$
purpose of the ome 6tatute of the ,nternational Criminal Court an$ contraenes the
obli'ation of 'oo$ faith inherent in the si'nature of the Presi$ent affi5e$ on the ome
6tatute of the ,nternational Criminal Court, an$ if so (hether the 5 5 5 A2"##7#%& is
oi$ an$ unenforceable on this 'roun$!

.! /hether the RP-US No%-S/""#%'#" A2"##7#%& is oi$ an$ unenforceable for 'rae
abuse of $iscretion a)ountin' to lac0 or e5cess of 4uris$iction in connection (ith its
e5ecution!

&&! /1E#1ER #1E RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT &2 =?&. !. ,N,T," F?R
C?N#RAC#&N3 ?B%&3A#&?N2 #1A# ARE E&#1ER &MM?RA% ?R ?#1ER/&2E A#
=AR&ANCE /&#1 >N&=ER2A%%N REC?3N&ME. PR&NC&P%E2 ?F &N#ERNA#&?NA%
%A/!

&&&! /1E#1ER #1E 5 5 5 AGREEMENT &2 =A%&., B&N.&N3 AN. EFFEC#&=E /&#1?># #1E
C?NC>RRENCE BN A# %EA2# #/?*#1&R.2 @2HDA ?F A%% #1E MEMBER2 ?F #1E
6
2ENA#E 5 5 5!911:


#he fore'oin' issues )ay be su))ari+e$ into t(o7 first, (hether or not the !*reement (as contracte$
ali$ly, (hich resoles itself into the ,uestion of (hether or not respon$ents 'raely abuse$ their $iscretion in conclu$in'
it" an$ second, (hether or not the !*reement, (hich has not been sub)itte$ to the 2enate for concurrence, contraenes
an$ un$er)ines the Ro)e 2tatute an$ other treaties! But because respon$ents e5pecte$ly raise$ it, (e shall first tac0le
the issue of petitionerGs le'al stan$in'!
T,# Co/"&9! R/8+%2

#his petition is bereft of )erit!

P"o-#'/"8 I!!/#6 Locus Standi o1 P#&+&+o%#"

Petitioner, throu'h its three party*list representaties, conten$s that the issue of the ali$ity or inali$ity of the
!*reement carries (ith it constitutional si'nificance an$ is of para)ount i)portance that 4ustifies its stan$in'! Cite$ in
this re'ar$ is (hat is usually referre$ to as the e)er'ency po(ers cases,912: in (hich or$inary citi+ens an$ ta5payers
(ere accor$e$ the personality to ,uestion the constitutionality of e5ecutie issuances!

Locus standi is 8a ri'ht of appearance in a court of 4ustice on a 'ien ,uestion!F91D: 2pecifically, it is 8a
partyGs personal an$ substantial interest in a case (here he has sustaine$ or (ill sustain $irect in4ury as a resultF916: of
the act bein' challen'e$, an$ 8calls for )ore than 4ust a 'enerali+e$ 'rieance!F91C: #he ter) 8interestF refers to )aterial
interest, as $istin'uishe$ fro) one that is )erely inci$ental!91;: #he rationale for re,uirin' a party (ho challen'es the
ali$ity of a la( or international a'ree)ent to alle'e such a personal sta0e in the outco)e of the controersy is 8to assure
the concrete a$erseness (hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon (hich the court so lar'ely $epen$s for
illu)ination of $ifficult constitutional ,uestions!F917:

Locus standi, ho(eer, is )erely a )atter of proce$ure an$ it has been reco'ni+e$ that, in so)e cases, suits
are not brou'ht by parties (ho hae been personally in4ure$ by the operation of a la( or any other 'oern)ent act, but
by concerne$ citi+ens, ta5payers, or oters (ho actually sue in the public interest!91<: Conse,uently, in a catena of
cases,919: this Court has inariably a$opte$ a liberal stance on locus standi%

3oin' by the petition, petitionerGs representaties pursue the instant suit pri)arily as concerne$ citi+ens
raisin' issues of transcen$ental i)portance, both for the Republic an$ the citi+enry as a (hole!

/hen suin' as a citi+en to ,uestion the ali$ity of a la( or other 'oern)ent action, a petitioner nee$s to
)eet certain specific re,uire)ents before he can be clothe$ (ith stan$in'! Francisco, #r% )% Na*mamalasakit na m*a
Mananan**ol n* m*a Man**a*a&an* Pilipino, ,nc%92B: e5poun$e$ on this re,uire)ent, thus7

&n a lon' line of cases, ho(eer, concerne$ citi+ens, ta5payers an$ le'islators (hen
specific re,uire)ents hae been )et hae been 'ien stan$in' by this Court!
/hen suin' as a citi;en, the interest of the petitioner assailin' the constitutionality of
a statute )ust be $irect an$ personal! 1e )ust be able to sho(, not only that the la( or any
'oern)ent act is inali$, but also that he sustaine$ or is in i))inent $an'er of sustainin' so)e
$irect in4ury as a result of its enforce)ent, an$ not )erely that he suffers thereby in so)e
in$efinite (ay! &t )ust appear that the person co)plainin' has been or is about to be $enie$
so)e ri'ht or priile'e to (hich he is la(fully entitle$ or that he is about to be sub4ecte$ to so)e
bur$ens or penalties by reason of the statute or act co)plaine$ of! &n fine, (hen the procee$in'
inoles the assertion of a public ri'ht, the )ere fact that he is a citi+en satisfies the re,uire)ent
of personal interest!921:

&n the case at bar, petitionerGs representaties hae co)plie$ (ith the ,ualifyin' con$itions or specific
re,uire)ents e5acte$ un$er the locus standi rule! As citi+ens, their interest in the sub4ect )atter of the petition is $irect
an$ personal! At the ery least, their assertions ,uestionin' the !*reement are )a$e of a public ri'ht, i!e!, to ascertain
that the !*reement $i$ not 'o a'ainst establishe$ national policies, practices, an$ obli'ations bearin' on the 2tateGs
obli'ation to the co))unity of nations!

At any eent, the pri)or$ial i)portance to Filipino citi+ens in 'eneral of the issue at han$ i)pels the Court to
brush asi$e the proce$ural barrier pose$ by the tra$itional re,uire)ent of locus standi, as (e hae $one in a lon' line of
earlier cases, notably in the ol$ but oft*cite$ e)er'ency po(ers cases922: an$ <ilosbayan )% =uin*ona, #r!92D: &n cases
of transcen$ental i)portance, (e (rote a'ain in .ayan )% >amora,926: 8#he Court )ay rela5 the stan$in' re,uire)ents
an$ allo( a suit to prosper een (here there is no $irect in4ury to the party clai)in' the ri'ht of 4u$icial reie(!F

Moreoer, bearin' in )in$ (hat the Court sai$ in Ta?ada )% !n*ara, 8that it (ill not shir0, $i'ress fro) or
aban$on its sacre$ $uty an$ authority to uphol$ the Constitution in )atters that inole 'rae abuse of $iscretion brou'ht
before it in appropriate cases, co))itte$ by any officer, a'ency, instru)entality or $epart)ent of the 'oern)ent,F92C: (e
cannot but resole hea$ on the issues raise$ before us! &n$ee$, (here an action of any branch of 'oern)ent is
seriously alle'e$ to hae infrin'e$ the Constitution or is $one (ith 'rae abuse of $iscretion, it beco)es not only the ri'ht
but in fact the $uty of the 4u$iciary to settle it! As in this petition, issues are precisely raise$ puttin' to the fore the
propriety of the !*reement pen$in' the ratification of the Ro)e 2tatute!

V8+'+&) o1 &,# RP-US No%-S/""#%'#" A2"##7#%&

PetitionerGs initial challen'e a'ainst the !*reement relates to for), its threshol$ posture bein' that EHN BF?*
B2<*BD cannot be a ali$ )e$iu) for conclu$in' the !*reement!
PetitionersG contentionOOperhaps ta0en una(are of certain (ell*reco'ni+e$ international $octrines, practices,
7
an$ 4ar'onsOOis untenable! ?ne of these is the $octrine of incorporation, as e5presse$ in 2ection 2, Article && of the
Constitution, (herein the Philippines a$opts the 'enerally accepte$ principles of international la( an$ international
4urispru$ence as part of the la( of the lan$ an$ a$heres to the policy of peace, cooperation, an$ a)ity (ith all nations!
92;: An e5chan'e of notes falls 8into the cate'ory of inter*'oern)ental a'ree)ents,F927: (hich is an internationally
accepte$ for) of international a'ree)ent! #he >nite$ Nations #reaty Collections @#reaty Reference 3ui$eA $efines the
ter) as follo(s7


An 8e5chan'e of notesF is a recor$ of a routine a'ree)ent, that has )any si)ilarities
(ith the priate la( contract! #he a'ree)ent consists of the e5chan'e of t(o $ocu)ents, each
of the parties bein' in the possession of the one si'ne$ by the representatie of the other! >n$er
the usual proce$ure, the acceptin' 2tate repeats the te5t of the offerin' 2tate to recor$ its
assent! #he si'natories of the letters )ay be 'oern)ent Ministers, $iplo)ats or $epart)ental
hea$s! #he techni,ue of e5chan'e of notes is fre,uently resorte$ to, either because of its
spee$y proce$ure, or, so)eti)es, to aoi$ the process of le'islatie approal!92<:


&n another perspectie, the ter)s 8e5chan'e of notesF an$ 8e5ecutie a'ree)entsF hae been use$
interchan'eably, e5chan'e of notes bein' consi$ere$ a for) of e5ecutie a'ree)ent that beco)es bin$in' throu'h
e5ecutie action!929: ?n the other han$, e5ecutie a'ree)ents conclu$e$ by the Presi$ent 8so)eti)es ta0e the for) of
e5chan'e of notes an$ at other ti)es that of )ore for)al $ocu)ents $eno)inate$ Ja'ree)entsG or Jprotocols!GF9DB: As
for)er >2 1i'h Co))issioner to the Philippines Francis B! 2ayre obsere$ in his (or0, The Constitutionality of Trade
!*reement !cts7
#he point (here or$inary correspon$ence bet(een this an$ other 'oern)ents en$s
an$ a'ree)ents O (hether $eno)inate$ e5ecutie a'ree)ents or e5chan'e of notes or
other(ise O be'in, )ay so)eti)es be $ifficult of rea$y ascertain)ent!9D1: 5 5 5
&t is fairly clear fro) the fore'oin' $is,uisition that EHN BF?*B2<*BDOObe it ie(e$ as the Non*2urren$er
A'ree)ent itself, or as an inte'ral instru)ent of acceptance thereof or as consent to be boun$OOis a reco'ni+e$ )o$e of
conclu$in' a le'ally bin$in' international (ritten contract a)on' nations!

S#%&# Co%-/""#%-# No& R#:/+"#'

Article 2 of the =ienna Conention on the %a( of #reaties $efines a treaty as 8an international a'ree)ent
conclu$e$ bet(een states in (ritten for) an$ 'oerne$ by international la(, (hether e)bo$ie$ in a sin'le instru)ent or
in t(o or )ore relate$ instru)ents an$ (hateer its particular $esi'nation!F9D2: &nternational a'ree)ents )ay be in the
for) of @1A treaties that re,uire le'islatie concurrence after e5ecutie ratification" or @2A e5ecutie a'ree)ents that are
si)ilar to treaties, e5cept that they $o not re,uire le'islatie concurrence an$ are usually less for)al an$ $eal (ith a
narro(er ran'e of sub4ect )atters than treaties!9DD:

>n$er international la(, there is no $ifference bet(een treaties an$ e5ecutie a'ree)ents in ter)s of their
bin$in' effects on the contractin' states concerne$,9D6: as lon' as the ne'otiatin' functionaries hae re)aine$ (ithin
their po(ers!9DC: Neither, on the $o)estic sphere, can one be hel$ ali$ if it iolates the Constitution!9D;: Authorities are,
ho(eer, a'ree$ that one is $istinct fro) another for accepte$ reasons apart fro) the concurrence*re,uire)ent aspect!
9D7: As has been obsere$ by >2 constitutional scholars, a treaty has 'reater 8$i'nityF than an e5ecutie a'ree)ent,
because its constitutional efficacy is beyon$ $oubt, a treaty hain' behin$ it the authority of the Presi$ent, the 2enate,
an$ the people"9D<: a ratifie$ treaty, unli0e an e5ecutie a'ree)ent, ta0es prece$ence oer any prior statutory
enact)ent!9D9:

Petitioner parlays the notion that the !*reement is of $ubious ali$ity, parta0in' as it $oes of the nature of a
treaty" hence, it )ust be $uly concurre$ in by the 2enate! Petitioner ta0es a cue fro) Commissioner of Customs )%
Eastern 6ea Tradin*, in (hich the Court repro$uce$ the follo(in' obserations )a$e by >2 le'al scholars7
89&:nternational a'ree)ents inolin' political issues or chan'es of national policy an$ those inolin' international
arran'e)ents of a per)anent character usually ta0e the for) of treaties 9(hile: those e)bo$yin' a$4ust)ents of $etail
carryin' out (ell establishe$ national policies an$ tra$itions an$ those inolin' arran'e)ents of a )ore or less
te)porary nature ta0e the for) of e5ecutie a'ree)ents!F

96B:

Pressin' its point, petitioner sub)its that the sub4ect of the !*reement $oes not fall un$er any of the sub4ect*
cate'ories that are enu)erate$ in the Eastern 6ea Tradin* case, an$ that )ay be coere$ by an e5ecutie a'ree)ent,
such as co))ercialHconsular relations, )ost*faore$ nation ri'hts, patent ri'hts, tra$e)ar0 an$ copyri'ht protection,
postal an$ nai'ation arran'e)ents an$ settle)ent of clai)s!

&n a$$ition, petitioner foists the applicability to the instant case of !dolfo )% CF, of >ambales and Merchant,
961: hol$in' that an e5ecutie a'ree)ent throu'h an e5chan'e of notes cannot be use$ to a)en$ a treaty!

/e are not persua$e$!

#he cate'ori+ation of sub4ect )atters that )ay be coere$ by international a'ree)ents )entione$ in
Eastern 6ea Tradin* is not cast in stone! #here are no har$ an$ fast rules on the propriety of enterin', on a 'ien
sub4ect, into a treaty or an e5ecutie a'ree)ent as an instru)ent of international relations! #he pri)ary consi$eration in
the choice of the for) of a'ree)ent is the partiesG intent an$ $esire to craft an international a'ree)ent in the for) they so
(ish to further their respectie interests! =erily, the )atter of for) ta0es a bac0 seat (hen it co)es to effectieness an$
bin$in' effect of the enforce)ent of a treaty or an e5ecutie a'ree)ent, as the parties in either international a'ree)ent
each labor un$er the pacta sunt ser)anda962: principle!

As )ay be note$, al)ost half a century has elapse$ since the Court ren$ere$ its $ecision in Eastern 6ea
Tradin*! 2ince then, the con$uct of forei'n affairs has beco)e )ore co)ple5 an$ the $o)ain of international la( (i$er,
as to inclu$e such sub4ects as hu)an ri'hts, the eniron)ent, an$ the sea! &n fact, in the >2 alone, the e5ecutie
a'ree)ents e5ecute$ by its Presi$ent fro) 19<B to 2BBB coere$ sub4ects such as $efense, tra$e, scientific cooperation,
aiation, ato)ic ener'y, eniron)ental cooperation, peace corps, ar)s li)itation, an$ nuclear safety, a)on' others!96D:
8
2urely, the enu)eration in Eastern 6ea Tradin* cannot circu)scribe the option of each state on the )atter of (hich the
international a'ree)ent for)at (oul$ be conenient to sere its best interest! As Francis 2ayre sai$ in his (or0 referre$
to earlier7
5 5 5 &t (oul$ be useless to un$erta0e to $iscuss here the lar'e ariety of e5ecutie
a'ree)ents as such conclu$e$ fro) ti)e to ti)e! 1un$re$s of e5ecutie a'ree)ents, other than
those entere$ into un$er the tra$e*a'ree)ent act, hae been ne'otiate$ (ith forei'n
'oern)ents! 5 5 5 #hey coer such sub4ects as the inspection of essels, nai'ation $ues,
inco)e ta5 on shippin' profits, the a$)ission of ciil air craft, custo) )atters an$ co))ercial
relations 'enerally, international clai)s, postal )atters, the re'istration of tra$e)ar0s an$
copyri'hts, etc! 5 5 5


An$ lest it be oerloo0e$, one type of e5ecutie a'ree)ent is a treaty*authori+e$966: or a treaty*
i)ple)entin' e5ecutie a'ree)ent,96C: (hich necessarily (oul$ coer the sa)e )atters sub4ect of the un$erlyin' treaty!

But oer an$ aboe the fore'oin' consi$erations is the fact thatOOsae for the situation an$ )atters
conte)plate$ in 2ec! 2C, Art! I=&&& of the Constitution96;:OO(hen a treaty is re,uire$, the Constitution $oes not classify
any sub4ect, li0e that inolin' political issues, to be in the for) of, an$ ratifie$ as, a treaty! /hat the Constitution )erely
prescribes is that treaties nee$ the concurrence of the 2enate by a ote $efine$ therein to co)plete the ratification
process!

PetitionerGs reliance on !dolfo967: is )isplace$, sai$ case bein' inapplicable o(in' to $ifferent factual
)ilieus! #here, the Court hel$ that an e5ecutie a'ree)ent cannot be use$ to a)en$ a $uly ratifie$ an$ e5istin' treaty,
i!e!, the Bases #reaty! &n$ee$, an e5ecutie a'ree)ent that $oes not re,uire the concurrence of the 2enate for its
ratification )ay not be use$ to a)en$ a treaty that, un$er the Constitution, is the pro$uct of the ratifyin' acts of the
E5ecutie an$ the 2enate! #he presence of a treaty, purporte$ly bein' sub4ect to a)en$)ent by an e5ecutie
a'ree)ent, $oes not obtain un$er the pre)ises!

Consi$erin' the aboe $iscussion, the Court nee$ not belabor at len'th the thir$ )ain issue raise$, referrin'
to the ali$ity an$ effectiity of the !*reement (ithout the concurrence by at least t(o*thir$s of all the )e)bers of the
2enate! #he Court has, in Eastern 6ea Tradin*,96<: as reiterate$ in .ayan,969: 'ien reco'nition to the obli'atory effect
of e5ecutie a'ree)ents (ithout the concurrence of the 2enate7

5 5 5 9#:he ri'ht of the E5ecutie to enter into bin$in' a'ree)ents (ithout the
necessity of subse,uent Con'ressional approal has been confir)e$ by lon' usa'e! Fro) the
earliest $ays of our history, (e hae entere$ e5ecutie a'ree)ents coerin' such sub4ects as
co))ercial an$ consular relations, )ost faore$*nation ri'hts, patent ri'hts, tra$e)ar0 an$
copyri'ht protection, postal an$ nai'ation arran'e)ents an$ the settle)ent of clai)s! #he
ali$ity of these has neer been seriously ,uestione$ by our courts!


T,# A2"##7#%& No& +% Co%&"0#%&+o% o1 &,# Ro7# S&&/&#

&t is the petitionerGs ne5t contention that the !*reement un$er)ines the establish)ent of the &CC an$ is null
an$ oi$ insofar as it un$uly restricts the &CCGs 4uris$iction an$ infrin'es upon the effectiity of the Ro)e 2tatute!
Petitioner posits that the !*reement (as constitute$ solely for the purpose of proi$in' in$ii$uals or 'roups of
in$ii$uals (ith i))unity fro) the 4uris$iction of the &CC" an$ such 'rant of i))unity throu'h non*surren$er a'ree)ents
alle'e$ly $oes not le'iti)ately fall (ithin the scope of Art! 9< of the Ro)e 2tatute! &t conclu$es that state parties (ith
non*surren$er a'ree)ents are preente$ fro) )eetin' their obli'ations un$er the Ro)e 2tatute, thereby constitutin' a
breach of Arts! 27,9CB: <;,9C1: <99C2: an$ 9B9CD: thereof!
Petitioner stresses that the oerall ob4ect an$ purpose of the Ro)e 2tatute is to ensure that those
responsible for the (orst possible cri)es are brou'ht to 4ustice in all cases, pri)arily by states, but as a last resort, by the
&CC" thus, any a'ree)entPli0e the non*surren$er a'ree)entPthat preclu$es the &CC fro) e5ercisin' its co)ple)entary
function of actin' (hen a state is unable to or un(illin' to $o so, $efeats the ob4ect an$ purpose of the Ro)e 2tatute!

Petitioner (oul$ a$$ that the Presi$ent an$ the .FA 2ecretary, as representaties of a si'natory of the Ro)e
2tatute, are obli'e$ by the i)peraties of 'oo$ faith to refrain fro) perfor)in' acts that substantially $ealue the purpose
an$ ob4ect of the 2tatute, as si'ne$! A$$in' a nullifyin' in're$ient to the !*reement, accor$in' to petitioner, is the fact
that it has an i))oral purpose or is other(ise at ariance (ith a priorly e5ecute$ treaty!

Contrary to petitionerGs pretense, the !*reement $oes not contraene or un$er)ine, nor $oes it $iffer fro),
the Ro)e 2tatute! Far fro) 'oin' a'ainst each other, one co)ple)ents the other! As a )atter of fact, the principle of
co)ple)entarity un$erpins the creation of the &CC! As aptly pointe$ out by respon$ents an$ a$)itte$ by petitioners, the
4uris$iction of the &CC is to 8be co)ple)entary to national cri)inal 4uris$ictions 9of the si'natory states:!F9C6: Art! 1 of the
Ro)e 2tatute pertinently proi$es7





Article 1

#he Court

An &nternational Cri)ininal Court @8the CourtFA is hereby establishe$! &t 5 5 5 !,88
,0# &,# $o;#" &o #.#"-+!# +&! </"+!'+-&+o% oer persons for the )ost serious cri)es of
international concern, as referre$ to in this 2tatute, an$ !,88 (# -o7$8#7#%&") &o %&+o%8
-"+7+%8 </"+!'+-&+o%!! #he 4uris$iction an$ functionin' of the Court shall be 'oerne$ by the
proisions of this 2tatute! @E)phasis ours!A
9


2i'nificantly, the si5th prea)bular para'raph of the Ro)e 2tatute $eclares that 8it is the $uty of eery 2tate
to e5ercise its cri)inal 4uris$iction oer those responsible for international cri)es!F #his proision in$icates that pri)ary
4uris$iction oer the so*calle$ international cri)es rests, at the first instance, (ith the state (here the cri)e (as
co))itte$" secon$arily, (ith the &CC in appropriate situations conte)plate$ un$er Art! 17, par! 19CC: of the Ro)e 2tatute!

?f particular note is the application of the principle of ne bis in idem9C;: un$er par! D of Art! 2B, Ro)e 2tatute,
(hich a'ain un$erscores the pri)acy of the 4uris$iction of a state is*a*is that of the &CC! As far as releant, the
proision states that 8no person (ho has been trie$ by another court for con$uct 5 5 5 9constitutin' cri)es (ithin its
4uris$iction: shall be trie$ by the 9&nternational Cri)inal: Court (ith respect to the sa)e con$uct 5 5 5!F

#he fore'oin' proisions of the Ro)e 2tatute, ta0en collectiely, ar'ue a'ainst the i$ea of 4uris$ictional
conflict bet(een the Philippines, as party to the non*surren$er a'ree)ent, an$ the &CC" or the i$ea of the !*reement
substantially i)pairin' the alue of the RPGs un$erta0in' un$er the Ro)e 2tatute! &'norin' for a (hile the fact that the
RP si'ne$ the Ro)e 2tatute ahea$ of the !*reement, it is abun$antly clear to us that the Ro)e 2tatute e5pressly
reco'ni+es the pri)ary 4uris$iction of states, li0e the RP, oer serious cri)es co))itte$ (ithin their respectie bor$ers,
the co)ple)entary 4uris$iction of the &CC co)in' into play only (hen the si'natory states are un(illin' or unable to
prosecute!

3ien the aboe consi$eration, petitionerGs su''estionOOthat the RP, by enterin' into the !*reement, iolate$
its $uty re,uire$ by the i)peraties of 'oo$ faith an$ breache$ its co))it)ent un$er the =ienna Conention9C7: to
refrain fro) perfor)in' any act ten$in' to i)pair the alue of a treaty, e!'!, the Ro)e 2tatuteOOhas to be re4ecte$
outri'ht! For nothin' in the proisions of the !*reement, in relation to the Ro)e 2tatute, ten$s to $i)inish the efficacy of
the 2tatute, let alone $efeats the purpose of the &CC! %est it be oerloo0e$, the Ro)e 2tatute contains a proiso that
en4oins the &CC fro) see0in' the surren$er of an errin' person, shoul$ the process re,uire the re,ueste$ state to
perfor) an act that (oul$ iolate so)e international a'ree)ent it has entere$ into! /e refer to Art! 9<@2A of the Ro)e
2tatute, (hich rea$s7

Article 9<

Cooperation (ith respect to (aier of i))unity
an$ consent to surren$er

5 5 5 5

2! #he Court )ay not procee$ (ith a re,uest for surren$er (hich (oul$
re,uire the re,ueste$ 2tate to act inconsistently (ith its obli'ations un$er international
a'ree)ents pursuant to (hich the consent of a sen$in' 2tate is re,uire$ to surren$er a
person of that 2tate to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the
sen$in' 2tate for the 'iin' of consent for the surren$er!


Moreoer, un$er international la(, there is a consi$erable $ifference bet(een a 2tate*Party an$ a si'natory
to a treaty! >n$er the =ienna Conention on the %a( of #reaties, a si'natory state is only obli'e$ to refrain fro) acts
(hich (oul$ $efeat the ob4ect an$ purpose of a treaty"9C<: (hereas a 2tate*Party, on the other han$, is le'ally obli'e$ to
follo( all the proisions of a treaty in 'oo$ faith!

&n the instant case, it bears stressin' that the Philippines is only a si'natory to the Ro)e 2tatute an$ not a
2tate*Party for lac0 of ratification by the 2enate! #hus, it is only obli'e$ to refrain fro) acts (hich (oul$ $efeat the ob4ect
an$ purpose of the Ro)e 2tatute! Any ar'u)ent obli'in' the Philippines to follo( any proision in the treaty (oul$ be
pre)ature!

As a result, petitionerGs ar'u)ent that 2tate*Parties (ith non*surren$er a'ree)ents are preente$ fro)
)eetin' their obli'ations un$er the Ro)e 2tatute, specifically Arts! 27, <;, <9 an$ 9B, )ust fail! #hese articles are only
le'ally bin$in' upon 2tate*Parties, not si'natories!

Further)ore, a careful rea$in' of sai$ Art! 9B (oul$ sho( that the !*reement is not inco)patible (ith the
Ro)e 2tatute! 2pecifically, Art! 9B@6A proi$es that 89i:f the re,uestin' 2tate is a 2tate not Party to this 2tatute the
re,ueste$ 2tate, if it is not un$er an international obli'ation to e5tra$ite the person to the re,uestin' 2tate, shall 'ie
priority to the re,uest for surren$er fro) the Court! 5 5 5F &n applyin' the proision, certain un$ispute$ facts shoul$ be
pointe$ out7 first, the >2 is neither a 2tate*Party nor a si'natory to the Ro)e 2tatute" an$ second, there is an
international a'ree)ent bet(een the >2 an$ the Philippines re'ar$in' e5tra$ition or surren$er of persons, i!e!, the
!*reement! Clearly, een assu)in' that the Philippines is a 2tate*Party, the Ro)e 2tatute still reco'ni+es the pri)acy of
international a'ree)ents entere$ into bet(een 2tates, een (hen one of the 2tates is not a 2tate*Party to the Ro)e
2tatute!

So0#"#+2%&) L+7+&#' () I%&#"%&+o%8 A2"##7#%&!

Petitioner ne5t ar'ues that the RP has, throu'h the !*reement, ab$icate$ its soerei'nty by bar'ainin' a(ay
the 4uris$iction of the &CC to prosecute >2 nationals, 'oern)ent officialsHe)ployees or )ilitary personnel (ho co))it
serious cri)es of international concerns in the Philippines! For)ulatin' petitionerGs ar'u)ent a bit $ifferently, the RP, by
enterin' into the !*reement, $oes thereby ab$icate its soerei'nty, ab$ication bein' $one by its (aiin' or aban$onin'
its ri'ht to see0 recourse throu'h the Ro)e 2tatute of the &CC for errin' A)ericans co))ittin' international cri)es in the
country!

/e are not persua$e$! As it (ere, the !*reement is but a for) of affir)ance an$ confir)ance of the
PhilippinesG national cri)inal 4uris$iction! National cri)inal 4uris$iction bein' pri)ary, as e5plaine$ aboe, it is al(ays the
responsibility an$ (ithin the prero'atie of the RP either to prosecute cri)inal offenses e,ually coere$ by the Ro)e
10
2tatute or to acce$e to the 4uris$iction of the &CC! #hus, the Philippines )ay $eci$e to try 8personsF of the >2, as the
ter) is un$erstoo$ in the !*reement, un$er our national cri)inal 4ustice syste)! ?r it )ay opt not to e5ercise its cri)inal
4uris$iction oer its errin' citi+ens or oer >2 8personsF co))ittin' hi'h cri)es in the country an$ $efer to the secon$ary
cri)inal 4uris$iction of the &CC oer the)! As to 8personsF of the >2 (ho) the Philippines refuses to prosecute, the
country (oul$, in effect, accor$ $iscretion to the >2 to e5ercise either its national cri)inal 4uris$iction oer the 8personF
concerne$ or to 'ie its consent to the referral of the )atter to the &CC for trial! &n the sa)e breath, the >2 )ust e5ten$
the sa)e priile'e to the Philippines (ith respect to 8personsF of the RP co))ittin' hi'h cri)es (ithin >2 territorial
4uris$iction!



&n the conte5t of the Constitution, there can be no serious ob4ection to the Philippines a'reein' to un$erta0e
the thin's set forth in the !*reement! 2urely, one 2tate can a'ree to (aie 4uris$ictionPto the e5tent a'ree$ uponPto
sub4ects of another 2tate $ue to the reco'nition of the principle of e5traterritorial i))unity! /hat the Court (rote in
Nicolas )% omulo9C9:Pa case inolin' the i)ple)entation of the cri)inal 4uris$iction proisions of the RP*>2 =isitin'
Forces A'ree)entPis apropos7

Nothin' in the Constitution prohibits such a'ree)ents reco'ni+in' i))unity fro)
4uris$iction or so)e aspects of 4uris$iction @such as custo$yA, in relation to lon'*reco'ni+e$
sub4ects of such i))unity li0e 1ea$s of 2tate, $iplo)ats an$ )e)bers of the ar)e$ forces
contin'ents of a forei'n 2tate allo(e$ to enter another 2tateGs territory! 5 5 5


#o be sure, the nullity of the sub4ect non*surren$er a'ree)ent cannot be pre$icate$ on the postulate that
so)e of its proisions constitute a irtual ab$ication of its soerei'nty! Al)ost eery ti)e a state enters into an
international a'ree)ent, it oluntarily she$s off part of its soerei'nty! #he Constitution, as $rafte$, $i$ not enision a
reclusie Philippines isolate$ fro) the rest of the (orl$! &t een a$heres, as earlier state$, to the policy of cooperation
an$ a)ity (ith all nations!9;B:

By their nature, treaties an$ international a'ree)ents actually hae a li)itin' effect on the other(ise
enco)passin' an$ absolute nature of soerei'nty! By their oluntary act, nations )ay $eci$e to surren$er or (aie
so)e aspects of their state po(er or a'ree to li)it the e5ercise of their other(ise e5clusie an$ absolute 4uris$iction! #he
usual un$erlyin' consi$eration in this partial surren$er )ay be the 'reater benefits $erie$ fro) a pact or a reciprocal
un$erta0in' of one contractin' party to 'rant the sa)e priile'es or i))unities to the other! ?n the rationale that the
Philippines has a$opte$ the 'enerally accepte$ principles of international la( as part of the la( of the lan$, a portion of
soerei'nty )ay be (aie$ (ithout iolatin' the Constitution!9;1: 2uch (aier $oes not a)ount to an unconstitutional
$i)inution or $epriation of 4uris$iction of Philippine courts!9;2:

A2"##7#%& No& I77o"8=No& & V"+%-#
;+&, P"+%-+$8#! o1 I%&#"%&+o%8 L;


Petitioner ur'es that the !*reement be struc0 $o(n as oi$ ab initio for i)posin' i))oral obli'ations an$Hor
bein' at ariance (ith alle'e$ly uniersally reco'ni+e$ principles of international la(! #he i))oral aspect procee$s fro)
the fact that the !*reement, as petitioner (oul$ put it, 8leaes cri)inals i))une fro) responsibility for uni)a'inable
atrocities that $eeply shoc0 the conscience of hu)anity" 5 5 5 it preclu$es our country fro) $elierin' an A)erican
cri)inal to the 9&CC: 5 5 5!F9;D:

#he aboe ar'u)ent is a 0in$ of recyclin' of petitionerGs earlier position, (hich, as alrea$y $iscusse$,
conten$s that the RP, by enterin' into the !*reement, irtually ab$icate$ its soerei'nty an$ in the process un$er)ine$
its treaty obli'ations un$er the Ro)e 2tatute, contrary to international la( principles!9;6:

#he Court is not persua$e$! 2uffice it to state in this re'ar$ that the non*surren$er a'ree)ent, as aptly
$escribe$ by the 2olicitor 3eneral, 8is an assertion by the Philippines of its $esire to try an$ punish cri)es un$er its
national la(! 5 5 5 #he a'ree)ent is a reco'nition of the pri)acy an$ co)petence of the countryGs 4u$iciary to try offenses
un$er its national cri)inal la(s an$ $ispense 4ustice fairly an$ 4u$iciously!F

Petitioner, (e beliee, labors un$er the erroneous i)pression that the !*reement (oul$ allo( Filipinos an$
A)ericans co))ittin' hi'h cri)es of international concern to escape cri)inal trial an$ punish)ent! #his is )anifestly
incorrect! Persons (ho )ay hae co))itte$ acts penali+e$ un$er the Ro)e 2tatute can be prosecute$ an$ punishe$ in
the Philippines or in the >2" or (ith the consent of the RP or the >2, before the &CC, assu)in', for the nonce, that all the
for)alities necessary to bin$ both countries to the Ro)e 2tatute hae been )et! For perspectie, (hat the !*reement
conte5tually prohibits is the surren$er by either party of in$ii$uals to international tribunals, li0e the &CC, (ithout the
consent of the other party, (hich )ay $esire to prosecute the cri)e un$er its e5istin' la(s! /ith the ie( (e ta0e of
thin's, there is nothin' i))oral or iolatie of international la( concepts in the act of the Philippines of assu)in' cri)inal
4uris$iction pursuant to the non*surren$er a'ree)ent oer an offense consi$ere$ cri)inal by both Philippine la(s an$ the
Ro)e 2tatute!

No G"0# A(/!# o1 D+!-"#&+o%

PetitionerGs final point reoles aroun$ the necessity of the 2enateGs concurrence in the !*reement! An$
(ithout specifically sayin' so, petitioner (oul$ ar'ue that the non*surren$er a'ree)ent (as e5ecute$ by the Presi$ent,
thru the .FA 2ecretary, in 'rae abuse of $iscretion!

#he Court nee$ not $ele on an$ belabor the first portion of the aboe posture of petitioner, the sa)e hain'
been $iscusse$ at len'th earlier on! As to the secon$ portion, /e (ish to state that petitioner irtually faults the
Presi$ent for perfor)in', throu'h respon$ents, a tas0 conferre$ the Presi$ent by the ConstitutionPthe po(er to enter
into international a'ree)ents!

11
By constitutional fiat an$ by the nature of his or her office, the Presi$ent, as hea$ of state an$ 'oern)ent, is
the sole or'an an$ authority in the e5ternal affairs of the country!9;C: #he Constitution ests in the Presi$ent the po(er to
enter into international a'ree)ents, sub4ect, in appropriate cases, to the re,uire$ concurrence otes of the 2enate! But
as earlier in$icate$, e5ecutie a'ree)ents )ay be ali$ly entere$ into (ithout such concurrence! As the Presi$ent
(iel$s ast po(ers an$ influence, her con$uct in the e5ternal affairs of the nation is, as .ayan (oul$ put it, 8e5ecutie
alto'ether!F #he ri'ht of the Presi$ent to enter into or ratify bin$in' e5ecutie a'ree)ents has been confir)e$ by lon'
practice!9;;:

&n thus a'reein' to conclu$e the !*reement thru EHN BF?*B2<*BD, then Presi$ent 3loria Macapa'al*Arroyo,
represente$ by the 2ecretary of Forei'n Affairs, acte$ (ithin the scope of the authority an$ $iscretion este$ in her by the
Constitution! At the en$ of the $ay, the Presi$entOOby ratifyin', thru her $eputies, the non*surren$er a'ree)entOO$i$
nothin' )ore than $ischar'e a constitutional $uty an$ e5ercise a prero'atie that pertains to her office!

/hile the issue of ratification of the Ro)e 2tatute is not $eter)inatie of the other issues raise$ herein, it
)ay perhaps be pertinent to re)in$ all an$ sun$ry that about the ti)e this petition (as interpose$, such issue of
ratification (as lai$ to rest in Pimentel, #r% )% "ffice of the E'ecuti)e 6ecretary%9;7: As the Court e)phasi+e$ in sai$ case,
the po(er to ratify a treaty, the 2tatute in that instance, rests (ith the Presi$ent, sub4ect to the concurrence of the 2enate,
(hose role relatie to the ratification of a treaty is li)ite$ )erely to concurrin' in or (ithhol$in' the ratification! An$
conco)itant (ith this treaty*)a0in' po(er of the Presi$ent is his or her prero'atie to refuse to sub)it a treaty to the
2enate" or hain' secure$ the latterGs consent to the ratification of the treaty, refuse to ratify it!9;<: #his prero'atie, the
Court hastene$ to a$$, is the Presi$entGs alone an$ cannot be encroache$ upon ia a (rit of )an$a)us! Barrin'
interenin' eents, then, the Philippines re)ains to be 4ust a si'natory to the Ro)e 2tatute! >n$er Art! 12C9;9: thereof,
the final acts re,uire$ to co)plete the treaty process an$, thus, brin' it into force, insofar as the Philippines is concerne$,
hae yet to be $one!

A2"##7#%& N##' No& B# +% &,# Fo"7 o1 T"#&)

?n .ece)ber 11, 2BB9, then Presi$ent Arroyo si'ne$ into la( Republic Act No! @RAA 9<C1, other(ise 0no(n
as the 8Philippine Act on Cri)es A'ainst &nternational 1u)anitarian %a(, 3enoci$e, an$ ?ther Cri)es A'ainst
1u)anity!F 2ec! 17 of RA 9<C1, particularly the secon$ para'raph thereof, proi$es7

S#-&+o% 1>. #urisdiction% O 5 5 5 5
&n the interest of 4ustice, the releant Philippine authorities may $ispense (ith the
inesti'ation or prosecution of a cri)e punishable un$er this Act if another court or international
tribunal is alrea$y con$uctin' the inesti'ation or un$erta0in' the prosecution of such cri)e!
I%!&#', &,# /&,o"+&+#! may !/""#%'#" o" #.&"'+&# !/!$#-&#' o" --/!#' $#"!o%! +% &,#
P,+8+$$+%#! &o &,# $$"o$"+&# +%&#"%&+o%8 -o/"&, +1 %), o" &o %o&,#" S&&# $/"!/%& &o
&,# $$8+-(8# #.&"'+&+o% 8;! %' &"#&+#!! @E)phasis supplie$!A


A ie( is a$ance$ that the !*reement a)en$s e5istin' )unicipal la(s on the 2tateGs obli'ation in relation to
'rae cri)es a'ainst the la( of nations, i!e!, 'enoci$e, cri)es a'ainst hu)anity an$ (ar cri)es! Relyin' on the aboe*
,uote$ statutory proiso, the ie( posits that the Philippine is re,uire$ to surren$er to the proper international tribunal
those persons accuse$ of the 'rae cri)es $efine$ un$er RA 9<C1, if it $oes not e5ercise its pri)ary 4uris$iction to
prosecute the)!
#he basic pre)ise rests on the interpretation that if it $oes not $eci$e to prosecute a forei'n national for
iolations of RA 9<C1, the Philippines has only t(o options, to (it7 @1A surren$er the accuse$ to the proper international
tribunal" or @2A surren$er the accuse$ to another 2tate if such surren$er is 8pursuant to the applicable e5tra$ition la(s
an$ treaties!F But the Philippines )ay e5ercise these options only in cases (here 8another court or international tribunal
is alrea$y con$uctin' the inesti'ation or un$erta0in' the prosecution of such cri)e"F other(ise, the Philippines )ust
prosecute the cri)e before its o(n courts pursuant to RA 9<C1!

Posin' the situation of a >2 national un$er prosecution by an international tribunal for any cri)e un$er RA
9<C1, the Philippines has the option to surren$er such >2 national to the international tribunal if it $eci$es not to
prosecute such >2 national here! #he ie( asserts that this option of the Philippines un$er 2ec! 17 of RA 9<C1 is not
sub4ect to the consent of the >2, an$ any $ero'ation of 2ec! 17 of RA 9<C1, such as re,uirin' the consent of the >2
before the Philippines can e5ercise such option, re,uires an a)en$atory la(! &n line (ith this scenario, the ie( stron'ly
ar'ues that the !*reement preents the PhilippinesP(ithout the consent of the >2Pfro) surren$erin' to any
international tribunal >2 nationals accuse$ of cri)es coere$ by RA 9<C1, an$, thus, in effect a)en$s 2ec! 17 of RA
9<C1! Conse,uently, the ie( is stron'ly i)presse$ that the !*reement cannot be e)bo$ie$ in a si)ple e5ecutie
a'ree)ent in the for) of an e5chan'e of notes but )ust be i)ple)ente$ throu'h an e5tra$ition la( or a treaty (ith the
correspon$in' for)alities!

Moreoer, consonant (ith the fore'oin' ie(, citin' 2ec! 2, Art! && of the Constitution, (here the Philippines
a$opts, as a national policy, the 82#%#"88) --#$&#' $"+%-+$8#! o1 +%&#"%&+o%8 8; ! $"& o1 &,# 8; o1 &,# 8%',F
the Court is further i)presse$ to perceie the Ro)e 2tatute as $eclaratory of custo)ary international la(! &n other
(or$s, the 2tatute e)bo$ies principles of la( (hich constitute custo)ary international la( or custo) an$ for (hich
reason it assu)es the status of an enforceable $o)estic la( in the conte5t of the aforecite$ constitutional proision! As a
corollary, it is ar'ue$ that any $ero'ation fro) the Ro)e 2tatute principles cannot be un$erta0en ia a )ere e5ecutie
a'ree)ent, (hich, as an e5clusie act of the e5ecutie branch, can only i)ple)ent, but cannot a)en$ or repeal, an
e5istin' la(! #he !*reement, so the ar'u)ent 'oes, see0s to frustrate the ob4ects of the principles of la( or alters
custo)ary rules e)bo$ie$ in the Ro)e 2tatute!

Prescin$in' fro) the fore'oin' pre)ises, the ie( thus a$ance$ consi$ers the !*reement inefficacious,
unless it is e)bo$ie$ in a treaty $uly ratifie$ (ith the concurrence of the 2enate, the theory bein' that a 2enate* ratifie$
treaty parta0es of the nature of a )unicipal la( that can a)en$ or superse$e another la(, in this instance 2ec! 17 of RA
9<C1 an$ the status of the Ro)e 2tatute as constitutie of enforceable $o)estic la( un$er 2ec! 2, Art! && of the
Constitution!

12
/e are unable to len$ co'ency to the ie( thus ta0en! For one, (e fin$ that the !*reement $oes not a)en$
or is repu'nant to RA 9<C1! For another, the ie( $oes not clearly state (hat precise principles of la(, if any, the
!*reement alters! An$ for a thir$, it $oes not $e)onstrate in the concrete ho( the !*reement see0s to frustrate the
ob4ecties of the principles of la( subsu)e$ in the Ro)e 2tatute!

Far fro) it, as earlier e5plaine$, the !*reement $oes not un$er)ine the Ro)e 2tatute as the for)er )erely
reinforces the pri)acy of the national 4uris$iction of the >2 an$ the Philippines in prosecutin' cri)inal offenses
co))itte$ by their respectie citi+ens an$ )ilitary personnel, a)on' others! #he 4uris$iction of the &CC pursuant to the
Ro)e 2tatute oer hi'h cri)es in$icate$ thereat is clearly an$ un)ista0ably co)ple)entary to the national cri)inal
4uris$iction of the si'natory states!

Moreoer, RA 9<C1 clearly7 @1A $efines an$ establishes the cri)es a'ainst international hu)anitarian la(,
'enoci$e an$ other cri)es a'ainst hu)anity"97B: @2A proi$es penal sanctions an$ cri)inal liability for their co))ission"
971: an$ @DA establishes special courts for the prosecution of these cri)es an$ for the 2tate to e5ercise pri)ary cri)inal
4uris$iction!972: No(here in RA 9<C1 is there a proiso that 'oes a'ainst the tenor of the !*reement!

#he ie( )a0es )uch of the aboe ,uote$ secon$ par! of 2ec! 17, RA 9<C1 as "#:/+"+%2 the Philippine
2tate to surren$er to the proper international tribunal those persons accuse$ of cri)es sanctione$ un$er sai$ la( if it
$oes not e5ercise its pri)ary 4uris$iction to prosecute such persons! #his ie( is not entirely correct, for the aboe
,uote$ proiso clearly proi$es '+!-"#&+o% to the Philippine 2tate on (hether to surren$er or not a person accuse$ of the
cri)es un$er RA 9<C1! #he statutory proiso uses the (or$ 8may!F &t is settle$ $octrine in statutory construction that the
(or$ 8)ayF $enotes $iscretion, an$ cannot be construe$ as hain' )an$atory effect!97D: #hus, the pertinent secon$
parara'raph of 2ec! 17, RA 9<C1 is si)ply per)issie on the part of the Philippine 2tate!

Besi$es, een 'rantin' that the surren$er of a person is )an$atorily re,uire$ (hen the Philippines $oes not
e5ercise its pri)ary 4uris$iction in cases (here 8another court or international tribunal is alrea$y con$uctin' the
inesti'ation or un$erta0in' the prosecution of such cri)e,F still, the tenor of the !*reement is not repu'nant to 2ec! 17
of RA 9<C1! 2ai$ le'al proiso aptly proi$es that the surren$er )ay be )a$e 8to another 2tate pursuant to the
applicable e5tra$ition la(s an$ treaties!F #he !*reement can alrea$y be consi$ere$ a treaty follo(in' this CourtGs
$ecision in Nicolas )% omulo976: (hich cite$ Weinber*er )% ossi!97C: &n Nicolas, /e hel$ that 8an e5ecutie a'ree)ent
is a JtreatyG (ithin the )eanin' of that (or$ in international la( an$ constitutes enforceable $o)estic la( )is/@/)is the
>nite$ 2tates!F97;:

%i0e(ise, the Philippines an$ the >2 alrea$y hae an e5istin' e5tra$ition treaty, i!e!, RP*>2 E5tra$ition
#reaty, (hich (as e5ecute$ on Noe)ber 1D, 1996! #he pertinent Philippine la(, on the other han$, is Presi$ential
.ecree No! 1B;9, issue$ on -anuary 1D, 1977! #hus, the !*reement, in con4unction (ith the RP*>2 E5tra$ition #reaty,
(oul$ neither iolate nor run counter to 2ec! 17 of RA 9<C1!

#he ie(Gs reliance on 6uplico )% Neda977: is si)ilarly i)proper! &n that case, seeral petitions (ere file$
,uestionin' the po(er of the Presi$ent to enter into forei'n loan a'ree)ents! 1o(eer, before the petitions coul$ be
resole$ by the Court, the ?ffice of the 2olicitor 3eneral file$ a Manifestation an$ Motion aerrin' that the Philippine
3oern)ent $eci$e$ not to continue (ith the M#E National Broa$ban$ Net(or0 Pro4ect, thus ren$erin' the petition )oot!
&n resolin' the case, the Court too0 4u$icial notice of the act of the e5ecutie $epart)ent of the Philippines @the
Presi$entA an$ foun$ the petition to be in$ee$ )oot! Accor$in'ly, it $is)isse$ the petitions!

&n his $issent in the aboe)entione$ case, -ustice Carpio $iscusse$ the le'al i)plications of an e5ecutie
a'ree)ent! 1e state$ that 8an e5ecutie a'ree)ent has the force an$ effect of la( 5 5 5 9it: cannot a)en$ or repeal $"+o"
la(s!F97<: 1ence, this ar'u)ent fin$s no application in this case seein' as RA 9<C1 is a subse,uent la(, not a prior one!
Notably, this ar'u)ent cannot be foun$ in the ratio decidendi of the case, but only in the $issentin' opinion!

#he ie( further conten$s that the RP*>2 E5tra$ition #reaty is inapplicable to RA 9<C1 for the reason that
un$er par! 1, Art! 2 of the RP*>2 E5tra$ition #reaty, 89a:n offense shall be an e5tra$itable offense if it is punishable
/%'#" &,# 8;! +% (o&, Co%&"-&+%2 P"&+#! 5 5 5,F979: an$ thereby conclu$in' that (hile the Philippines has
cri)inali+e$ un$er RA 9<C1 the acts $efine$ in the Ro)e 2tatute as (ar cri)es, 'enoci$e an$ other cri)es a'ainst
hu)anity, there is no si)ilar le'islation in the >2! &t is further ar'ue$ that, citin' 7%6% )% Coolid*e, in the >2, a person
cannot be trie$ in the fe$eral courts for an international cri)e unless Con'ress a$opts a la( $efinin' an$ punishin' the
offense%

#his ie( )ust fail!

?n the contrary, the >2 has alrea$y enacte$ le'islation punishin' the hi'h cri)es )entione$ earlier! &n fact,
as early as ?ctober 2BB;, the >2 enacte$ a la( cri)inali+in' (ar cri)es! 2ection 2661, Chapter 11<, Part &, #itle 1< of
the >nite$ 2tates Co$e Annotate$ @>2CAA proi$es for the cri)inal offense of 8(ar cri)esF (hich is si)ilar to the (ar
cri)es foun$ in both the Ro)e 2tatute an$ RA 9<C1, thus7

@aA ?ffense O /hoeer, (hether insi$e or outsi$e the >nite$ 2tates, co))its a (ar cri)e, in
any of the circu)stances $escribe$ in subsection @bA, shall be fine$ un$er this title or
i)prisone$ for life or any ter) of years, or both, an$ if $eath results to the icti), shall also
be sub4ect to the penalty of $eath!
@bA Circu)stances O #he circu)stances referre$ to in subsection @aA are that the person
co))ittin' such (ar cri)e or the icti) of such (ar cri)e is a )e)ber of the Ar)e$
Forces of the >nite$ 2tates or a national of the >nite$ 2tates @as $efine$ in 2ection 1B1 of
the &))i'ration an$ Nationality ActA!
@cA .efinition O As use$ in this 2ection the ter) 8(ar cri)eF )eans any con$uct O
@1A .efine$ as a 'rae breach in any of the international conentions si'ne$ at 3enea
12 Au'ust 1969, or any protocol to such conention to (hich the >nite$ 2tates is a
party"
@2A Prohibite$ by Article 2D, 2C, 27 or 2< of the Anne5 to the 1a'ue Conention &=,
Respectin' the %a(s an$ Custo)s of /ar on %an$, si'ne$ 1< ?ctober 19B7"
13
@DA /hich constitutes a 'rae breach of co))on Article D @as $efine$ in subsection 9$:A
(hen co))itte$ in the conte5t of an$ in association (ith an ar)e$ conflict not of an
international character" or
@6A ?f a person (ho, in relation to an ar)e$ conflict an$ contrary to the proisions of the
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the >se of Mines, Booby*#raps an$ ?ther
.eices as a)en$e$ at 3enea on D May 199; @Protocol && as a)en$e$ on D May
199;A, (hen the >nite$ 2tates is a party to such Protocol, (illfully 0ills or causes
serious in4ury to ciilians!9<B:

2i)ilarly, in .ece)ber 2BB9, the >2 a$opte$ a la( that cri)inali+e$ 'enoci$e, to (it7

Q1B91! 3enoci$e

@aA Basic ?ffense O /hoeer, (hether in the ti)e of peace or in ti)e of (ar
an$ (ith specific intent to $estroy, in (hole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic,
racial or reli'ious 'roup as suchO
@1A 0ills )e)bers of that 'roup"
@2A causes serious bo$ily in4ury to )e)bers of that 'roup"
@DA causes the per)anent i)pair)ent of the )ental faculties of )e)bers of
the 'roup throu'h $ru's, torture, or si)ilar techni,ues"
@6A sub4ects the 'roup to con$itions of life that are inten$e$ to cause the
physical $estruction of the 'roup in (hole or in part"
@CA i)poses )easures inten$e$ to preent births (ithin the 'roup" or
@;A transfers by force chil$ren of the 'roup to another 'roup"
shall be punishe$ as proi$e$ in subsection @bA!9<1:

Ar'uin' further, another ie( has been a$ance$ that the current >2 la(s $o not coer eery cri)e liste$
(ithin the 4uris$iction of the &CC an$ that there is a 'ap bet(een the $efinitions of the $ifferent cri)es un$er the >2 la(s
ersus the Ro)e 2tatute! #he ie( use$ a report (ritten by =ictoria L! 1olt an$ Elisabeth /! .allas, entitle$ 8?n #rial7
#he >2 Military an$ the &nternational Cri)inal Court,F as its basis!
At the outset, it shoul$ be pointe$ out that the report use$ )ay not hae any (ei'ht or alue un$er
international la(! Article D< of the 2tatute of the &nternational Court of -ustice @&C-A lists the sources of international la(,
as follo(s7 @1A international conentions, (hether 'eneral or particular, establishin' rules e5pressly reco'ni+e$ by the
contestin' states" @2A international custo), as ei$ence of a 'eneral practice accepte$ as la(" @DA the 'eneral principles
of la( reco'ni+e$ by ciili+e$ nations" an$ @6A sub4ect to the proisions of Article C9, 4u$icial $ecisions an$ &,# &#-,+%2!
o1 &,# 7o!& ,+2,8) :/8+1+#' $/(8+-+!&! o1 &,# 0"+o/! %&+o%!, as subsi$iary )eans for the $eter)ination of rules of
la(! #he report $oes not fall un$er any of the fore'oin' enu)erate$ sources! &t cannot een be consi$ere$ as the
8teachin's of hi'hly ,ualifie$ publicists!F A hi'hly ,ualifie$ publicist is a scholar of public international la( an$ the ter)
usually refers to le'al scholars or 8aca$e)ic (riters!F9<2: &t has not been sho(n that the authors9<D: of this report are
hi'hly ,ualifie$ publicists!

Assu)in' ar*uendo that the report has (ei'ht, still, the perceie$ 'aps in the $efinitions of the cri)es are
%o%#.+!&#%&! #o hi'hli'ht, the table belo( sho(s the $efinitions of 'enoci$e an$ (ar cri)es un$er the Ro)e 2tatute is*
R*is the $efinitions un$er >2 la(s7


Ro)e 2tatute >2 %a(
A"&+-8# 4
G#%o-+'#
For the purpose of this 2tatute, 8'enoci$eF )eans any
of the follo(in' acts co))itte$ (ith intent to $estroy, in
(hole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or reli'ious
'roup, as such7
@aA Lillin' )e)bers of the 'roup"
@bA Causin' serious bo$ily or )ental har) to )e)bers
of the 'roup"
@cA .eliberately inflictin' on the 'roup con$itions of life
calculate$ to brin' about its physical $estruction
in (hole or in part"
@$A &)posin' )easures inten$e$ to preent births
(ithin the 'roup"
@eA Forcibly transferrin' chil$ren of the 'roup to
another 'roup!
?1@91. G#%o-+'#

@aA Basic ?ffense O /hoeer, (hether in the ti)e of
peace or in ti)e of (ar an$ (ith specific intent to $estroy, in
(hole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or
reli'ious 'roup as suchO
@1A 0ills )e)bers of that 'roup"
@2A causes serious bo$ily in4ury to )e)bers of that
'roup"
@DA causes the per)anent i)pair)ent of the )ental
faculties of )e)bers of the 'roup throu'h $ru's,
torture, or si)ilar techni,ues"
@6A sub4ects the 'roup to con$itions of life that are
inten$e$ to cause the physical $estruction of the
'roup in (hole or in part"
@CA i)poses )easures inten$e$ to preent births (ithin
the 'roup" or
@;A transfers by force chil$ren of the 'roup to another
'roup"
shall be punishe$ as proi$e$ in subsection @bA!
A"&+-8# 5
W" C"+7#!
2! For the purpose of this 2tatute, 8(ar cri)esF )eans7
@aA 3rae breaches of the 3enea Conentions of 12
Au'ust 1969, na)ely, any of the follo(in' acts a'ainst
persons or property protecte$ un$er the proisions of
the releant 3enea Conention7 5 5 59<6:
@bA ?ther serious iolations of the la(s an$ custo)s
applicable in international ar)e$ conflict, (ithin the
establishe$ fra)e(or0 of international la(, na)ely,
@aA .efinition O As use$ in this 2ection the ter) 8(ar
cri)eF )eans any con$uct O
@1A .efine$ as a 'rae breach in any of the
international conentions si'ne$ at 3enea 12
Au'ust 1969, or any protocol to such conention
to (hich the >nite$ 2tates is a party"
@2A Prohibite$ by Article 2D, 2C, 27 or 2< of the Anne5
to the 1a'ue Conention &=, Respectin' the %a(s
an$ Custo)s of /ar on %an$, si'ne$ 1< ?ctober
19B7"
14
any of the follo(in' acts7
5 5 5 5
@cA &n the case of an ar)e$ conflict not of an
international character, serious iolations of article D
co))on to the four 3enea Conentions of 12 Au'ust
1969, na)ely, any of the follo(in' acts co))itte$
a'ainst persons ta0in' no actie part in the hostilities,
inclu$in' )e)bers of ar)e$ forces (ho hae lai$
$o(n their ar)s an$ those place$ hors $e co)bat by
sic0ness, (oun$s, $etention or any other cause7
5 5 5 5
@$A Para'raph 2 @cA applies to ar)e$ conflicts not of an
international character an$ thus $oes not apply to
situations of internal $isturbances an$ tensions, such
as riots, isolate$ an$ spora$ic acts of iolence or other
acts of a si)ilar nature!
@eA ?ther serious iolations of the la(s an$ custo)s
applicable in ar)e$ conflicts not of an international
character, (ithin the establishe$ fra)e(or0 of
international la(, na)ely, any of the follo(in' acts7 5 5
5!
@DA /hich constitutes a 'rae breach of co))on
Article D @as $efine$ in subsection 9$:9<C:A (hen
co))itte$ in the conte5t of an$ in association
(ith an ar)e$ conflict not of an international
character" or
@6A ?f a person (ho, in relation to an ar)e$ conflict
an$ contrary to the proisions of the Protocol on
Prohibitions or Restrictions on the >se of Mines,
Booby*#raps an$ ?ther .eices as a)en$e$ at
3enea on D May 199; @Protocol && as a)en$e$
on D May 199;A, (hen the >nite$ 2tates is a
party to such Protocol, (illfully 0ills or causes
serious in4ury to ciilians!9<;:

Ei$ently, the 'aps pointe$ out as to the $efinition of the cri)es are not present! &n fact, the report itself state$ as )uch,
to (it7

Fe( beliee$ there (ere (i$e $ifferences bet(een the cri)es un$er the 4uris$iction
of the Court an$ cri)es (ithin the >nifor) Co$e of Military -ustice that (oul$ e5pose >2
personnel to the Court! 2ince >2 )ilitary la(yers (ere instru)ental in $raftin' the ele)ents of
cri)es outline$ in the Ro)e 2tatute, they ensure$ that )ost of the cri)es (ere consistent (ith
those outline$ in the >CM- an$ 'ae stren'th to co)ple)entarity for the >2! 2)all areas of
potential 'aps bet(een the >CM- an$ the Ro)e 2tatute, )ilitary e5perts ar'ue$, coul$ be
a$$resse$ throu'h e5istin' )ilitary la(s!9<7: 5 5 5

#he report (ent on further to say that 89a:ccor$in' to those inole$, the ele)ents of cri)es lai$ out in the
Ro)e 2tatute hae been part of >2 )ilitary $octrine for $eca$es!F9<<: #hus, the ar'u)ent proffere$ cannot stan$!

Nonetheless, $espite the lac0 of actual $o)estic le'islation, the >2 notably follo(s the $octrine of
incorporation! As early as 19BB, the estee)e$ -ustice 3ray in The PaAuete 8abana9<9: case alrea$y hel$ international
la( as part of the la( of the >2, to (it7

I%&#"%&+o%8 8; +! $"& o1 o/" 8;, an$ )ust be ascertaine$ an$ a$)inistere$ by
the courts of 4ustice of appropriate 4uris$iction as often as ,uestions of ri'ht $epen$in' upon it
are $uly presente$ for their $eter)ination! For this purpose, (here there is no treaty an$ no
controllin' e5ecutie or le'islatie act or 4u$icial $ecision, resort )ust be ha$ to the custo)s an$
usa'es of ciili+e$ nations, an$, as ei$ence of these, to the (or0s of 4urists an$ co))entators
(ho by years of labor, research, an$ e5perience hae )a$e the)seles peculiarly (ell
ac,uainte$ (ith the sub4ects of (hich they treat! 2uch (or0s are resorte$ to by 4u$icial tribunals,
not for the speculations of their authors concernin' (hat the la( ou'ht to be, but for the
trust(orthy ei$ence of (hat the la( really is!99B: @E)phasis supplie$!A


#hus, a person can be trie$ in the >2 for an international cri)e $espite the lac0 of $o)estic le'islation! #he
cite$ rulin' in 7%6% )% Coolid*e,991: (hich in turn is base$ on the hol$in' in 7%6% )% 8udson,992: only applies to co))on
la( an$ not to the la( of nations or international la(!99D: &n$ee$, the Court in 7%6% )% 8udson only consi$ere$ the
,uestion, 8(hether the Circuit Courts of the >nite$ 2tates can e5ercise a -o77o% 8; 4uris$iction in cri)inal cases!F996:
2tate$ other(ise, there is no co))on la( cri)e in the >2 but this is consi$erably $ifferent fro) international la(!

#he >2 $oubtless reco'ni+es international la( as part of the la( of the lan$, necessarily inclu$in'
international cri)es, een (ithout any local statute!99C: &n fact, years later, >2 courts (oul$ apply international la( as a
source of cri)inal liability $espite the lac0 of a local statute cri)inali+in' it as such! 2o it (as that in E' Parte Buirin99;:
the >2 2upre)e Court note$ that 89f:ro) the ery be'innin' of its history this Court has reco'ni+e$ an$ applie$ the la(
of (ar as inclu$in' that part of the la( of nations (hich prescribes, for the con$uct of (ar, the status, ri'hts an$ $uties of
ene)y nations as (ell as of ene)y in$ii$uals!F997: &t (ent on further to e5plain that Con'ress ha$ not un$erta0en the
tas0 of co$ifyin' the specific offenses coere$ in the la( of (ar, thus7

&t is no ob4ection that Co%2"#!! in proi$in' for the trial of such offenses ,! %o&
+&!#81 /%'#"&A#% &o -o'+1) &,& ("%-, o1 +%&#"%&+o%8 8; o" &o 7"A +&! $"#-+!#
(o/%'"+#!, o" &o #%/7#"&# o" '#1+%# () !&&/&# 88 &,# -&! ;,+-, &,& 8; -o%'#7%!! An
Act of Con'ress punishin' Jthe cri)e of piracy as $efine$ by the la( of nations is an appropriate
e5ercise of its constitutional authority, Art! &, s <, cl! 1B, Jto $efine an$ punishG the offense since it
has a$opte$ by reference the sufficiently precise $efinition of international la(! 5 5 5 2i)ilarly by
the reference in the 1Cth Article of /ar to Joffen$ers or offenses that 5 5 5 by the la( of (ar )ay
be triable by such )ilitary co))issions! Con'ress has incorporate$ by reference, as (ithin the
4uris$iction of )ilitary co))issions, all offenses (hich are $efine$ as such by the la( of (ar 5 5
5, an$ (hich )ay constitutionally be inclu$e$ (ithin that 4uris$iction!99<: 5 5 5 @E)phasis
supplie$!A

#his rule fin$s an een stron'er hol$ in the case of cri)es a'ainst hu)anity! &t has been hel$ that 'enoci$e,
15
(ar cri)es an$ cri)es a'ainst hu)anity hae attaine$ the status of custo)ary international la(! 2o)e een 'o so far as
to state that these cri)es hae attaine$ the status of (us co*ens!999:

Custo)ary international la( or international custo) is a source of international la( as state$ in the 2tatute of
the &C-!91BB: &t is $efine$ as the 8'eneral an$ consistent practice of states reco'ni+e$ an$ follo(e$ by the) fro) a sense
of le'al obli'ation!F91B1: &n or$er to establish the custo)ary status of a particular nor), t(o ele)ents )ust concur7 2tate
practice, the ob4ectie ele)ent" an$ opinio (uris si)e necessitates, the sub4ectie ele)ent!91B2:

2tate practice refers to the continuous repetition of the sa)e or si)ilar 0in$ of acts or nor)s by 2tates!91BD:
&t is $e)onstrate$ upon the e5istence of the follo(in' ele)ents7 @1A 'enerality" @2A unifor)ity an$ consistency" an$ @DA
$uration!91B6: /hile, opinio (uris, the psycholo'ical ele)ent, re,uires that the state practice or nor) 8be carrie$ out in
such a (ay, as to be ei$ence of a belief that this practice is ren$ere$ obli'atory by the e5istence of a rule of la(
re,uirin' it!F91BC:

8#he ter) J(us co*ensG )eans the Jco)pellin' la(!GF91B;: Corollary, 8a (us co*ens nor) hol$s the hi'hest
hierarchical position a)on' all other custo)ary nor)s an$ principles!F91B7: As a result, (us co*ens nor)s are $ee)e$
8pere)ptory an$ non*$ero'able!F91B<: /hen applie$ to international cri)es, 8(us co*ens cri)es hae been $ee)e$ so
fun$a)ental to the e5istence of a 4ust international le'al or$er that states cannot $ero'ate fro) the), een by
a'ree)ent!F91B9:

#hese (us co*ens cri)es relate to the principle of uniersal 4uris$iction, i!e!, 8any state )ay e5ercise
4uris$iction oer an in$ii$ual (ho co))its certain heinous an$ (i$ely con$e)ne$ offenses, een (hen no other
reco'ni+e$ basis for 4uris$iction e5ists!F911B: 8#he rationale behin$ this principle is that the cri)e co))itte$ is so
e're'ious that it is consi$ere$ to be co))itte$ a'ainst all )e)bers of the international co))unityF9111: an$ thus
'rantin' eery 2tate 4uris$iction oer the cri)e!9112:

#herefore, een (ith the current lac0 of $o)estic le'islation on the part of the >2, it still has both the $octrine of
incorporation an$ uniersal 4uris$iction to try these cri)es!

Conse,uently, no )atter ho( har$ one insists, the &CC, as an international tribunal, foun$ in the Ro)e
2tatute is not $eclaratory of custo)ary international la(!

#he first ele)ent of custo)ary international la(, i!e!, 8establishe$, (i$esprea$, an$ consistent practice on the
part of 2tates,F911D: $oes not, un$er the pre)ises, appear to be obtainin' as reflecte$ in this si)ple reality7 As of
?ctober 12, 2B1B, only 1169116: 2tates hae ratifie$ the Ro)e 2tatute, subse,uent to its co)in' into force ei'ht @<A
years earlier, or on -uly 1, 2BB2! #he fact that 116 2tates out of a total of 196911C: countries in the (orl$, or rou'hly
C<!7;E, hae ratifie$ the Ro)e 2tatute casts $oubt on (hether or not the perceie$ principles containe$ in the 2tatute
hae attaine$ the status of custo)ary la( an$ shoul$ be $ee)e$ as obli'atory international la(! #he nu)bers een ten$
to ar'ue a'ainst the ur'ency of establishin' international cri)inal courts enisione$ in the Ro)e 2tatute! %est it be
oerloo0e$, the Philippines, 4u$'in' by the action or inaction of its top officials, $oes not een feel boun$ by the Ro)e
2tatute! es ipsa loAuitur! More than ei'ht @<A years hae elapse$ since the Philippine representatie si'ne$ the
2tatute, but the treaty has not been trans)itte$ to the 2enate for the ratification process!

An$ this brin's us to (hat Fr! Bernas, 2!-! aptly sai$ respectin' the application of the concurrin' ele)ents,
thus7

Custo) or custo)ary international la( )eans 8a 'eneral an$ consistent practice of
states follo(e$ by the) fro) a sense of le'al obli'ation 9opinio (uris: 5 5 5!F #his state)ent
contains the t(o basic ele)ents of custo)7 the )aterial factor, that is ho( the states behae,
an$ the psycholo'ical factor or sub4ectie factor, that is, (hy they behae the (ay they $o!

5 5 5 5

#he initial factor for $eter)inin' the e5istence of custo) is &,# -&/8 (#,0+o" o1 !&&#!!
#his inclu$es seeral ele)ents7 $uration, consistency, an$ 'enerality of the practice of states!

#he re,uire$ $uration can be either short or lon'! 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

.uration therefore is not the )ost i)portant ele)ent! More i)portant is the
consistency an$ the 'enerality of the practice! 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

O%-# &,# #.+!&#%-# o1 !&&# $"-&+-# ,! (##% #!&(8+!,#', it beco)es necessary
&o '#&#"7+%# ;,) !&&#! (#,0# &,# ;) &,#) 'o! .o states behae the (ay they $o because
they consi$er it obli'atory to behae thus or $o they $o it only as a )atter of courtesyK "pinio
(uris, or the belief that a certain for) of behaior is obli'atory, is (hat )a0es practice an
international rule! /ithout it, practice is not la(!911;: @E)phasis a$$e$!A


Ei$ently, there is, as yet, no oer(hel)in' consensus, let alone prealent practice, a)on' the $ifferent
countries in the (orl$ that the prosecution of internationally reco'ni+e$ cri)es of 'enoci$e, etc! !,o/8' (# ,%'8#' ()
$"&+-/8" +%&#"%&+o%8 -"+7+%8 -o/"&!

Absent the (i$esprea$Hconsistent*practice*of*states factor, the secon$ or the psycholo'ical ele)ent )ust be
$ee)e$ non*e5istent, for an in,uiry on (hy states behae the (ay they $o presupposes, in the first place, that they are
actually behain', as a )atter of settle$ an$ consistent practice, in a certain )anner! #his i)plicitly re,uires belief that
16
the practice in ,uestion is ren$ere$ obli'atory by the e5istence of a rule of la( re,uirin' it!9117: %i0e the first ele)ent, the
secon$ ele)ent has li0e(ise not been sho(n to be present!

Further, the Ro)e 2tatute itself re4ects the concept of uniersal 4uris$iction oer the cri)es enu)erate$
therein as ei$ence$ by it re,uirin' 2tate consent!911<: Een further, the Ro)e 2tatute specifically an$ une,uiocally
re,uires that7 8#his S&&/&# +! subject &o "&+1+-&+o%, acceptance or approal by si'natory 2tates!F9119: #hese clearly
ne'ate the ar'u)ent that such has alrea$y attaine$ custo)ary status!

More i)portantly, an act of the e5ecutie branch (ith a forei'n 'oern)ent )ust be affor$e$ 'reat respect!
#he po(er to enter into e5ecutie a'ree)ents has lon' been reco'ni+e$ to be lo$'e$ (ith the Presi$ent! As /e hel$ in
Neri )% 6enate Committee on !ccountability of Public "fficers and ,n)esti*ations, 89t:he po(er to enter into an e5ecutie
a'ree)ent is in essence an e5ecutie po(er! #his authority of the Presi$ent to enter into e5ecutie a'ree)ents (ithout
the concurrence of the %e'islature has tra$itionally been reco'ni+e$ in Philippine 4urispru$ence!F912B: #he rationale
behin$ this principle is the iniolable $octrine of separation of po(ers a)on' the le'islatie, e5ecutie an$ 4u$icial
branches of the 'oern)ent! #hus, absent any clear contraention of the la(, courts shoul$ e5ercise ut)ost caution in
$eclarin' any e5ecutie a'ree)ent inali$!





&n li'ht of the aboe consi$eration, the position or ie( that the challen'e$ RP*>2 Non*2urren$er A'ree)ent
ou'ht to be in the for) of a treaty, to be effectie, has to be re4ecte$!

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, )an$a)us an$ prohibition is hereby DISMISSED for lac0 of )erit! No costs!
17
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 15B391 O-&o(#" 14, 2@@5
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, '/8) "#$"#!#%&#' () GOVERNOR JESUS SACDALAN %'=o" VICE-
GOVERNOR EMMANUEL PICOL, 1o" %' +% ,+! o;% (#,81, petitioners, s!THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN DGRPE, "#$"#!#%&#' () SEC. RODOLFO GARCIA,
ATTY. LEAH ARMAMENTO, ATTY. SEDFREY CANDELARIA, MARF RYAN SULLIVAN %'=o" GEN. HERMOGENES
ESPERON, JR., &,# 8&&#" +% ,+! -$-+&) ! &,# $"#!#%& %' '/8)-$$o+%&#' P"#!+'#%&+8 A'0+!#" o% &,# P#-#
P"o-#!! DOPAPPE o" &,# !o--88#' O11+-# o1 &,# P"#!+'#%&+8 A'0+!#" o% &,# P#-# P"o-#!!, respon$ents!
5********************************************5
G.R. No. 15B>32 O-&o(#" 14, 2@@5
CITY GOVERNMENT OF *AMBOANGA, ! "#$"#!#%&#' () HON. CELSO L. LOBREGAT, C+&) M)o" o1
*7(o%2, %' +% ,+! $#"!o%8 -$-+&) ! "#!+'#%& o1 &,# C+&) o1 *7(o%2, R#$. MA. ISABELLE G.
CLIMACO, D+!&"+-& 1, %' R#$. ERICO BASILIO A. FABIAN, D+!&"+-& 2, C+&) o1 *7(o%2, petitioners, s!THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL DGRPE, ! "#$"#!#%&#' ()
RODOLFO C. GARCIA, LEAH ARMAMENTO, SEDFREY CANDELARIA, MARF RYAN SULLIVAN %'
HERMOGENES ESPERON, +% ,+! -$-+&) ! &,# P"#!+'#%&+8 A'0+!#" o% P#-# P"o-#!!, respon$ents!
5********************************************5
G.R. No. 15B59B O-&o(#" 14, 2@@5
THE CITY OF ILIGAN, '/8) "#$"#!#%&#' () CITY MAYOR LAWRENCE LLUCH CRU*, petitioner, s!THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN DGRPE,
"#$"#!#%&#' () SEC. RODOLFO GARCIA, ATTY. LEAH ARMAMENTO, ATTY. SEDFREY CANDELARIA, MARF
RYAN SULLIVANG GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., +% ,+! -$-+&) ! &,# $"#!#%& %' '/8) $$o+%&#'
P"#!+'#%&+8 A'0+!#" o% &,# P#-# P"o-#!!G %'=o" SEC. EDUARDO ERMITA, +% ,+! -$-+&) ! E.#-/&+0#
S#-"#&"). respon$ents!
5********************************************5
G.R. No. 15B931 O-&o(#" 14, 2@@5
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF *AMBOANGA DEL NORTE, ! "#$"#!#%&#' () HON. ROLANDO E. YEBES,
+% ,+! -$-+&) ! P"o0+%-+8 Go0#"%o", HON. FRANCIS H. OLVIS, +% ,+! -$-+&) ! V+-#-Go0#"%o" %' P"#!+'+%2
O11+-#" o1 &,# S%22/%+%2 P%88;+2%, HON. CECILIA JALOSJOS CARREON, Co%2"#!!;o7%, 1
!&

Co%2"#!!+o%8 D+!&"+-&, HON. CESAR G. JALOSJOS, Co%2"#!!7%, B
"'
Co%2"#!!+o%8 D+!&"+-&, %' M#7(#"! o1
&,# S%22/%+%2 P%88;+2% o1 &,# P"o0+%-# o1 *7(o%2 '#8 No"&#, %7#8), HON. SETH FREDERICF P.
JALOSJOS, HON. FERNANDO R. CABIGON, JR., HON. ULDARICO M. MEJORADA II, HON. EDIONAR M.
*AMORAS, HON. EDGAR J. BAGUIO, HON. CEDRIC L. ADRIATICO, HON. FELIHBERTO C. BOLANDO, HON.
JOSEPH BRENDO C. AJERO, HON. NORBIDEIRI B. EDDING, HON. ANECITO S. DARUNDAY, HON. ANGELICA J.
CARREON %' HON. LU*VIMINDA E. TORRINO, petitioners, s!THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL IGRPJ, ! "#$"#!#%&#' () HON. RODOLFO C. GARCIA %' HON.
HERMOGENES ESPERON, +% ,+! -$-+&) ! &,# P"#!+'#%&+8 A'0+!#" o1 P#-# P"o-#!!, respon$ents!
5********************************************5
G.R. No. 15B942 O-&o(#" 14, 2@@5
ERNESTO M. MACEDA, JEJOMAR C. BINAY, %' AKUILINO L. PIMENTEL III, petitioners, s!THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL, "#$"#!#%&#' () +&! C,+"7% RODOLFO
C. GARCIA, %' &,# MORO ISLAMIC LIBERATION FRONT PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL, "#$"#!#%&#' () +&!
C,+"7% MOHAGHER IKBAL, respon$ents!
5********************************************5
FRANFLIN M. DRILON %' ADEL ABBAS TAMANO, petitioners*in*interention!
5********************************************5
SEN. MANUEL A. ROHAS, petitioners*in*interention!
5********************************************5
18
MUNICIPALITY OF LINAMON '/8) "#$"#!#%&#' () +&! M/%+-+$8 M)o" NOEL N. DEANO, petitioners*in*interention,
5********************************************5
THE CITY OF ISABELA, BASILAN PROVINCE, "#$"#!#%&#' () MAYOR CHERRYLYN P. SANTOS-AFBAR,
petitioners*in*interention!
5********************************************5
THE PROVINCE OF SULTAN FUDARAT, "#$. () HON. SUHARTO T. MANGUDADATU, +% ,+! -$-+&) ! P"o0+%-+8
Go0#"%o" %' "#!+'#%& o1 &,# P"o0+%-# o1 S/8&% F/'"&, petitioner*in*interention!
5*******************************************5
RUY ELIAS LOPE*, 1o" %' +% ,+! o;% (#,81 %' o% (#,81 o1 I%'+2#%o/! P#o$8#! +% M+%'%o No& B#8o%2+%2 &o
&,# MILF, petitioner*in*interention!
5********************************************5
CARLO B. GOME*, GERARDO S. DILIG, NESARIO G. AWAT, JOSELITO C. ALISUAG %' RICHALEH G. JAGMIS,
! -+&+L#%! %' "#!+'#%&! o1 P8;%, petitioners*in*interention!
5********************************************5
MARINO RIDAO %' FISIN BUHANI, petitioners*in*interention!
5********************************************5
MUSLIM LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, INC DMUSLAFE, respon$ent*in*interention!
5********************************************5
MUSLIM MULTI-SECTORAL MOVEMENT FOR PEACE M DEVELOPMENT DMMMPDE, respon$ent*in*interention!
5********************************************5
. E C & 2 & ? N
CARPIO MORALES, J.6
2ub4ect of these consoli$ate$ cases is the #.&#%& o1 &,# $o;#"! of the Presi$ent in pursuin' the peace process! /hile
the facts surroun$in' this controersy center on the ar)e$ conflict in Min$anao bet(een the 'oern)ent an$ the Moro
&sla)ic %iberation Front @M&%FA, the le'al issue inole$ has a bearin' on all areas in the country (here there has been a
lon'*stan$in' ar)e$ conflict! Net a'ain, the Court is tas0e$ to perfor) a $elicate balancin' act! &t )ust unco)pro)isin'ly
$elineate the boun$s (ithin (hich the Presi$ent )ay la(fully e5ercise her $iscretion, but it )ust $o so in strict a$herence
to the Constitution, lest its rulin' un$uly restricts the free$o) of action este$ by that sa)e Constitution in the Chief
E5ecutie precisely to enable her to pursue the peace process effectiely!
I. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE PETITIONS
?n Au'ust C, 2BB<, the 3oern)ent of the Republic of the Philippines @3RPA an$ the M&%F, throu'h the Chairpersons of
their respectie peace ne'otiatin' panels, (ere sche$ule$ to si'n a Me)oran$u) of A'ree)ent on the Ancestral .o)ain
@M?A*A.A Aspect of the 3RP*M&%F #ripoli A'ree)ent on Peace of 2BB1 in Luala %u)pur, Malaysia!
#he M&%F is a rebel 'roup (hich (as establishe$ in March 19<6 (hen, un$er the lea$ership of the late 2ala)at 1ashi),
it splintere$ fro) the Moro National %iberation Front @MN%FA then hea$e$ by Nur Misuari, on the 'roun$, a)on' others,
of (hat 2ala)at perceie$ to be the )anipulation of the MN%F a(ay fro) an &sla)ic basis to(ar$s Mar5ist*Maoist
orientations!
1
#he si'nin' of the M?A*A. bet(een the 3RP an$ the M&%F (as not to )ateriali+e, ho(eer, for upon )otion of
petitioners, specifically those (ho file$ their cases before the sche$ule$ si'nin' of the M?A*A., this Court issue$ a
#e)porary Restrainin' ?r$er en4oinin' the 3RP fro) si'nin' the sa)e!
#he M?A*A. (as prece$e$ by a lon' process of ne'otiation an$ the conclu$in' of seeral prior a'ree)ents bet(een
the t(o parties be'innin' in 199;, (hen the 3RP*M&%F peace ne'otiations be'an! ?n -uly 1<, 1997, the 3RP an$ M&%F
Peace Panels si'ne$ the A'ree)ent on 3eneral Cessation of 1ostilities! #he follo(in' year, they si'ne$ the 3eneral
Fra)e(or0 of A'ree)ent of &ntent on Au'ust 27, 199<!
#he 2olicitor 3eneral, (ho represents respon$ents, su))ari+es the M?A*A. by statin' that the sa)e containe$, a)on'
others, the co))it)ent of the parties to pursue peace ne'otiations, protect an$ respect hu)an ri'hts, ne'otiate (ith
19
sincerity in the resolution an$ pacific settle)ent of the conflict, an$ refrain fro) the use of threat or force to attain un$ue
a$anta'e (hile the peace ne'otiations on the substantie a'en$a are on*'oin'!
2
Early on, ho(eer, it (as ei$ent that there (as not 'oin' to be any s)ooth sailin' in the 3RP*M&%F peace process!
#o(ar$s the en$ of 1999 up to early 2BBB, the M&%F attac0e$ a nu)ber of )unicipalities in Central Min$anao an$, in
March 2BBB, it too0 control of the to(n hall of Laus(a'an, %anao $el Norte!
D
&n response, then Presi$ent -oseph Estra$a
$eclare$ an$ carrie$ out an Sall*out*(arS a'ainst the M&%F!
/hen Presi$ent 3loria Macapa'al*Arroyo assu)e$ office, the )ilitary offensie a'ainst the M&%F (as suspen$e$ an$
the 'oern)ent sou'ht a resu)ption of the peace tal0s! #he M&%F, accor$in' to a lea$in' M&%F )e)ber, initially
respon$e$ (ith $eep reseration, but (hen Presi$ent Arroyo as0e$ the 3oern)ent of Malaysia throu'h Pri)e Minister
Mahathir Moha))a$ to help conince the M&%F to return to the ne'otiatin' table, the M&%F conene$ its Central
Co))ittee to seriously $iscuss the )atter an$, eentually, $eci$e$ to )eet (ith the 3RP!
6
#he parties )et in Luala %u)pur on March 26, 2BB1, (ith the tal0s bein' facilitate$ by the Malaysian 'oern)ent, the
parties si'nin' on the sa)e $ate the A'ree)ent on the 3eneral Fra)e(or0 for the Resu)ption of Peace #al0s Bet(een
the 3RP an$ the M&%F! #he M&%F thereafter suspen$e$ all its )ilitary actions!
C
For)al peace tal0s bet(een the parties (ere hel$ in #ripoli, %ibya fro) -une 2B*22, 2BB1, the outco)e of (hich (as the
3RP*M&%F #ripoli A'ree)ent on Peace @#ripoli A'ree)ent 2BB1A containin' the basic principles an$ a'en$a on the
follo(in' aspects of the ne'otiation7 S#-/"+&) Aspect, R#,(+8+&&+o% Aspect, an$ A%-#!&"8 Do7+% Aspect! /ith
re'ar$ to the Ancestral .o)ain Aspect, the parties in #ripoli A'ree)ent 2BB1 si)ply a'ree$ Sthat the sa)e be $iscusse$
further by the Parties in their ne5t )eetin'!S
A secon$ roun$ of peace tal0s (as hel$ in Cyber4aya, Malaysia on Au'ust C*7, 2BB1 (hich en$e$ (ith the si'nin' of the
&)ple)entin' 3ui$elines on the 2ecurity Aspect of the #ripoli A'ree)ent 2BB1 lea$in' to a ceasefire status bet(een the
parties! #his (as follo(e$ by the &)ple)entin' 3ui$elines on the 1u)anitarian Rehabilitation an$ .eelop)ent Aspects
of the #ripoli A'ree)ent 2BB1, (hich (as si'ne$ on May 7, 2BB2 at Putra4aya, Malaysia! Nonetheless, there (ere )any
inci$ence of iolence bet(een 'oern)ent forces an$ the M&%F fro) 2BB2 to 2BBD!
Mean(hile, then M&%F Chair)an 2ala)at 1ashi) passe$ a(ay on -uly 1D, 2BBD an$ he (as replace$ by Al 1a4 Mura$,
(ho (as then the chief peace ne'otiator of the M&%F! Mura$Ts position as chief peace ne'otiator (as ta0en oer by
Moha'her &,bal!
;
&n 2BBC, seeral e5ploratory tal0s (ere hel$ bet(een the parties in Luala %u)pur, eentually lea$in' to the craftin' of the
$raft M?A*A. in its final for), (hich, as )entione$, (as set to be si'ne$ last Au'ust C, 2BB<!
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Before the Court is (hat is perhaps the )ost contentious SconsensusS eer e)bo$ie$ in an instru)ent * the M?A*A.
(hich is assaile$ principally by the present petitions bearin' $oc0et nu)bers 1<DC91, 1<D7C2, 1<D<9D, 1<D9C1 an$
1<D9;2!
Co))only i)plea$e$ as respon$ents are the 3RP Peace Panel on Ancestral .o)ain
7
an$ the Presi$ential A$iser on
the Peace Process @PAPPA 1er)o'enes Esperon, -r!
?n -uly 2D, 2BB<, the Proince of North Cotabato
<
an$ =ice*3oernor E))anuel PiUol file$ a petition, $oc0ete$ as G.R.
No. 15B391, for Man$a)us an$ Prohibition (ith Prayer for the &ssuance of /rit of Preli)inary &n4unction an$ #e)porary
Restrainin' ?r$er!
9
&no0in' the ri'ht to infor)ation on )atters of public concern, petitioners see0 to co)pel respon$ents
to $isclose an$ furnish the) the co)plete an$ official copies of the M?A*A. inclu$in' its attach)ents, an$ to prohibit the
slate$ si'nin' of the M?A*A., pen$in' the $isclosure of the contents of the M?A*A. an$ the hol$in' of a public
consultation thereon! 2upple)entarily, petitioners pray that the M?A*A. be $eclare$ unconstitutional!
1B
#his initial petition (as follo(e$ by another one, $oc0ete$ as G.R. No. 15B>32, also for Man$a)us an$ Prohibition
11
file$
by the City of Ma)boan'a,
12
Mayor Celso %obre'at, Rep! Ma! &sabelle Cli)aco an$ Rep! Erico Basilio Fabian (ho
li0e(ise pray for si)ilar in4unctie reliefs! Petitioners herein )oreoer pray that the City of Ma)boan'a be e5clu$e$ fro)
the Ban'sa)oro 1o)elan$ an$Hor Ban'sa)oro -uri$ical Entity an$, in the alternatie, that the M?A*A. be $eclare$ null
an$ oi$!
By Resolution of Au'ust 6, 2BB<, the Court issue$ a #e)porary Restrainin' ?r$er co))an$in' an$ $irectin' public
respon$ents an$ their a'ents to cease an$ $esist fro) for)ally si'nin' the M?A*A.!
1D
#he Court also re,uire$ the
2olicitor 3eneral to sub)it to the Court an$ petitioners the official copy of the final $raft of the M?A*A.,
16
to (hich she
co)plie$!
1C
Mean(hile, the City of &li'an
1;
file$ a petition for &n4unction an$Hor .eclaratory Relief, $oc0ete$ as G.R. No. 15B59B,
prayin' that respon$ents be en4oine$ fro) si'nin' the M?A*A. or, if the sa)e ha$ alrea$y been si'ne$, fro)
i)ple)entin' the sa)e, an$ that the M?A*A. be $eclare$ unconstitutional! Petitioners herein a$$itionally i)plea$
E5ecutie 2ecretary E$uar$o Er)ita as respon$ent!
#he Proince of Ma)boan'a $el Norte,
17
3oernor Rolan$o Nebes, =ice*3oernor Francis ?lis, Rep! Cecilia -alos4os*
Carreon, Rep! Cesar -alos4os, an$ the )e)bers
1<
of the 2an''unian' Panlala(i'an of Ma)boan'a $el Norte file$ on
Au'ust 1C, 2BB< a petition for Certiorari, Man$a)us an$ Prohibition,
19
$oc0ete$ as G.R. No. 15B931! #hey pray, inter
alia, that the M?A*A. be $eclare$ null an$ oi$ an$ (ithout operatie effect, an$ that respon$ents be en4oine$ fro)
e5ecutin' the M?A*A.!
20
?n Au'ust 19, 2BB<, Ernesto Mace$a, -e4o)ar Binay, an$ A,uilino Pi)entel &&& file$ a petition for Prohibition,
2B
$oc0ete$
as G.R. No. 15B942, prayin' for a 4u$')ent prohibitin' an$ per)anently en4oinin' respon$ents fro) for)ally si'nin' an$
e5ecutin' the M?A*A. an$ or any other a'ree)ent $erie$ therefro) or si)ilar thereto, an$ nullifyin' the M?A*A. for
bein' unconstitutional an$ ille'al! Petitioners herein a$$itionally i)plea$ as respon$ent the M&%F Peace Ne'otiatin'
Panel represente$ by its Chair)an Moha'her &,bal!
=arious parties )oe$ to interene an$ (ere 'rante$ leae of court to file their petitions*Hco))ents*in*interention!
Petitioners*in*&nterention inclu$e 2enator Manuel A! Ro5as, for)er 2enate Presi$ent Fran0lin .rilon an$ Atty! A$el
#a)ano, the City of &sabela
21
an$ Mayor Cherrylyn 2antos*A0bar, the Proince of 2ultan Lu$arat
22
an$ 3o! 2uharto
Man'u$a$atu, the Municipality of %ina)on in %anao $el Norte,
2D
Ruy Elias %ope+ of .aao City an$ of the Ba'obo tribe,
6an**unian* Panlun*sod )e)ber Marino Ri$ao an$ business)an Lisin Bu5ani, both of Cotabato City" an$ la(yers
Carlo 3o)e+, 3erar$o .ili', Nesario A(at, -oselito Alisua', Richale5 -a')is, all of Pala(an City! #he Musli) %e'al
Assistance Foun$ation, &nc! @MuslafA an$ the Musli) Multi*2ectoral Moe)ent for Peace an$ .eelop)ent @MMMP.A
file$ their respectie Co))ents*in*&nterention!
By subse,uent Resolutions, the Court or$ere$ the consoli$ation of the petitions! Respon$ents file$ Co))ents on the
petitions, (hile so)e of petitioners sub)itte$ their respectie Replies!
Respon$ents, by Manifestation an$ Motion of Au'ust 19, 2BB<, state$ that the E5ecutie .epart)ent shall thorou'hly
reie( the M?A*A. an$ pursue further ne'otiations to a$$ress the issues hurle$ a'ainst it, an$ thus )oe$ to $is)iss
the cases! &n the succee$in' e5chan'e of plea$in's, respon$entsT )otion (as )et (ith i'orous opposition fro)
petitioners!
#he cases (ere hear$ on oral ar'u)ent on Au'ust 1C, 22 an$ 29, 2BB< that tac0le$ the follo(in' principal issues7
1! /hether the petitions hae beco)e )oot an$ aca$e)ic
@iA insofar as the mandamus aspect is concerne$, in ie( of the $isclosure of official copies of the final $raft of the
Me)oran$u) of A'ree)ent @M?AA" an$
@iiA insofar as the prohibition aspect inolin' the %ocal 3oern)ent >nits is concerne$, if it is consi$ere$ that
consultation has beco)e fait accompli (ith the finali+ation of the $raft"
2! /hether the constitutionality an$ the le'ality of the M?A is ripe for a$4u$ication"
D! /hether respon$ent 3oern)ent of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel co))itte$ 'rae abuse of $iscretion
a)ountin' to lac0 or e5cess of 4uris$iction (hen it ne'otiate$ an$ initiate$ the M?A is*R*is &22>E2 Nos! 6 an$ C"
6! /hether there is a iolation of the peopleTs ri'ht to infor)ation on )atters of public concern @19<7 Constitution, Article
&&&, 2ec! 7A un$er a state policy of full $isclosure of all its transactions inolin' public interest @19<7 Constitution, Article
&&, 2ec! 2<A inclu$in' public consultation un$er Republic Act No! 71;B @%?CA% 3?=ERNMEN# C?.E ?F 1991A9":
&f it is in the affir)atie, (hether prohibition un$er Rule ;C of the 1997 Rules of Ciil Proce$ure is an appropriate re)e$y"
C! /hether by si'nin' the M?A, the 3oern)ent of the Republic of the Philippines (oul$ be B&N.&N3 itself
aA to create an$ reco'ni+e the Ban'sa)oro -uri$ical Entity @B-EA as a separate state, or a 4uri$ical, territorial or political
sub$iision not reco'ni+e$ by la("
bA to reise or a)en$ the Constitution an$ e5istin' la(s to confor) to the M?A"
cA to conce$e to or reco'ni+e the clai) of the Moro &sla)ic %iberation Front for ancestral $o)ain in iolation of Republic
Act No! <D71 @#1E &N.&3EN?>2 PE?P%E2 R&31#2 AC# ?F 1997A, particularly 2ection D@'A V Chapter =&&
@.E%&NEA#&?N, REC?3N&#&?N ?F ANCE2#RA% .?MA&N2A9":
&f in the affir)atie, (hether the E5ecutie Branch has the authority to so bin$ the 3oern)ent of the Republic of the
Philippines"
;! /hether the inclusionHe5clusion of the Proince of North Cotabato, Cities of Ma)boan'a, &li'an an$ &sabela, an$ the
Municipality of %ina)on, %anao $el Norte inHfro) the areas coere$ by the pro4ecte$ Ban'sa)oro 1o)elan$ is a
4usticiable ,uestion" an$
7! /hether $esistance fro) si'nin' the M?A $ero'ates any prior ali$ co))it)ents of the 3oern)ent of the Republic
of the Philippines!
26
#he Court, thereafter, or$ere$ the parties to sub)it their respectie Me)oran$a! Most of the parties sub)itte$ their
)e)oran$a on ti)e!
III. OVERVIEW OF THE MOA-AD
As a necessary bac0$rop to the consi$eration of the ob4ections raise$ in the sub4ect fie petitions an$ si5 petitions*in*
interention a'ainst the M?A*A., as (ell as the t(o co))ents*in*interention in faor of the M?A*A., the Court ta0es
21
an oerie( of the M?A!
#he M?A*A. i$entifies the Parties to it as the 3RP an$ the M&%F!
>n$er the hea$in' S#er)s of ReferenceS @#?RA, the M?A*A. inclu$es not only four earlier a'ree)ents bet(een the
3RP an$ M&%F, but also t(o a'ree)ents bet(een the 3RP an$ the MN%F7 the 197; #ripoli A'ree)ent, an$ the Final
Peace A'ree)ent on the &)ple)entation of the 197; #ripoli A'ree)ent, si'ne$ on 2epte)ber 2, 199; $urin' the
a$)inistration of Presi$ent Fi$el Ra)os!
#he M?A*A. also i$entifies as #?R t(o local statutes * the or'anic act for the Autono)ous Re'ion in Musli) Min$anao
@ARMMA
2C
an$ the &n$i'enous Peoples Ri'hts Act @&PRAA,
2;
an$ seeral international la( instru)ents * the &%?
Conention No! 1;9 Concernin' &n$i'enous an$ #ribal Peoples in &n$epen$ent Countries in relation to the >N
.eclaration on the Ri'hts of the &n$i'enous Peoples, an$ the >N Charter, a)on' others!
#he M?A*A. inclu$es as a final #?R the 'eneric cate'ory of Sco)pact ri'hts entrench)ent e)anatin' fro) the re'i)e
of dar/ul/muaChada @or territory un$er co)pactA an$ dar/ul/sulh @or territory un$er peace a'ree)entA that parta0es the
nature of a treaty $eice!S
.urin' the hei'ht of the Musli) E)pire, early Musli) 4urists ten$e$ to see the (orl$ throu'h a si)ple $ichoto)y7 there
(as the dar/ul/,slam @the Abo$e of &sla)A an$ dar/ul/harb @the Abo$e of /arA! #he first referre$ to those lan$s (here
&sla)ic la(s hel$ s(ay, (hile the secon$ $enote$ those lan$s (here Musli)s (ere persecute$ or (here Musli) la(s
(ere outla(e$ or ineffectie!
27
#his (ay of ie(in' the (orl$, ho(eer, beca)e )ore co)ple5 throu'h the centuries as
the &sla)ic (orl$ beca)e part of the international co))unity of nations!
As Musli) 2tates entere$ into treaties (ith their nei'hbors, een (ith $istant 2tates an$ inter*'oern)ental
or'ani+ations, the classical $iision of the (orl$ into dar/ul/,slam an$ dar/ul/harb eentually lost its )eanin'! Ne( ter)s
(ere $ra(n up to $escribe noel (ays of perceiin' non*Musli) territories! For instance, areas li0e dar/ul/muaChada
@lan$ of co)pactA an$ dar/ul/sulh @lan$ of treatyA referre$ to countries (hich, thou'h un$er a secular re'i)e, )aintaine$
peaceful an$ cooperatie relations (ith Musli) 2tates, hain' been boun$ to each other by treaty or a'ree)ent! Dar/ul/
aman @lan$ of or$erA, on the other han$, referre$ to countries (hich, thou'h not boun$ by treaty (ith Musli) 2tates,
)aintaine$ free$o) of reli'ion for Musli)s!
2<
&t thus appears that the Sco)pact ri'hts entrench)entS e)anatin' fro) the re'i)e of dar/ul/muaChada an$ dar/ul/sulh
si)ply refers to all other a'ree)ents bet(een the M&%F an$ the Philippine 'oern)ent * the Philippines bein' the lan$ of
co)pact an$ peace a'ree)ent * that parta0e of the nature of a treaty $eice, StreatyS bein' broa$ly $efine$ as Sany
sole)n a'ree)ent in (ritin' that sets out un$erstan$in's, obli'ations, an$ benefits for both parties (hich proi$es for a
fra)e(or0 that elaborates the principles $eclare$ in the 9M?A*A.:!S
29
#he M?A*A. states that the Parties S1A=E A3REE. AN. ACLN?/%E.3E. A2 F?%%?/2,S an$ starts (ith its )ain
bo$y!
T,# 7+% (o') o1 &,# MOA-AD +! '+0+'#' +%&o 1o/" !&"%'!, %7#8), Co%-#$&! %' P"+%-+$8#!, T#""+&o"),
R#!o/"-#!, %' Go0#"%%-#.
A. CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES
#his stran$ be'ins (ith the state)ent that it is Sthe birthri'ht of all Moros an$ all &n$i'enous peoples of Min$anao to
i$entify the)seles an$ be accepte$ as JBan'sa)oros!TS &t $efines SB%2!7o"o $#o$8#S as the naties or ori'inal
inhabitants of Min$anao an$ its a$4acent islan$s inclu$in' Pala(an an$ the 2ulu archipela'o at the time of conAuest or
coloni;ation, an$ their $escen$ants (hether )i5e$ or of full bloo$, inclu$in' their spouses!
DB
#hus, the concept of SBan'sa)oro,S as $efine$ in this stran$ of the M?A*A., inclu$es not only SMorosS as tra$itionally
un$erstoo$ een by Musli)s,
D1
but all in$i'enous peoples of Min$anao an$ its a$4acent islan$s! #he M?A*A. a$$s that
the free$o) of choice of in$i'enous peoples shall be respecte$! /hat this free$o) of choice consists in has not been
specifically $efine$!
#he M?A*A. procee$s to refer to the SB%2!7o"o ,o7#8%',S the o(nership of (hich is este$ e5clusiely in the
Ban'sa)oro people by irtue of their prior ri'hts of occupation!
D2
Both parties to the M?A*A. ac0no(le$'e that ancestral
$o)ain $oes not for) part of the public $o)ain!
DD
#he Ban'sa)oro people are ac0no(le$'e$ as hain' the ri'ht to self*'oernance, (hich ri'ht is sai$ to be roote$ on
ancestral territoriality e5ercise$ ori'inally un$er the su+erain authority of their sultanates an$ the Pat a Pan*ampon* ku
ana&! #he sultanates (ere $escribe$ as states or Skara(aan-kadatuanS rese)blin' a bo$y politic en$o(e$ (ith all the
ele)ents of a nation*state in the )o$ern sense!
D6
#he M?A*A. thus 'roun$s the ri'ht to self*'oernance of the Ban'sa)oro people on the past su+erain authority of the
sultanates! As 'athere$, the territory $efine$ as the Ban'sa)oro ho)elan$ (as rule$ by seeral sultanates an$,
specifically in the case of the Maranao, by the Pat a Pan*ampon* ku ana&, a confe$eration of in$epen$ent
principalities @pan'a)pon'A each rule$ by $atus an$ sultans, none of (ho) (as supre)e oer the others!
DC
#he M?A*A. 'oes on to $escribe the Ban'sa)oro people as Sthe JFirst NationT (ith $efine$ territory an$ (ith a syste)
of 'oern)ent hain' entere$ into treaties of a)ity an$ co))erce (ith forei'n nations!S
22
#he ter) SF+"!& N&+o%S is of Cana$ian ori'in referrin' to the in$i'enous peoples of that territory, particularly those 0no(n
as &n$ians! &n Cana$a, each of these in$i'enous peoples is e,ually entitle$ to be calle$ SFirst Nation,S hence, all of the)
are usually $escribe$ collectiely by the plural SFirst Nations!S
D;
#o that e5tent, the M?A*A., by i$entifyin' the
Ban'sa)oro people as S&,# First NationS * su''estin' its e5clusie entitle)ent to that $esi'nation * $eparts fro) the
Cana$ian usa'e of the ter)!
#he M?A*A. then )entions for the first ti)e the SB%2!7o"o J/"+'+-8 E%&+&)S @B-EA to (hich it 'rants the authority
an$ 4uris$iction oer the Ancestral .o)ain an$ Ancestral %an$s of the Ban'sa)oro!
D7
B. TERRITORY
#he territory of the Ban'sa)oro ho)elan$ is $escribe$ as the lan$ )ass as (ell as the )ariti)e, terrestrial, fluial an$
alluial $o)ains, inclu$in' the aerial $o)ain an$ the at)ospheric space aboe it, e)bracin' the Min$anao*2ulu*
Pala(an 'eo'raphic re'ion!
D<
More specifically, the core of the B-E is $efine$ as the present 'eo'raphic area of the ARMM * thus constitutin' the
follo(in' areas7 %anao $el 2ur, Ma'uin$anao, 2ulu, #a(i*#a(i, Basilan, an$ Mara(i City! 2i'nificantly, this core also
inclu$es certain )unicipalities of %anao $el Norte that ote$ for inclusion in the ARMM in the 2BB1 plebiscite!
D9
?utsi$e of this core, the B-E is to coer other proinces, cities, )unicipalities an$ baran'ays, (hich are 'roupe$ into t(o
cate'ories, Cate'ory A an$ Cate'ory B! Each of these areas is to be sub4ecte$ to a plebiscite to be hel$ on $ifferent
$ates, years apart fro) each other! #hus, Cate'ory A areas are to be sub4ecte$ to a plebiscite not later than t(ele @12A
)onths follo(in' the si'nin' of the M?A*A.!
6B
Cate'ory B areas, also calle$ S2pecial &nterention Areas,S on the other
han$, are to be sub4ecte$ to a plebiscite t(enty*fie @2CA years fro) the si'nin' of a separate a'ree)ent * the
Co)prehensie Co)pact!
61
#he Parties to the M?A*A. stipulate that the B-E shall hae 4uris$iction oer all natural resources (ithin its Sinternal
(aters,S $efine$ as e5ten$in' fifteen @1CA 0ilo)eters fro) the coastline of the B-E area"
62
that the B-E shall also hae
Sterritorial (aters,S (hich shall stretch beyon$ the B-E internal (aters up to the baselines of the Republic of the
Philippines @RPA south east an$ south (est of )ainlan$ Min$anao" an$ that (ithin these territorial (aters, the B-E an$
the SCentral 3oern)entS @use$ interchan'eably (ith RPA shall e5ercise <o+%& 4uris$iction, authority an$ )ana'e)ent
oer all natural resources!
6D
Notably, the (urisdiction o)er the internal &aters is not similarly described as D(oint%D
#he M?A*A. further proi$es for the !,"+%2 of )inerals on the territorial (aters bet(een the Central 3oern)ent an$
the B-E, in faor of the latter, throu'h pro$uction sharin' an$ econo)ic cooperation a'ree)ent!
66
#he actiities (hich the
Parties are allo(e$ to con$uct on the territorial (aters are enu)erate$, a)on' (hich are the e5ploration an$ utili+ation
of natural resources, re'ulation of shippin' an$ fishin' actiities, an$ the enforce)ent of police an$ safety )easures!
6C
There is no similar pro)ision on the sharin* of minerals and allo&ed acti)ities &ith respect to the internal &aters of the
.#E!
C. RESOURCES
#he M?A*A. states that the B-E is free to enter into any econo)ic cooperation an$ tra$e relations (ith forei'n countries
an$ shall hae the option to establish tra$e )issions in those countries! 2uch relationships an$ un$erstan$in's, ho(eer,
are not to inclu$e a''ression a'ainst the 3RP! #he B-E )ay also enter into eniron)ental cooperation a'ree)ents!
6;
#he e'ternal $efense of the B-E is to re)ain the $uty an$ obli'ation of the Central 3oern)ent! #he Central
3oern)ent is also boun$ to Sta0e necessary steps to ensure the B-ETs participation in international )eetin's an$
eentsS li0e those of the A2EAN an$ the speciali+e$ a'encies of the >N! #he B-E is to be entitle$ to participate in
Philippine official )issions an$ $ele'ations for the ne'otiation of bor$er a'ree)ents or protocols for eniron)ental
protection an$ e,uitable sharin' of inco)es an$ reenues inolin' the bo$ies of (ater a$4acent to or bet(een the
islan$s for)in' part of the ancestral $o)ain!
67
/ith re'ar$ to the ri'ht of e5plorin' for, pro$ucin', an$ obtainin' all potential sources of ener'y, petroleu), fossil fuel,
)ineral oil an$ natural 'as, the 4uris$iction an$ control thereon is to be este$ in the B-E Sas the party hain' control
(ithin its territorial 4uris$iction!S #his ri'ht carries the pro)iso that, Sin ti)es of national e)er'ency, (hen public interest so
re,uires,S the Central 3oern)ent )ay, for a fi5e$ perio$ an$ un$er reasonable ter)s as )ay be a'ree$ upon by both
Parties, assu)e or $irect the operation of such resources!
6<
#he sharin' bet(een the Central 3oern)ent an$ the B-E of total pro$uction pertainin' to natural resources is to be
7C72C in faor of the B-E!
69
#he M?A*A. proi$es that le'iti)ate 'rieances of the Ban'sa)oro people arisin' fro) any un4ust $ispossession of
their territorial an$ proprietary ri'hts, custo)ary lan$ tenures, or their )ar'inali+ation shall be ac0no(le$'e$! /heneer
restoration is no lon'er possible, reparation is to be in such for) as )utually $eter)ine$ by the Parties!
CB
#he B-E )ay 7o'+1) o" -%-#8 the forest concessions, ti)ber licenses, contracts or a'ree)ents, )inin' concessions,
Mineral Pro$uction an$ 2harin' A'ree)ents @MP2AA, &n$ustrial Forest Mana'e)ent A'ree)ents @&FMAA, an$ other lan$
tenure instru)ents 'rante$ by the Philippine 3oern)ent, inclu$in' those issue$ by the present ARMM!
C1
D. GOVERNANCE
#he M?A*A. bin$s the Parties to inite a )ultinational thir$*party to obsere an$ )onitor the i)ple)entation of the
23
Co7$"#,#%!+0# Co7$-&! #his co)pact is to e)bo$y the S$etails for the effectie enforce)entS an$ Sthe )echanis)s
an$ )o$alities for the actual i)ple)entationS of the M?A*A.! #he M?A*A. e5plicitly proi$es that the participation of
the thir$ party shall not in any (ay affect the status of the relationship bet(een the Central 3oern)ent an$ the B-E!
C2
T,# N!!o-+&+0#N "#8&+o%!,+$ (#&;##% &,# C#%&"8 Go0#"%7#%& %' &,# BJE
#he M?A*A. $escribes the relationship of the Central 3oern)ent an$ the B-E as Sassociatie,S characteri+e$ by
share$ authority an$ responsibility! An$ it states that the structure of 'oernance is to be base$ on e5ecutie, le'islatie,
4u$icial, an$ a$)inistratie institutions (ith $efine$ po(ers an$ functions in the Co)prehensie Co)pact!
#he M?A*A. proi$es that its proisions re,uirin' Sa)en$)ents to the e5istin' le'al fra)e(or0S shall ta0e effect upon
si'nin' of the Co)prehensie Co)pact an$ upon effectin' the aforesai$ a)en$)ents, (ith $ue re'ar$ to the %o%-
'#"o2&+o% o1 $"+o" 2"##7#%&! an$ (ithin the stipulate$ ti)efra)e to be containe$ in the Co)prehensie Co)pact!
As will be discussed later, much of the present controversy hangs on the legality of this provision%
#he B-E is 'rante$ the po(er to buil$, $eelop an$ )aintain its o(n institutions inclusie of ciil serice, electoral,
financial an$ ban0in', e$ucation, le'islation, le'al, econo)ic, police an$ internal security force, 4u$icial syste) an$
correctional institutions, the $etails of (hich shall be $iscusse$ in the ne'otiation of the co)prehensie co)pact!
As state$ early on, the M?A*A. (as set to be si'ne$ on Au'ust C, 2BB< by Ro$olfo 3arcia an$ Moha'her &,bal,
Chairpersons of the Peace Ne'otiatin' Panels of the 3RP an$ the M&%F, respectiely! Notably, the penultimate
para*raph of the M"!/!D identifies the si*natories as Dthe representati)es of the Parties,D meanin* the =P and M,LF
themsel)es, and not merely of the ne*otiatin* panels!
CD
&n a$$ition, the si'nature pa'e of the M?A*A. states that it is
S/&#NE22E. BNS .atu0 ?th)an Bin Ab$ Ra+a0, 2pecial A$iser to the Pri)e Minister of Malaysia, SEN.?R2E. BNS
A)bassa$or 2aye$ El)asry, A$iser to ?r'ani+ation of the &sla)ic Conference @?&CA 2ecretary 3eneral an$ 2pecial
Enoy for Peace Process in 2outhern Philippines, an$ 2&3NE. S&N #1E PRE2ENCE ?FS .r! Albert 3! Ro)ulo,
2ecretary of Forei'n Affairs of RP an$ .atoT 2eri >ta)a .r! Rais Bin Nati), Minister of Forei'n Affairs, Malaysia, all of
(ho) (ere sche$ule$ to si'n the A'ree)ent last Au'ust C, 2BB<!
Anne5e$ to the M?A*A. are t(o $ocu)ents containin' the respectie lists cum )aps of the proinces, )unicipalities,
an$ baran'ays un$er Cate'ories A an$ B earlier )entione$ in the $iscussion on the stran$ on #ERR&#?RN!
IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. RIPENESS
#he po(er of 4u$icial reie( is li)ite$ to actual cases or controersies!
C6
Courts $ecline to issue a$isory opinions or to
resole hypothetical or fei'ne$ proble)s, or )ere aca$e)ic ,uestions!
CC
#he li)itation of the po(er of 4u$icial reie( to
actual cases an$ controersies $efines the role assi'ne$ to the 4u$iciary in a tripartite allocation of po(er, to assure that
the courts (ill not intru$e into areas co))itte$ to the other branches of 'oern)ent!
C;
An actual case or controersy inoles a conflict of le'al ri'hts, an assertion of opposite le'al clai)s, susceptible of
4u$icial resolution as $istin'uishe$ fro) a hypothetical or abstract $ifference or $ispute! #here )ust be a contrariety of
le'al ri'hts that can be interprete$ an$ enforce$ on the basis of e5istin' la( an$ 4urispru$ence!
C7
#he Court can $eci$e
the constitutionality of an act or treaty only (hen a proper case bet(een opposin' parties is sub)itte$ for 4u$icial
$eter)ination!
C<
Relate$ to the re,uire)ent of an actual case or controersy is the re,uire)ent of ripeness! A ,uestion is ripe for
a$4u$ication (hen the act bein' challen'e$ has ha$ a $irect a$erse effect on the in$ii$ual challen'in' it!
C9
For a case
to be consi$ere$ ripe for a$4u$ication, it is a prere,uisite that so)ethin' ha$ then been acco)plishe$ or perfor)e$ by
either branch before a court )ay co)e into the picture,
;B
an$ the petitioner )ust alle'e the e5istence of an i))e$iate or
threatene$ in4ury to itself as a result of the challen'e$ action!
;1
1e )ust sho( that he has sustaine$ or is i))e$iately in
$an'er of sustainin' so)e $irect in4ury as a result of the act co)plaine$ of!
;2
#he 2olicitor 3eneral ar'ues that there is no 4usticiable controersy that is ripe for 4u$icial reie( in the present petitions,
reasonin' that
#he unsi'ne$ M?A*A. is si)ply a list of consensus points sub4ect to further ne'otiations an$ le'islatie enact)ents as
(ell as constitutional processes ai)e$ at attainin' a final peaceful a'ree)ent! 2i)ply put, the M?A*A. re)ains to be a
proposal that $oes not auto)atically create le'ally $e)an$able ri'hts an$ obli'ations until the list of operatie acts
re,uire$ hae been $uly co)plie$ (ith! 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
&n the cases at bar, it is respectfully sub)itte$ that this 1onorable Court has no authority to pass upon issues base$ on
hypothetical or fei'ne$ constitutional proble)s or interests (ith no concrete bases! Consi$erin' the preli)inary character
of the M?A*A., there are no concrete acts that coul$ possibly iolate petitionersT an$ interenorsT ri'hts since the acts
co)plaine$ of are )ere conte)plate$ steps to(ar$ the for)ulation of a final peace a'ree)ent! Plainly, petitioners an$
interenorsT perceie$ in4ury, if at all, is )erely i)a'inary an$ illusory apart fro) bein' unfoun$e$ an$ base$ on )ere
con4ectures! @>n$erscorin' supplie$A
#he 2olicitor 3eneral cites
;D
the follo(in' proisions of the M?A*A.7
24
TERRITORY
5 5 5 5
2! #o(ar$ this en$, the Parties enter into the follo(in' stipulations7
5 5 5 5
$! /ithout $ero'atin' fro) the re,uire)ents of prior a'ree)ents, the 3oern)ent stipulates to con$uct an$ $elier,
usin' all possible le'al )easures, (ithin t(ele @12A )onths follo(in' the si'nin' of the M?A*A., a plebiscite coerin'
the areas as enu)erate$ in the list an$ $epicte$ in the )ap as Cate'ory A attache$ herein @the SAnne5SA! #he Anne5
constitutes an inte'ral part of this fra)e(or0 a'ree)ent! #o(ar$ this en$, the Parties shall en$eaor to co)plete the
ne'otiations an$ resole all outstan$in' issues on the Co)prehensie Co)pact (ithin fifteen @1CA )onths fro) the
si'nin' of the M?A*A.!
5 5 5 5
GOVERNANCE
5 5 5 5
7! #he Parties a'ree that )echanis)s an$ )o$alities for the actual i)ple)entation of this M?A*A. shall be spelt out in
the Co)prehensie Co)pact to )utually ta0e such steps to enable it to occur effectiely!
Any proisions of the M?A*A. re,uirin' a)en$)ents to the e5istin' le'al fra)e(or0 shall co)e into force upon the
si'nin' of a Co)prehensie Co)pact an$ upon effectin' the necessary chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0 (ith $ue re'ar$
to non*$ero'ation of prior a'ree)ents an$ (ithin the stipulate$ ti)efra)e to be containe$ in the Co)prehensie
Co)pact!
;6
@>n$erscorin' supplie$A
#he 2olicitor 3eneralTs ar'u)ents fail to persua$e!
Concrete acts un$er the M?A*A. are not necessary to ren$er the present controersy ripe! &n Pimentel, #r% )% !*uirre,
;C
this Court hel$7
5 5 5 9B:y the )ere enact)ent of the ,uestione$ la( or the approal of the challen'e$ action, the $ispute is sai$ to hae
ripene$ into a 4u$icial controersy een (ithout any other oert act! &n$ee$, een a sin'ular iolation of the Constitution
an$Hor the la( is enou'h to a(a0en 4u$icial $uty!
5 5 5 5
By the sa)e to0en, (hen an act of the Presi$ent, (ho in our constitutional sche)e is a coe,ual of Con'ress, is seriously
alle'e$ to hae infrin'e$ the Constitution an$ the la(s 5 5 5 settlin' the $ispute beco)es the $uty an$ the responsibility
of the courts!
;;
&n 6anta Fe ,ndependent 6chool District )% Doe,
;7
the >nite$ 2tates 2upre)e Court hel$ that the challen'e to the
constitutionality of the schoolTs policy allo(in' stu$ent*le$ prayers an$ speeches before 'a)es (as ripe for a$4u$ication,
een if no public prayer ha$ yet been le$ un$er the policy, because the policy (as bein' challen'e$ as unconstitutional
on its face!
;<
#hat the la( or act in ,uestion is not yet effectie $oes not ne'ate ripeness! For e5a)ple, in Ne& 5ork )% 7nited 6tates,
;9
$eci$e$ in 1992, the >nite$ 2tates 2upre)e Court hel$ that the action by the 2tate of Ne( Nor0 challen'in' the
proisions of the %o(*%eel Ra$ioactie /aste Policy Act (as ripe for a$4u$ication een if the ,uestione$ proision (as
not to ta0e effect until -anuary 1, 199;, because the parties a'ree$ that Ne( Nor0 ha$ to ta0e i))e$iate action to aoi$
the proisionTs conse,uences!
7B
#he present petitions pray for Certiorari,
71
Prohibition, an$ Man$a)us! Certiorari an$ Prohibition are re)e$ies 'rante$ by
la( (hen any tribunal, boar$ or officer has acte$, in the case of certiorari, or is procee$in', in the case of prohibition,
(ithout or in e5cess of its 4uris$iction or (ith 'rae abuse of $iscretion a)ountin' to lac0 or e5cess of 4uris$iction!
72
Man$a)us is a re)e$y 'rante$ by la( (hen any tribunal, corporation, boar$, officer or person unla(fully ne'lects the
perfor)ance of an act (hich the la( specifically en4oins as a $uty resultin' fro) an office, trust, or station, or unla(fully
e5clu$es another fro) the use or en4oy)ent of a ri'ht or office to (hich such other is entitle$!
7D
Certiorari, Man$a)us an$
Prohibition are appropriate re)e$ies to raise constitutional issues an$ to reie( an$Hor prohibitHnullify, (hen proper, acts
of le'islatie an$ e5ecutie officials!
76
#he authority of the 3RP Ne'otiatin' Panel is $efine$ by E5ecutie ?r$er No! D @E!?! No! DA, issue$ on February 2<,
2BB1!
7C
#he sai$ e5ecutie or$er re,uires that S9t:he 'oern)entTs policy fra)e(or0 for peace, inclu$in' the syste)atic
approach an$ the a$)inistratie structure for carryin' out the co)prehensie peace process 5 5 5 be 'oerne$ by this
E5ecutie ?r$er!S
7;
#he present petitions alle'e that respon$ents 3RP Panel an$ PAPP Esperon $rafte$ the ter)s of the M?A*A. (ithout
consultin' the local 'oern)ent units or co))unities affecte$, nor infor)in' the) of the procee$in's! As (ill be
$iscusse$ in 'reater $etail later, such o)ission, by itself, constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate
25
under E%"% No% 3!
Further)ore, the petitions alle'e that the proisions of the M?A*A. iolate the Constitution! #he M?A*A. proi$es that
Sany proisions of the M?A*A. re,uirin' a)en$)ents to the e5istin' le'al fra)e(or0 shall co)e into force upon the
si'nin' of a Co)prehensie Co)pact an$ upon effectin' the necessary chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0,S i)plyin' an
a)en$)ent of the Constitution to acco))o$ate the M?A*A.! #his stipulation, in effect, 2/"%&##' to the M&%F the
a)en$)ent of the Constitution! 6uch act constitutes another )iolation of its authority! A'ain, these points (ill be
$iscusse$ in )ore $etail later!
As the petitions alle'e acts or o)issions on the part of respon$ent that #.-##' &,#+" /&,o"+&) , by iolatin' their $uties
un$er E!?! No! D an$ the proisions of the Constitution an$ statutes, the petitions )a0e a prima facie case for Certiorari,
Prohibition, an$ Man$a)us, an$ an actual case or controersy ripe for a$4u$ication e5ists! W,#% % -& o1 ("%-, o1
2o0#"%7#%& +! !#"+o/!8) 88#2#' &o ,0# +%1"+%2#' &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%, +& (#-o7#! %o& o%8) &,# "+2,& (/& +% 1-& &,#
'/&) o1 &,# </'+-+") &o !#&&8# &,# '+!$/&#!
77
B. LOCUS STANDI
For a party to hae locus standi, one )ust alle'e Ssuch a personal sta0e in the outco)e of the controersy as to assure
that concrete a$erseness (hich sharpens the presentation of issues upon (hich the court so lar'ely $epen$s for
illu)ination of $ifficult constitutional ,uestions!S
7<
Because constitutional cases are often public actions in (hich the relief sou'ht is li0ely to affect other persons, a
preli)inary ,uestion fre,uently arises as to this interest in the constitutional ,uestion raise$!
79
/hen suin' as a citi;en, the person co)plainin' )ust alle'e that he has been or is about to be $enie$ so)e ri'ht or
priile'e to (hich he is la(fully entitle$ or that he is about to be sub4ecte$ to so)e bur$ens or penalties by reason of the
statute or act co)plaine$ of!
<B
/hen the issue concerns a public ri'ht, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citi+en an$
has an interest in the e5ecution of the la(s!
<1
For a ta'payer, one is allo(e$ to sue (here there is an assertion that public fun$s are ille'ally $isburse$ or $eflecte$ to
an ille'al purpose, or that there is a (asta'e of public fun$s throu'h the enforce)ent of an inali$ or unconstitutional
la(!
<2
#he Court retains $iscretion (hether or not to allo( a ta5payerTs suit!
<D
&n the case of a le*islator or member of Con*ress, an act of the E5ecutie that in4ures the institution of Con'ress causes
a $eriatie but nonetheless substantial in4ury that can be ,uestione$ by le'islators! A )e)ber of the 1ouse of
Representaties has stan$in' to )aintain iniolate the prero'aties, po(ers an$ priile'es este$ by the Constitution in
his office!
<6
An or*ani;ation )ay be 'rante$ stan$in' to assert the ri'hts of its )e)bers,
<C
but the )ere inocation by the ,nte*rated
.ar of the Philippines or any member of the le*al profession of the $uty to presere the rule of la( $oes not suffice to
clothe it (ith stan$in'!
<;
As re'ar$s a local *o)ernment unit @%3>A, it can see0 relief in or$er to protect or in$icate an interest of its o(n, an$ of
the other %3>s!
<7
&nterenors, )ean(hile, )ay be 'ien le'al stan$in' upon sho(in' of facts that satisfy the re,uire)ents of the la(
authori+in' interention,
<<
such as a le'al interest in the )atter in liti'ation, or in the success of either of the parties!
&n any case, the Court has $iscretion to rela5 the proce$ural technicality on locus standi, 'ien the liberal attitu$e it has
e5ercise$, hi'hli'hte$ in the case of Da)id )% Macapa*al/!rroyo,
<9
(here technicalities of proce$ure (ere brushe$ asi$e,
the constitutional issues raise$ bein' of para)ount public interest or of transcen$ental i)portance $eserin' the
attention of the Court in ie( of their seriousness, noelty an$ (ei'ht as prece$ents!
9B
#he CourtTs forbearin' stance on
locus standi on issues inolin' constitutional issues has for its purpose the protection of fun$a)ental ri'hts!
&n not a fe( cases, the Court, in 0eepin' (ith its $uty un$er the Constitution to $eter)ine (hether the other branches of
'oern)ent hae 0ept the)seles (ithin the li)its of the Constitution an$ the la(s an$ hae not abuse$ the $iscretion
'ien the), has brushe$ asi$e technical rules of proce$ure!
91
&n the petitions at bar, petitioners P"o0+%-# o1 No"&, Co&(&o @3!R! No! 1<DC91A P"o0+%-# o1 *7(o%2 '#8 No"&#
@3!R! No! 1<D9C1A, C+&) o1 I8+2% @3!R! No! 1<D<9DA an$ C+&) o1 *7(o%2 @3!R! No! 1<D7C2A an$ petitioners*in*
interention P"o0+%-# o1 S/8&% F/'"&, C+&) o1 I!(#8 an$ M/%+-+$8+&) o1 L+%7o% hae locus standi in ie( of the
$irect an$ substantial in4ury that they, as %3>s, (oul$ suffer as their territories, (hether in (hole or in part, are to be
inclu$e$ in the inten$e$ $o)ain of the B-E! #hese petitioners alle'e that they $i$ not ote for their inclusion in the ARMM
(hich (oul$ be e5pan$e$ to for) the B-E territory! PetitionersT le'al stan$in' is thus beyon$ $oubt!
&n 3!R! No! 1<D9;2, petitioners E"%#!&o M-#', J#<o7" B+%) an$ A:/+8+%o P+7#%&#8 III (oul$ hae no stan$in' as
citi+ens an$ ta5payers for their failure to specify that they (oul$ be $enie$ so)e ri'ht or priile'e or there (oul$ be
(asta'e of public fun$s! #he fact that they are a for)er 2enator, an incu)bent )ayor of Ma0ati City, an$ a resi$ent of
Ca'ayan $e ?ro, respectiely, is of no conse,uence! Consi$erin' their inocation of the transcen$ental i)portance of the
issues at han$, ho(eer, the Court 'rants the) stan$in'!
&nterenors F"%A8+% D"+8o% an$ A'#8 T7%o, in alle'in' their stan$in' as ta5payers, assert that 'oern)ent fun$s
(oul$ be e5pen$e$ for the con$uct of an ille'al an$ unconstitutional plebiscite to $elineate the B-E territory! ?n that
26
score alone, they can be 'ien le'al stan$in'! #heir alle'ation that the issues inole$ in these petitions are of
Sun$eniable transcen$ental i)portanceS clothes the) (ith a$$e$ basis for their personality to interene in these
petitions!
/ith re'ar$ to S#%&o" M%/#8 Ro.!, his stan$in' is pre)ise$ on his bein' a )e)ber of the 2enate an$ a citi+en to
enforce co)pliance by respon$ents of the publicTs constitutional ri'ht to be infor)e$ of the M?A*A., as (ell as on a
'enuine le'al interest in the )atter in liti'ation, or in the success or failure of either of the parties! 1e thus possesses the
re,uisite stan$in' as an interenor!
/ith respect to &nterenors R/) E8+! Lo$#L, as a for)er con'ress)an of the D
r$
$istrict of .aao City, a ta5payer an$ a
)e)ber of the Ba'obo tribe" Carlo B! 3o)e+, et al!, as )e)bers of the &BP Pala(an chapter, citi+ens an$ ta5payers"
M"+%o R+'o, as ta5payer, resi$ent an$ )e)ber of the 6an**unian* Panlun*sod of Cotabato City" an$ F+!+% B/.%+,
as ta5payer, they faile$ to alle'e any proper le'al interest in the present petitions! -ust the sa)e, the Court e5ercises its
$iscretion to rela5 the proce$ural technicality on locus standi 'ien the para)ount public interest in the issues at han$!
&nterenin' respon$ents M/!8+7 M/8&+-S#-&o"8 Mo0#7#%& 1o" P#-# %' D#0#8o$7#%&, an a$ocacy 'roup for 4ustice
an$ the attain)ent of peace an$ prosperity in Musli) Min$anao" an$ M/!8+7 L#28 A!!+!&%-# Fo/%'&+o% I%-., a non*
'oern)ent or'ani+ation of Musli) la(yers, alle'e that they stan$ to be benefite$ or pre4u$ice$, as the case )ay be, in
the resolution of the petitions concernin' the M?A*A., an$ prays for the $enial of the petitions on the 'roun$s therein
state$! 2uch le'al interest suffices to clothe the) (ith stan$in'!
B. MOOTNESS
Respon$ents insist that the present petitions hae been ren$ere$ )oot (ith the satisfaction of all the reliefs praye$ for by
petitioners an$ the subse,uent pronounce)ent of the E5ecutie 2ecretary that S9n:o )atter (hat the 2upre)e Court
ulti)ately $eci$es9,: the 'oern)ent (ill not si'n the M?A!S
92
&n len$in' cre$ence to this policy $ecision, the 2olicitor 3eneral points out that the Presi$ent ha$ alrea$y $isban$e$ the
3RP Peace Panel!
9D
&n Da)id )% Macapa*al/!rroyo,
96
this Court hel$ that the S)oot an$ aca$e)icS principle not bein' a )a'ical for)ula that
auto)atically $issua$es courts in resolin' a case, it (ill $eci$e cases, other(ise )oot an$ aca$e)ic, if it fin$s that @aA
there is a 'rae iolation of the Constitution"
9C
@bA the situation is of e5ceptional character an$ para)ount public interest is
inole$"
9;
@cA the constitutional issue raise$ re,uires for)ulation of controllin' principles to 'ui$e the bench, the bar, an$
the public"
97
an$ @$A the case is capable of repetition yet ea$in' reie(!
9<
Another e5clusionary circu)stance that )ay be consi$ere$ is (here there is a oluntary cessation of the actiity
co)plaine$ of by the $efen$ant or $oer! #hus, once a suit is file$ an$ the $oer oluntarily ceases the challen'e$ con$uct,
it $oes not auto)atically $eprie the tribunal of po(er to hear an$ $eter)ine the case an$ $oes not ren$er the case )oot
especially (hen the plaintiff see0s $a)a'es or prays for in4unctie relief a'ainst the possible recurrence of the iolation!
99
#he present petitions fall s,uarely into these e5ceptions to thus thrust the) into the $o)ain of 4u$icial reie(! #he
'roun$s cite$ aboe in Da)id are 4ust as applicable in the present cases as they (ere, not only in Da)id, but also in
Pro)ince of .atan*as )% omulo
1BB
an$ Manalo )% Calderon
1B1
(here the Court si)ilarly $eci$e$ the) on the )erits,
superenin' eents that (oul$ or$inarily hae ren$ere$ the sa)e )oot not(ithstan$in'!
P#&+&+o%! %o& 7oo&#'
Contrary then to the asseerations of respon$ents, the non*si'nin' of the M?A*A. an$ the eentual $issolution of the
3RP Peace Panel $i$ not )oot the present petitions! ,t bears emphasis that the si*nin* of the M"!/!D did not push
throu*h due to the CourtCs issuance of a Temporary estrainin* "rder!
Contrary too to respon$entsT position, the M?A*A. cannot be consi$ere$ a )ere Slist of consensus points,S especially
'ien its %o7#%-8&/"#, the %##' &o ,0# +& !+2%#' o" +%+&+8#' by all the parties concerne$ on Au'ust C, 2BB<, an$ the
1"-"#-,+%2 Co%!&+&/&+o%8 +7$8+-&+o%! of these Sconsensus points,S fore)ost of (hich is the creation of the B-E!
&n fact, as (hat (ill, in the )ain, be $iscusse$, &,#"# +! -o77+&7#%& o% &,# $"& o1 "#!$o%'#%&! &o 7#%' %'
#11#-& %#-#!!") -,%2#! &o &,# #.+!&+%2 8#28 1"7#;o"A 1o" -#"&+% $"o0+!+o%! o1 &,# MOA-AD &o &A# #11#-& !
Conse,uently, the present petitions are not confine$ to the ter)s an$ proisions of the M?A*A., but to other o%-2o+%2
an$ 1/&/"# ne'otiations an$ a'ree)ents necessary for its reali+ation! #he petitions hae not, therefore, been ren$ere$
)oot an$ aca$e)ic si)ply by the public $isclosure of the M?A*A.,
1B2
the )anifestation that it (ill not be si'ne$ as (ell
as the $isban$in' of the 3RP Panel not (ithstan$in'!
P#&+&+o%! "# +7(/#' ;+&, $"7o/%& $/(8+- +%&#"#!&
#here is no 'ainsayin' that the petitions are i)bue$ (ith para)ount public interest, inolin' a si'nificant part of the
countryTs territory an$ the (i$e*ran'in' political )o$ifications of affecte$ %3>s! #he assertion &,& &,# MOA-AD +!
!/(<#-& &o 1/"&,#" 8#28 #%-&7#%&! +%-8/'+%2 $o!!+(8# Co%!&+&/&+o%8 7#%'7#%&! 7o"# &,% #0#" $"o0+'#!
+7$#&/! 1o" &,# Co/"& &o 1o"7/8&# -o%&"o88+%2 $"+%-+$8#! &o 2/+'# &,# (#%-,, &,# (", &,# $/(8+- %', +% &,+! -!#,
&,# 2o0#"%7#%& %' +&! %#2o&+&+%2 #%&+&)!
Respon$ents cite 6uplico )% NED!, et al!
1BD
(here the Court $i$ not Spontificat9e: on issues (hich no lon'er le'iti)ately
constitute an actual case or controersy 9as this: (ill $o )ore har) than 'oo$ to the nation as a (hole!S
27
#he present petitions )ust be $ifferentiate$ fro) 6uplico! Pri)arily, in 6uplico, (hat (as assaile$ an$ eentually
cancelle$ (as a stan$*alone 'oern)ent procure)ent contract for a national broa$ban$ net(or0 inolin' a one*ti)e
contractual relation bet(een t(o parties*the 'oern)ent an$ a priate forei'n corporation! As the issues therein inole$
specific 'oern)ent procure)ent policies an$ stan$ar$ principles on contracts, the )a4ority opinion in 6uplico foun$
nothin' e5ceptional therein, the factual circu)stances bein' peculiar only to the transactions an$ parties inole$ in the
controersy!
T,# MOA-AD +! $"& o1 !#"+#! o1 2"##7#%&!
&n the present controersy, the M?A*A. is a !+2%+1+-%& $"& o1 !#"+#! o1 2"##7#%&! necessary to carry out the
#ripoli A'ree)ent 2BB1! #he M?A*A. (hich $(ells on the Ancestral .o)ain Aspect of sai$ #ripoli A'ree)ent is the thir$
such co)ponent to be un$erta0en follo(in' the i)ple)entation of the 2ecurity Aspect in Au'ust 2BB1 an$ the
1u)anitarian, Rehabilitation an$ .eelop)ent Aspect in May 2BB2!
Accor$in'ly, een if the E5ecutie 2ecretary, in his Me)oran$u) of Au'ust 2<, 2BB< to the 2olicitor 3eneral, has state$
that Sno )atter (hat the 2upre)e Court ulti)ately $eci$es9,: the 'oern)ent (ill not si'n the M?A9*A.:,S )ootness (ill
not set in in li'ht of the ter)s of the #ripoli A'ree)ent 2BB1!
N##' &o 1o"7/8&# $"+%-+$8#!-2/+'#8+%#!
2urely, the present M?A*A. can be rene'otiate$ or another one (ill be $ra(n /$ &o -"") o/& &,# A%-#!&"8 Do7+%
A!$#-& o1 &,# T"+$o8+ A2"##7#%& 2@@1, in another or in any for), (hich coul$ contain si)ilar or si'nificantly $rastic
proisions! /hile the Court notes the (or$ of the E5ecutie 2ecretary that the 'oern)ent Sis co))itte$ to securin' an
a'ree)ent that is both constitutional an$ e,uitable because that is the only (ay that lon'*lastin' peace can be assure$,S
it is )in$e$ to ren$er a $ecision on the )erits in the present petitions to 1o"7/8&# -o%&"o88+%2 $"+%-+$8#! &o 2/+'# &,#
(#%-,, &,# (", &,# $/(8+- %', 7o!& #!$#-+88), &,# 2o0#"%7#%& +% %#2o&+&+%2 ;+&, &,# MILF "#2"'+%2 A%-#!&"8
Do7+%!
Respon$ents inite the CourtTs attention to the separate opinion of then Chief -ustice Arte)io Pan'aniban in 6anlakas )%
eyes
1B6
in (hich he state$ that the $octrine of Scapable of repetition yet ea$in' reie(S can oerri$e )ootness,
Sproi$e$ the party raisin' it in a proper case has been an$Hor continue to be pre4u$ice$ or $a)a'e$ as a $irect result of
their issuance!S #hey conten$ that the Court )ust hae 4uris$iction oer the sub4ect )atter for the $octrine to be ino0e$!
#he present petitions all contain prayers for Prohibition oer (hich this Court e5ercises ori'inal 4uris$iction! /hile 3!R!
No! 1<D<9D @City of &li'an ! 3RPA is a petition for &n4unction an$ .eclaratory Relief, the Court (ill treat it as one for
Prohibition as it has far reachin' i)plications an$ raises ,uestions that nee$ to be resole$!
1BC
At all eents, the Court
has 4uris$iction oer )ost if not the rest of the petitions!
&n$ee$, the present petitions affor$ a proper enue for the Court to a'ain apply the $octrine i))e$iately referre$ to as
(hat it ha$ $one in a nu)ber of lan$)ar0 cases!
1B;
#here is a reasonable e5pectation that petitioners, particularly the
Proinces of North Cotabato, Ma)boan'a $el Norte an$ 2ultan Lu$arat, the Cities of Ma)boan'a, &li'an an$ &sabela,
an$ the Municipality of %ina)on, (ill a'ain be sub4ecte$ to the sa)e proble) in the future as respon$entsT actions are
capable of repetition, in another or any for)!
&t is (ith respect to the prayers for Man$a)us that the petitions hae beco)e )oot, respon$ents hain', by Co)pliance
of Au'ust 7, 2BB<, proi$e$ this Court an$ petitioners (ith official copies of the final $raft of the M?A*A. an$ its anne5es!
#oo, interenors hae been furnishe$, or hae procure$ for the)seles, copies of the M?A*A.!
V. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
As culle$ fro) the Petitions an$ Petitions*in*&nterention, there are basically t(o 2>B2#AN#&=E issues to be resole$,
one relatin' to the )anner in (hich the M?A*A. (as ne'otiate$ an$ finali+e$, the other relatin' to its proisions, )i;7
1! .i$ respon$ents iolate constitutional an$ statutory proisions on public consultation an$ the ri'ht to infor)ation (hen
they ne'otiate$ an$ later initiale$ the M?A*A.K
2! .o the contents of the M?A*A. iolate the Constitution an$ the la(sK
ON THE FIRST SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE
Petitioners ino0e their constitutional "+2,& &o +%1o"7&+o% o% 7&&#"! o1 $/(8+- -o%-#"%, as proi$e$ in 2ection 7,
Article &&& on the Bill of Ri'hts7
2ec! 7! #he ri'ht of the people to infor)ation on )atters of public concern shall be reco'ni+e$! Access to official recor$s,
an$ to $ocu)ents, an$ papers pertainin' to official acts, transactions, or $ecisions, as (ell as to 'oern)ent research
$ata use$ as basis for policy $eelop)ent, shall be affor$e$ the citi+en, sub4ect to such li)itations as )ay be proi$e$ by
la(!
1B7
As early as 196<, in 6ubido )% ";aeta,
1B<
the Court has reco'ni+e$ the statutory ri'ht to e5a)ine an$ inspect public
recor$s, a ri'ht (hich (as eentually accor$e$ constitutional status!
#he ri'ht of access to public $ocu)ents, as enshrine$ in both the 197D Constitution an$ the 19<7 Constitution, has been
reco'ni+e$ as a self*e5ecutory constitutional ri'ht!
1B9
28
&n the 197; case of .aldo;a )% 8on% #ud*e Dimaano,
11B
the Court rule$ that access to public recor$s is pre$icate$ on the
ri'ht of the people to ac,uire infor)ation on )atters of public concern since, un$oubte$ly, in a $e)ocracy, the pubic has
a le'iti)ate interest in )atters of social an$ political si'nificance!
5 5 5 #he incorporation of this ri'ht in the Constitution is a reco'nition of the fun$a)ental role of free e5chan'e of
infor)ation in a $e)ocracy! #here can be no realistic perception by the public of the nationTs proble)s, nor a )eanin'ful
$e)ocratic $ecision*)a0in' if they are $enie$ access to infor)ation of 'eneral interest! &nfor)ation is nee$e$ to enable
the )e)bers of society to cope (ith the e5i'encies of the ti)es! As has been aptly obsere$7 SMaintainin' the flo( of
such infor)ation $epen$s on protection for both its ac,uisition an$ its $isse)ination since, if either process is interrupte$,
the flo( ineitably ceases!S 5 5 5
111
,n the same &ay that free discussion enables members of society to cope &ith the e'i*encies of their time, access to
information of *eneral interest aids the people in democratic decision/makin* by *i)in* them a better perspecti)e of the
)ital issues confrontin* the nation
112
so that they may be able to critici;e and participate in the affairs of the *o)ernment in
a responsible, reasonable and effecti)e manner% ,t is by ensurin* an unfettered and uninhibited e'chan*e of ideas amon*
a &ell/informed public that a *o)ernment remains responsi)e to the chan*es desired by the people%
11D
T,# MOA-AD +! 7&&#" o1 $/(8+- -o%-#"%
#hat the sub4ect of the infor)ation sou'ht in the present cases is a )atter of public concern
116
faces no serious
challen'e! &n fact, respon$ents a$)it that the M?A*A. is in$ee$ of public concern!
11C
&n preious cases, the Court foun$
that the re'ularity of real estate transactions entere$ in the Re'ister of .ee$s,
11;
the nee$ for a$e,uate notice to the
public of the arious la(s,
117
the ciil serice eli'ibility of a public e)ployee,
11<
the proper )ana'e)ent of 32&2 fun$s
alle'e$ly use$ to 'rant loans to public officials,
119
the recoery of the MarcosesT alle'e$ ill*'otten (ealth,
12B
an$ the
i$entity of party*list no)inees,
121
a)on' others, are )atters of public concern! 7ndoubtedly, the MOAA! subject of the
present cases is of public concern, in)ol)in* as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, &hich
directly affects the li)es of the public at lar*e%
Matters of public concern coere$ by the ri'ht to infor)ation inclu$e steps an$ ne'otiations lea$in' to the consu))ation
of the contract! &n not $istin'uishin' as to the e5ecutory nature or co))ercial character of a'ree)ents, the Court has
cate'orically rule$7
5 5 5 9#:he ri'ht to infor)ation Scontemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the
transaction%S Certainly, a consu))ate$ contract is not a re,uire)ent for the e5ercise of the ri'ht to infor)ation!
?ther(ise, the people can neer e5ercise the ri'ht if no contract is consu))ate$, an$ if one is consu))ate$, it )ay be
too late for the public to e5pose its $efects!
Re,uirin' a consu))ate$ contract (ill 0eep the public in the $ar0 until the contract, (hich )ay be 'rossly
$isa$anta'eous to the 'oern)ent or een ille'al, beco)es fait accompli! #his ne'ates the 2tate policy of full
transparency on )atters of public concern, a situation (hich the fra)ers of the Constitution coul$ not hae inten$e$!
2uch a re,uire)ent (ill preent the citi+enry fro) participatin' in the public $iscussion of any proposed contract,
effectiely truncatin' a basic ri'ht enshrine$ in the Bill of Ri'hts! /e can allo( neither an e)asculation of a constitutional
ri'ht, nor a retreat by the 2tate of its ao(e$ Spolicy of full $isclosure of all its transactions inolin' public interest!S
122
@E)phasis an$ italics in the ori'inalA
&nten$e$ as a Ssplendid symmetryS
12D
to the ri'ht to infor)ation un$er the Bill of Ri'hts is the policy of public $isclosure
un$er 2ection 2<, Article && of the Constitution rea$in'7
2ec! 2<! 2ub4ect to reasonable con$itions prescribe$ by la(, the 2tate a$opts an$ i)ple)ents a policy of full public
$isclosure of all its transactions inolin' public interest!
126
#he policy of full public $isclosure enunciate$ in aboe*,uote$ 2ection 2< complements the ri'ht of access to infor)ation
on )atters of public concern foun$ in the Bill of Ri'hts! #he ri'ht to infor)ation 'uarantees the ri'ht of the people to
$e)an$ infor)ation, (hile 2ection 2< reco'ni+es the $uty of official$o) to 'ie infor)ation een if nobo$y $e)an$s!
12C
#he policy of public $isclosure establishes a concrete ethical principle for the con$uct of public affairs in a 'enuinely open
$e)ocracy, (ith the peopleTs ri'ht to 0no( as the centerpiece! &t is a )an$ate of the 2tate to be accountable by follo(in'
such policy!
12;
#hese proisions are ital to the e5ercise of the free$o) of e5pression an$ essential to hol$ public officials
at all ti)es accountable to the people!
127
/hether 2ection 2< is self*e5ecutory, the recor$s of the $eliberations of the Constitutional Co))ission so $isclose7
MR! 2>AREM! An$ since this is not self*e5ecutory, this policy (ill not be enunciate$ or (ill not be in force an$ effect until
after Con'ress shall hae proi$e$ it!
MR! ?P%E! & e5pect it to influence the cli)ate of public ethics i))e$iately but, of course, the i)ple)entin' la( (ill hae
to be enacte$ by Con'ress, Mr! Presi$in' ?fficer!
12<
#he follo(in' $iscourse, after Co))issioner 1ilario .ai$e, -r!, sou'ht clarification on the issue, is enli'htenin'!
MR! .A=&.E! & (oul$ li0e to 'et so)e clarifications on this! Mr! Presi$in' ?fficer, $i$ & 'et the 3entle)an correctly as
hain' sai$ that this is not a self*e5ecutin' proisionK &t (oul$ re,uire a le'islation by Con'ress to i)ple)entK
29
MR! ?P%E! Nes! ?ri'inally, it (as 'oin' to be self*e5ecutin', but & accepte$ an a)en$)ent fro) Co))issioner
Re'ala$o, so that the safe'uar$s on national interest are )o$ifie$ by the clause Sas )ay be proi$e$ by la(S
MR! .A=&.E! But as (or$e$, 'o#! +& %o& 7#% &,& &,+! ;+88 +77#'+&#8) &A# #11#-& %' Co%2"#!! 7) $"o0+'# 1o"
"#!o%(8# !1#2/"'! on the sole 'roun$ national interestK
MR! ?P%E! Y#!. I &,+%A !o, M". P"#!+'+%2 O11+-#", I !+' #"8+#" &,& +& !,o/8' +77#'+&#8) +%18/#%-# &,# -8+7&# o1
&,# -o%'/-& o1 $/(8+- 11+"! but, of course, Con'ress here )ay no lon'er pass a la( reo0in' it, or if this is approe$,
reo0in' this principle, (hich is inconsistent (ith this policy!
129
@E)phasis supplie$A
&n$ubitably, &,# #11#-&+0+&) o1 &,# $o8+-) o1 $/(8+- '+!-8o!/"# %##' %o& ;+& &,# $!!+%2 o1 !&&/&#! As Con'ress
cannot reo0e this principle, it is )erely $irecte$ to proi$e for Sreasonable safe'uar$s!S #he co)plete an$ effectie
e5ercise of the ri'ht to infor)ation necessitates that its co)ple)entary proision on public $isclosure $erie the sa)e
self*e5ecutory nature! 2ince both proisions 'o han$*in*han$, it is absur$ to say that the broa$er
1DB
ri'ht to infor)ation on
)atters of public concern is alrea$y enforceable (hile the correlatie $uty of the 2tate to $isclose its transactions
inolin' public interest is not enforceable until there is an enablin' la(! Respon$ents cannot thus point to the absence of
an i)ple)entin' le'islation as an e5cuse in not effectin' such policy!
An essential ele)ent of these free$o)s is to 0eep open a continuin' $ialo'ue or process of co))unication bet(een the
'oern)ent an$ the people! &t is in the interest of the 2tate that the channels for free political $iscussion be )aintaine$ to
the en$ that the 'oern)ent )ay perceie an$ be responsie to the peopleTs (ill!
1D1
Enisione$ to be corollary to the t(in
ri'hts to infor)ation an$ $isclosure is the $esi'n for fee$bac0 )echanis)s!
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Nes! An$ lastly, Mr! Presi$in' ?fficer, ;+88 &,# $#o$8# (# (8# &o $"&+-+$&#O W+88 &,#
2o0#"%7#%& $"o0+'# 1##'(-A 7#-,%+!7! !o &,& &,# $#o$8# -% $"&+-+$&# %' -% "#-& ;,#"# &,# #.+!&+%2
7#'+ 1-+8+&+#! "# %o& (8# &o $"o0+'# 1/88 1##'(-A 7#-,%+!7! &o &,# 2o0#"%7#%&O I !/$$o!# &,+! ;+88 (# $"&
o1 &,# 2o0#"%7#%& +7$8#7#%&+%2 o$#"&+o%8 7#-,%+!7!.
MR! ?P%E! Nes! & thin0 throu'h their electe$ representaties an$ that is ho( these courses ta0e place! #here is a
)essa'e an$ a fee$bac0, both (ays!
5 5 5 5
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Mr! Presi$in' ?fficer, )ay & 4ust )a0e one last sentenceK
I &,+%A ;,#% ;# &8A (o/& &,# 1##'(-A %#&;o"A, ;# "# %o& &8A+%2 (o/& $/(8+- o11+-+8! (/& 8!o %#&;o"A o1
$"+0&# (/!+%#!! oI"J -o77/%+&)-(!#' o"2%+L&+o%! &,& ;+88 (# "#-&+%2. As a )atter of fact, (e (ill put )ore
cre$ence or cre$ibility on the priate net(or0 of olunteers an$ oluntary co))unity*base$ or'ani+ations! 2o & $o not
thin0 (e are afrai$ that there (ill be another ?MA in the )a0in'!
1D2
@E)phasis supplie$A
#he i)peratie of a public consultation, as a species of the ri'ht to infor)ation, is ei$ent in the S)archin' or$ersS to
respon$ents! #he )echanics for the $uty to $isclose infor)ation an$ to con$uct public consultation re'ar$in' the peace
a'en$a an$ process is )anifestly proi$e$ by E!?! No! D!
1DD
#he prea)bulatory clause of E!?! No! D $eclares that there
is a nee$ to further enhance the contribution of ciil society to the co)prehensie peace process by institutionali+in' the
peopleTs participation!
?ne of the three un$erlyin' principles of the co)prehensie peace process is that it Sshoul$ be co))unity*base$,
reflectin' the senti)ents, alues an$ principles i)portant to all FilipinosS an$ Sshall be $efine$ not by the 'oern)ent
alone, nor by the $ifferent conten$in' 'roups only, but by all Filipinos as one co))unity!S
1D6
&nclu$e$ as a co)ponent of
the co)prehensie peace process is consensus*buil$in' an$ e)po(er)ent for peace, (hich inclu$es Scontinuin'
consultations on both national an$ local leels to buil$ consensus for a peace a'en$a an$ process, an$ the )obili+ation
an$ facilitation of peopleTs participation in the peace process!S
1DC
C8#"8), E.O. No. B -o%&#7$8&#! %o& </!& &,# -o%'/-& o1 $8#(+!-+&# &o #11#-&/&# N-o%&+%/+%2N -o%!/8&&+o%!,
-o%&"") &o "#!$o%'#%&!P $o!+&+o% &,& $8#(+!-+&# +! N7o"# &,% !/11+-+#%& -o%!/8&&+o%!S
1D;
Further, E!?! No! D enu)erates the functions an$ responsibilities of the PAPP, one of (hich is to S9c:on$uct re'ular
$ialo'ues (ith the National Peace Foru) @NPFA an$ other peace partners to see0 releant infor)ation, co))ents,
reco))en$ations as (ell as to ren$er appropriate an$ ti)ely reports on the pro'ress of the co)prehensie peace
process!S
1D7
E!?! No! D )an$ates the establish)ent of the NPF to be Sthe principal foru) for the PAPP to consult (ith
an$ see0 a$i9c:e fro) the peace a$ocates, peace partners an$ concerne$ sectors of society on both national an$ local
leels, on the i)ple)entation of the co)prehensie peace process, as (ell as for 'oern)ent9*:ciil society $ialo'ue an$
consensus*buil$in' on peace a'en$a an$ initiaties!S
1D<
I% 1+%#, E.O. No. B #!&(8+!,#! $#&+&+o%#"!P "+2,& &o (# -o%!/8&#' o% &,# $#-# 2#%', ! -o"o88") &o &,#
-o%!&+&/&+o%8 "+2,& &o +%1o"7&+o% %' '+!-8o!/"#!
PAPP E!$#"o% -o77+&&#' 2"0# (/!# o1 '+!-"#&+o%
#he PAPP -o77+&&#' 2"0# (/!# o1 '+!-"#&+o% (hen he 1+8#' to carry out the pertinent consultation! #he furtie
process by (hich the M?A*A. (as $esi'ne$ an$ crafte$ "/%! -o%&"") &o %' +% #.-#!! o1 &,# 8#28 /&,o"+&), an$
a)ounts to a (hi)sical, capricious, oppressie, arbitrary an$ $espotic e5ercise thereof!
30
#he Court )ay not, of course, re,uire the PAPP to con$uct the consultation in a particular &ay or manner! &t )ay,
ho(eer, re,uire hi) to co)ply (ith the la( an$ $ischar'e the functions &ithin the authority *ranted by the Presi$ent!
1D9
Petitioners are not clai)in' a seat at the ne'otiatin' table, contrary to respon$entsT retort in 4ustifyin' the $enial of
petitionersT ri'ht to be consulte$! Respon$entsT stance )anifests the )anner by (hich they treat the salient proisions of
E!?! No! D on peopleTs participation! 2uch $isre'ar$ of the e5press )an$ate of the Presi$ent is not )uch $ifferent fro)
superficial con$uct to(ar$ to0en proisos that bor$er on classic lip serice!
16B
&t illustrates a 'ross easion of positie $uty
an$ a irtual refusal to perfor) the $uty en4oine$!
As for respon$entsT inocation of the $octrine of e5ecutie priile'e, it is not tenable un$er the pre)ises! #he ar'u)ent
$efies soun$ reason (hen contraste$ (ith E!?! No! DTs e5plicit proisions on continuin' consultation an$ $ialo'ue on
both national an$ local leels! #he #.#-/&+0# o"'#" #0#% "#-o2%+L#! &,# #.#"-+!# o1 &,# $/(8+-P! "+2,& een before the
3RP )a0es its official reco))en$ations or before the 'oern)ent proffers its $efinite propositions!
161
&t bear e)phasis
that E!?! No! D see0s to elicit releant a$ice, infor)ation, co))ents an$ reco))en$ations fro) the people throu'h
$ialo'ue!
A# A%% E=EN#2, respon$ents effectiely (aie$ the $efense of e5ecutie priile'e in ie( of their un,ualifie$ $isclosure
of the official copies of the final $raft of the M?A*A.! By uncon$itionally co)plyin' (ith the CourtTs Au'ust 6, 2BB<
Resolution, (ithout a prayer for the $ocu)entTs $isclosure in camera, or (ithout a )anifestation that it (as co)plyin'
there(ith e' abundante ad cautelam!
PetitionersT assertion that the %ocal 3oern)ent Co$e @%3CA of 1991 $eclares it a 2tate policy to Sre,uire all national
a'encies an$ offices to con$uct perio$ic consultations (ith appropriate local 'oern)ent units, non*'oern)ental an$
peopleTs or'ani+ations, an$ other concerne$ sectors of the co))unity before any pro4ect or pro'ra) is i)ple)ente$ in
their respectie 4uris$ictionsS
162
is (ell*ta0en! #he %3C chapter on inter'oern)ental relations puts flesh into this ao(e$
policy7
Prior Consultations eAuired! * No pro4ect or pro'ra) shall be i)ple)ente$ by 'oern)ent authorities unless the
consultations )entione$ in 2ections 2 @cA an$ 2; hereof are co)plie$ (ith, an$ prior approal of the san''unian
concerne$ is obtaine$7 Proi$e$, #hat occupants in areas (here such pro4ects are to be i)ple)ente$ shall not be
eicte$ unless appropriate relocation sites hae been proi$e$, in accor$ance (ith the proisions of the Constitution!
16D
@&talics an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
&n Lina, #r% )% 8on% Pa?o,
166
the Court hel$ that the aboe*state$ policy an$ aboe*,uote$ proision of the %3> apply only
to national pro'ra)s or pro4ects (hich are to be i)ple)ente$ in a particular local co))unity! A)on' the pro'ra)s an$
pro4ects coere$ are those that are critical to the eniron)ent an$ hu)an ecolo'y inclu$in' those that )ay call for the
eiction of a particular 'roup of people resi$in' in the locality (here these (ill be i)ple)ente$!
16C
T,# MOA-AD +! o%#
$#-/8+" $"o2"7 &,& /%#:/+0o-88) %' /%+8&#"88) 0#!&! o;%#"!,+$ o1 0!& &#""+&o") &o &,# B%2!7o"o
$#o$8#,
16;
;,+-, -o/8' $#"0!+0#8) %' '"!&+-88) "#!/8& &o &,# '+!$o" o" '+!$8-#7#%& o1 2"#& %/7(#" o1
+%,(+&%&! 1"o7 &,#+" &o&8 #%0+"o%7#%&!
/ith respect to the in$i'enous cultural co))unitiesHin$i'enous peoples @&CCsH&PsA, (hose interests are represente$
herein by petitioner %ope+ an$ are a$ersely affecte$ by the M?A*A., the &CCsH&Ps hae, un$er the &PRA, the ri'ht to
participate fully at all leels of $ecision*)a0in' in )atters (hich )ay affect their ri'hts, lies an$ $estinies!
167
#he M?A*
A., an instru)ent reco'ni+in' ancestral $o)ain, faile$ to 4ustify its non*co)pliance (ith the clear*cut )echanis)s
or$aine$ in sai$ Act,
16<
(hich entails, a)on' other thin's, the obserance of the free an$ prior infor)e$ consent of the
&CCsH&Ps!
Notably, the &PRA $oes %o& 'rant the E5ecutie .epart)ent or any 'oern)ent a'ency the po(er to $elineate an$
reco'ni+e an ancestral $o)ain clai) by mere a*reement or compromise! #he reco'nition of the ancestral $o)ain is the
raison dCetre of the M?A*A., (ithout (hich all other stipulations or Sconsensus pointsS necessarily )ust fail! &n
procee$in' to )a0e a s(eepin' $eclaration on ancestral $o)ain, (ithout co)plyin' (ith the &PRA, (hich is cite$ as one
of the #?R of the M?A*A., "#!$o%'#%&! -8#"8) &"%!-#%'#' &,# (o/%'"+#! o1 &,#+" /&,o"+&)! As it see)s, een
the heart of the M?A*A. is still sub4ect to necessary chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0! /hile para'raph 7 on 3oernance
suspen$s the effectiity of all proisions re,uirin' chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0, such clause is itself inali$, as (ill be
$iscusse$ in the follo(in' section!
&n$ee$, ours is an open society, (ith all the acts of the 'oern)ent sub4ect to public scrutiny an$ aailable al(ays to
public co'ni+ance! #his has to be so if the country is to re)ain $e)ocratic, (ith soerei'nty resi$in' in the people an$ all
'oern)ent authority e)anatin' fro) the)!
169
ON THE SECOND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE
/ith re'ar$ to the proisions of the M?A*A., there can be no ,uestion that they cannot all be acco))o$ate$ un$er the
present Constitution an$ la(s! Respon$ents hae a$)itte$ as )uch in the oral ar'u)ents before this Court, an$ the
M?A*A. itself reco'ni+es the nee$ to a)en$ the e5istin' le'al fra)e(or0 to ren$er effectie at least so)e of its
proisions! Respon$ents, nonetheless, counter that the M?A*A. is free of any le'al infir)ity because any proisions
therein (hich are inconsistent (ith the present le'al fra)e(or0 (ill not be effectie until the necessary chan'es to that
fra)e(or0 are )a$e! #he ali$ity of this ar'u)ent (ill be consi$ere$ later! For no(, the Court shall pass upon ho(
T,# MOA-AD +! +%-o%!+!&#%& ;+&, &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% %' 8;! ! $"#!#%&8) ;o"'#'.
&n 'eneral, the ob4ections a'ainst the M?A*A. center on the e5tent of the po(ers conce$e$ therein to the B-E!
Petitioners assert that the po(ers 'rante$ to the B-E e5cee$ those 'rante$ to any local 'oern)ent un$er present la(s,
31
an$ een 'o beyon$ those of the present ARMM! Before assessin' so)e of the specific po(ers that (oul$ hae been
este$ in the B-E, ho(eer, it (oul$ be useful to turn first to a 'eneral i$ea that seres as a unifyin' lin0 to the $ifferent
proisions of the M?A*A., na)ely, the international la( concept of association! 2i'nificantly, the M?A*A. e5plicitly
allu$es to this concept, in$icatin' that the Parties actually fra)e$ its proisions (ith it in )in$!
Association is referre$ to in para'raph D on #ERR&#?RN, para'raph 11 on RE2?>RCE2, an$ para'raph 6 on
3?=ERNANCE! &t is in the last )entione$ proision, ho(eer, that the M?A*A. )ost clearly uses it to $escribe the
enisione$ relationship bet(een the B-E an$ the Central 3oern)ent!
6! T,# "#8&+o%!,+$ (#&;##% &,# C#%&"8 Go0#"%7#%& %' &,# B%2!7o"o </"+'+-8 #%&+&) !,88 (# !!o-+&+0#
-,"-&#"+L#' () !,"#' /&,o"+&) %' "#!$o%!+(+8+&) (ith a structure of 'oernance base$ on e5ecutie, le'islatie,
4u$icial an$ a$)inistratie institutions (ith $efine$ po(ers an$ functions in the co)prehensie co)pact! A perio$ of
transition shall be establishe$ in a co)prehensie peace co)pact specifyin' the relationship bet(een the Central
3oern)ent an$ the B-E! @E)phasis an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
#he nature of the SassociativeS relationship )ay hae been inten$e$ to be $efine$ )ore precisely in the still to be for'e$
Co)prehensie Co)pact! Nonetheless, 'ien that there is a concept of SassociationS in international la(, an$ the M?A*
A. * by its inclusion of international la( instru)ents in its #?R* place$ itself in an international le'al conte5t, that concept
of association )ay be brou'ht to bear in un$erstan$in' the use of the ter) Sassociati)eS in the M?A*A.!
Leitner an$ Reis)an state that
9a:n association is for)e$ (hen &;o !&&#! of une,ual po(er oluntarily establish $urable lin0s! &n the basic )o$el, o%#
!&&#, &,# !!o-+&#, '#8#2&#! -#"&+% "#!$o%!+(+8+&+#! &o &,# o&,#", &,# $"+%-+$8, ;,+8# 7+%&+%+%2 +&!
+%&#"%&+o%8 !&&/! ! !&&#. F"## !!o-+&+o%! "#$"#!#%& 7+''8# 2"o/%' (#&;##% +%&#2"&+o% %'
+%'#$#%'#%-#! 5 5 5
1CB
@E)phasis an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
For purposes of illustration, the Republic of the Marshall &slan$s an$ the Fe$erate$ 2tates of Micronesia @F2MA, for)erly
part of the >!2!*a$)inistere$ #rust #erritory of the Pacific &slan$s,
1C1
are associate$ states of the >!2! pursuant to a
Co)pact of Free Association! #he currency in these countries is the >!2! $ollar, in$icatin' their ery close ties (ith the
>!2!, yet they issue their o(n trael $ocu)ents, (hich is a )ar0 of their statehoo$! #heir international le'al status as
states (as confir)e$ by the >N 2ecurity Council an$ by their a$)ission to >N )e)bership!
Accor$in' to their co)pacts of free association, the Marshall &slan$s an$ the F2M 'enerally hae the capacity to con$uct
forei'n affairs in their o(n na)e an$ ri'ht, such capacity e5ten$in' to )atters such as the la( of the sea, )arine
resources, tra$e, ban0in', postal, ciil aiation, an$ cultural relations! #he >!2! 'oern)ent, (hen con$uctin' its forei'n
affairs, is obli'ate$ to consult (ith the 'oern)ents of the Marshall &slan$s or the F2M on )atters (hich it @>!2!
'oern)entA re'ar$s as relatin' to or affectin' either 'oern)ent!
&n the eent of attac0s or threats a'ainst the Marshall &slan$s or the F2M, the >!2! 'oern)ent has the authority an$
obli'ation to $efen$ the) as if they (ere part of >!2! territory! #he >!2! 'oern)ent, )oreoer, has the option of
establishin' an$ usin' )ilitary areas an$ facilities (ithin these associate$ states an$ has the ri'ht to bar the )ilitary
personnel of any thir$ country fro) hain' access to these territories for )ilitary purposes!
&t bears notin' that in >!2! constitutional an$ international practice, free association is un$erstoo$ as an international
association bet(een soerei'ns! #he Co)pact of Free Association is a treaty (hich is subor$inate to the associate$
nationTs national constitution, an$ each party )ay ter)inate the association consistent (ith the ri'ht of in$epen$ence! &t
has been sai$ that, (ith the a$)ission of the >!2!*associate$ states to the >N in 199B, the >N reco'ni+e$ that the
A)erican )o$el of free association is actually base$ on an un$erlyin' status of in$epen$ence!
1C2
&n international practice, the Sassociated stateS arran'e)ent has usually been use$ as a &"%!+&+o%8 '#0+-# of for)er
colonies on their (ay to full in$epen$ence! E5a)ples of states that hae passe$ throu'h the status of associate$ states
as a transitional phase are Anti'ua, 2t! Litts*Neis*An'uilla, .o)inica, 2t! %ucia, 2t! =incent an$ 3rena$a! All hae since
beco)e in$epen$ent states!
1CD
Bac0 to the M?A*A., it contains )any proisions (hich are consistent (ith the international le'al concept of association,
specifically the follo(in'7 the B-ETs capacity to enter into econo)ic an$ tra$e relations (ith forei'n countries, the
co))it)ent of the Central 3oern)ent to ensure the B-ETs participation in )eetin's an$ eents in the A2EAN an$ the
speciali+e$ >N a'encies, an$ the continuin' responsibility of the Central 3oern)ent oer e5ternal $efense! Moreoer,
the B-ETs ri'ht to participate in Philippine official )issions bearin' on ne'otiation of bor$er a'ree)ents, eniron)ental
protection, an$ sharin' of reenues pertainin' to the bo$ies of (ater a$4acent to or bet(een the islan$s for)in' part of
the ancestral $o)ain, rese)bles the ri'ht of the 'oern)ents of F2M an$ the Marshall &slan$s to be consulte$ by the
>!2! 'oern)ent on any forei'n affairs )atter affectin' the)!
#hese proisions of the M?A in$icate, a)on' other thin's, that the Parties +7#' &o 0#!& +% &,# BJE &,# !&&/! o1 %
associated state o", & %) "&#, !&&/! -8o!#8) $$"o.+7&+%2 +&!
T,# -o%-#$& o1 association +! %o& "#-o2%+L#' /%'#" &,# $"#!#%& Co%!&+&/&+o%
No proince, city, or )unicipality, not een the ARMM, is reco'ni+e$ un$er our la(s as hain' an SassociatieS
relationship (ith the national 'oern)ent! &n$ee$, the concept i)plies po(ers that 'o beyon$ anythin' eer 'rante$ by
the Constitution to any local or re'ional 'oern)ent! &t also i)plies the reco'nition of the associated entity as a state!
#he Constitution, ho(eer, $oes not conte)plate any state in this 4uris$iction other than the Philippine 2tate, )uch less
$oes it proi$e for a transitory status that ai)s to prepare any part of Philippine territory for in$epen$ence!
32
Een the )ere concept ani)atin' )any of the M?A*A.Ts proisions, therefore, alrea$y re,uires for its ali$ity the
a)en$)ent of constitutional proisions, specifically the follo(in' proisions of Article I7
2EC#&?N 1! #he territorial an$ political sub$iisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the $"o0+%-#!, -+&+#!,
7/%+-+$8+&+#!, %' ("%2)!! #here shall be /&o%o7o/! "#2+o%! in Musli) Min$anao an$ the Cor$illeras as
hereinafter proi$e$!
2EC#&?N 1C! #here shall be create$ autono)ous re'ions in Musli) Min$anao an$ in the Cor$illeras consistin' of
proinces, cities, )unicipalities, an$ 'eo'raphical areas sharin' co))on an$ $istinctie historical an$ cultural herita'e,
econo)ic an$ social structures, an$ other releant characteristics ;+&,+% &,# 1"7#;o"A o1 &,+! Co%!&+&/&+o% %' &,#
%&+o%8 !o0#"#+2%&) ! ;#88 ! &#""+&o"+8 +%&#2"+&) o1 &,# R#$/(8+- o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#!.
T,# BJE +! 1" 7o"# $o;#"1/8 #%&+&) &,% &,# /&o%o7o/! "#2+o% "#-o2%+L#' +% &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%
&t is not )erely an e5pan$e$ ersion of the ARMM, the status of its relationship (ith the national 'oern)ent bein'
fun$a)entally $ifferent fro) that of the ARMM! &n$ee$, BJE +! !&&# +% 88 (/& %7# ! +& 7##&! &,# -"+&#"+ o1
!&&# 8+' 'o;% +% &,# Mo%&#0+'#o Co%0#%&+o%,
1C6
na)ely, a per)anent population, a $efine$ territory, a 'oern)ent,
an$ a capacity to enter into relations (ith other states!
Een assu)in' ar*uendo that the M?A*A. (oul$ not necessarily seer any portion of Philippine territory, &,# !$+"+&
%+7&+%2 +& * (hich has betraye$ itself by its use of the concept of association * "/%! -o/%&#" &o &,# %&+o%8
!o0#"#+2%&) %' &#""+&o"+8 +%&#2"+&) o1 &,# R#$/(8+-!
T,# '#1+%+%2 -o%-#$& /%'#"8)+%2 &,# "#8&+o%!,+$ (#&;##% &,# %&+o%8 2o0#"%7#%& %' &,# BJE (#+%2 +&!#81
-o%&"") &o &,# $"#!#%& Co%!&+&/&+o%, +& +! %o& !/"$"+!+%2 &,& 7%) o1 &,# !$#-+1+- $"o0+!+o%! o1 &,# MOA-AD o%
&,# 1o"7&+o% %' $o;#"! o1 &,# BJE "# +% -o%18+-& ;+&, &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% %' &,# 8;!!
Article I, 2ection 1< of the Constitution proi$es that S9t:he creation of the autono)ous re'ion shall be effectie (hen
approe$ by a )a4ority of the otes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite calle$ for the purpose, proi$e$ that o%8)
$"o0+%-#!, -+&+#!, %' 2#o2"$,+- "#! 0o&+%2 10o"(8) +% !/-, $8#(+!-+&# !,88 (# +%-8/'#' +% &,# /&o%o7o/!
"#2+o%!S @E)phasis supplie$A
As reflecte$ aboe, the B-E is )ore of a state than an autono)ous re'ion! But een assu)in' that it is coere$ by the
ter) Sautono)ous re'ionS in the constitutional proision 4ust ,uote$, the M?A*A. (oul$ still be in conflict (ith it! >n$er
para'raph 2@cA on #ERR&#?RN in relation to 2@$A an$ 2@eA, the present 'eo'raphic area of the ARMM an$, in a$$ition,
the )unicipalities of %anao $el Norte (hich ote$ for inclusion in the ARMM $urin' the 2BB1 plebiscite / .aloi, Munai,
Nunun*an, Pantar, Ta*oloan and Tan*kal * are auto)atically part of the B-E (ithout nee$ of another plebiscite, in
contrast to the areas un$er Cate'ories A an$ B )entione$ earlier in the oerie(! #hat the present co)ponents of the
ARMM an$ the aboe*)entione$ )unicipalities ote$ for inclusion therein in 2BB1, ho(eer, $oes %o& ren$er another
plebiscite unnecessary un$er the Constitution, precisely because (hat these areas ote$ for then (as their inclusion in
the ARMM, %o& the B-E!
T,# MOA-AD, 7o"#o0#", ;o/8' %o&-o7$8) ;+&, A"&+-8# H, S#-&+o% 2@ o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%
since that proision $efines the po(ers of autono)ous re'ions as follo(s7
2EC#&?N 2B! /ithin its territorial 4uris$iction an$ sub4ect to the proisions of this Constitution an$ national la(s, the
or'anic act of autono)ous re'ions shall proi$e for le'islatie po(ers oer7
@1A A$)inistratie or'ani+ation"
@2A Creation of sources of reenues"
@DA Ancestral $o)ain an$ natural resources"
@6A Personal, fa)ily, an$ property relations"
@CA Re'ional urban an$ rural plannin' $eelop)ent"
@;A Econo)ic, social, an$ touris) $eelop)ent"
@7A E$ucational policies"
@<A Preseration an$ $eelop)ent of the cultural herita'e" an$
@9A 2uch other )atters as )ay be authori+e$ by la( for the pro)otion of the 'eneral (elfare of the people of the re'ion!
@>n$erscorin' supplie$A
A'ain on the pre)ise that the B-E )ay be re'ar$e$ as an autono)ous re'ion, the M?A*A. (oul$ re,uire an
a)en$)ent that (oul$ e5pan$ the aboe*,uote$ proision! #he )ere passa'e of ne( le'islation pursuant to sub*
para'raph No! 9 of sai$ constitutional proision (oul$ not suffice, since any ne( la( that )i'ht est in the B-E the
po(ers foun$ in the M?A*A. )ust, itself, co)ply (ith other proisions of the Constitution! &t (oul$ not $o, for instance,
33
to )erely pass le'islation estin' the B-E (ith treaty*)a0in' po(er in or$er to acco))o$ate para'raph 6 of the stran$
on RE2?>RCE2 (hich states7 S#he B-E is free to enter into any econo)ic cooperation an$ tra$e relations (ith forei'n
countries7 proi$e$, ho(eer, that such relationships an$ un$erstan$in's $o not inclu$e a''ression a'ainst the
3oern)ent of the Republic of the Philippines 5 5 5!S >n$er our constitutional syste), it is only the Presi$ent (ho has
that po(er! Pimentel )% E'ecuti)e 6ecretary
1CC
instructs7
&n our syste) of 'oern)ent, the Presi$ent, bein' the hea$ of state, is re'ar$e$ as &,# !o8# o"2% %' /&,o"+&) +%
#.&#"%8 "#8&+o%! %' +! &,# -o/%&")P! !o8# "#$"#!#%&&+0# ;+&, 1o"#+2% %&+o%!. As the chief architect of forei'n
policy, the Presi$ent acts as the countryTs )outhpiece (ith respect to international affairs! 1ence, &,# P"#!+'#%& +!
0#!&#' ;+&, &,# /&,o"+&) &o $eal (ith forei'n states an$ 'oern)ents, e5ten$ or (ithhol$ reco'nition, 7+%&+%
'+$8o7&+- "#8&+o%!, #%&#" +%&o &"#&+#!, %' o&,#";+!# &"%!-& &,# (/!+%#!! o1 1o"#+2% "#8&+o%!. I% &,# "#87 o1
&"#&)-7A+%2, &,# P"#!+'#%& ,! &,# !o8# /&,o"+&) &o %#2o&+&# ;+&, o&,#" !&&#!. @E)phasis an$ un$erscorin'
supplie$A
A"&+-8# II, S#-&+o% 22 o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% 7/!& 8!o (# 7#%'#' +1 &,# !-,#7# #%0+!+o%#' +% &,# MOA-AD +! &o (#
#11#-&#'! #hat constitutional proision states7 S#he 2tate reco'ni+es an$ pro)otes the ri'hts of in$i'enous cultural
co))unities (ithin the fra)e(or0 of national unity an$ $eelop)ent!S @>n$erscorin' supplie$A An associati)e
arran'e)ent $oes not uphol$ national unity! /hile there )ay be a se)blance of unity because of the associatie ties
bet(een the B-E an$ the national 'oern)ent, the act of placin' a portion of Philippine territory in a status (hich, in
international practice, has 'enerally been a preparation for independence, is certainly not con$ucie to %&+o%8 unity!
Besi$es bein' irreconcilable (ith the Constitution, the M?A*A. is also +%-o%!+!&#%& ;+&, $"#0+8+%2 !&&/&o") 8;,
7o%2 ;,+-, "# R.A. No. 9@34
1C;
or the ?r'anic Act of the ARMM, an$ the IPRA!
1C7
A"&+-8# H, S#-&+o% B o1 &,# O"2%+- A-& o1 &,# ARMM +! (" &o &,# 'o$&+o% o1 &,# '#1+%+&+o% o1 NB%2!7o"o
$#o$8#N use$ in the M?A*A.! Para'raph 1 on Concepts an$ Principles states7
1! &t is the birthri'ht of 88 Mo"o! %' 88 I%'+2#%o/! $#o$8#! o1 M+%'%o &o +'#%&+1) &,#7!#80#! %' (# --#$&#'
! NB%2!7o"o!N. #he Ban'sa)oro people refers to those (ho are %&+0#! o" o"+2+%8 +%,(+&%&! o1 M+%'%o
%' +&! '<-#%& +!8%'! inclu$in' Pala(an an$ the 2ulu archipela'o at the ti)e of con,uest or coloni+ation of its
$escen$ants (hether )i5e$ or of full bloo$! 2pouses an$ their $escen$ants are classifie$ as Ban'sa)oro! #he free$o)
of choice of the &n$i'enous people shall be respecte$! @E)phasis an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
#his use of the ter) Ban'sa)oro sharply contrasts (ith that foun$ in the Article I, 2ection D of the ?r'anic Act, (hich,
rather than lu)pin' to'ether the i$entities of the Ban'sa)oro an$ other in$i'enous peoples liin' in Min$anao, clearly
'+!&+%2/+!,#! (#&;##% B%2!7o"o $#o$8# %' T"+(8 $#o$8#!, as follo(s7
SAs use$ in this ?r'anic Act, the phrase Sin$i'enous cultural co))unityS refers to F+8+$+%o -+&+L#%! "#!+'+%2 +% &,#
/&o%o7o/! "#2+o% (ho are7
@aA T"+(8 $#o$8#!! #hese are citi+ens (hose social, cultural an$ econo)ic con$itions $istin'uish the) fro) other
sectors of the national co))unity" an$
@bA B%2! Mo"o $#o$8#! #hese are citi+ens (ho are (#8+#0#"! +% I!87 an$ ;,o ,0# "#&+%#' !o7# o" 88 o1 &,#+"
o;% !o-+8, #-o%o7+-, -/8&/"8, %' $o8+&+-8 +%!&+&/&+o%!!S
Respectin' the &PRA, it lays $o(n the preailin' proce$ure for the $elineation an$ reco'nition of ancestral $o)ains! #he
M?A*A.Ts )anner of $elineatin' the ancestral $o)ain of the Ban'sa)oro people is a clear $eparture fro) that
proce$ure! By para'raph 1 of #erritory, the Parties si)ply a'ree that, sub4ect to the $eli)itations in the a'ree$
2che$ules, S9t:he Ban'sa)oro ho)elan$ an$ historic territory refer to the lan$ )ass as (ell as the )ariti)e, terrestrial,
fluial an$ alluial $o)ains, an$ the aerial $o)ain, the at)ospheric space aboe it, e)bracin' the Min$anao*2ulu*
Pala(an 'eo'raphic re'ion!S
Chapter =&&& of the &PRA, on the other han$, lays $o(n a $etaile$ proce$ure, as illustrate$ in the follo(in' proisions
thereof7
2EC#&?N C2! .elineation Process! * #he i$entification an$ $elineation of ancestral $o)ains shall be $one in accor$ance
(ith the follo(in' proce$ures7
5 5 5 5
bA Petition for .elineation! * #he process of $elineatin' a specific peri)eter )ay be initiate$ by the NC&P (ith the consent
of the &CCH&P concerne$, or throu'h a Petition for .elineation file$ (ith the NC&P, by a )a4ority of the )e)bers of the
&CCsH&Ps"
cA .elineation Proper! * #he official $elineation of ancestral $o)ain boun$aries inclu$in' census of all co))unity
)e)bers therein, shall be i))e$iately un$erta0en by the Ancestral .o)ains ?ffice upon filin' of the application by the
&CCsH&Ps concerne$! .elineation (ill be $one in coor$ination (ith the co))unity concerne$ an$ shall at all ti)es inclu$e
'enuine inole)ent an$ participation by the )e)bers of the co))unities concerne$"
$A Proof Re,uire$! * Proof of Ancestral .o)ain Clai)s shall inclu$e the testi)ony of el$ers or co))unity un$er oath,
an$ other $ocu)ents $irectly or in$irectly attestin' to the possession or occupation of the area since ti)e i))e)orial by
such &CCsH&Ps in the concept of o(ners (hich shall be any one @1A of the follo(in' authentic $ocu)ents7
34
1A /ritten accounts of the &CCsH&Ps custo)s an$ tra$itions"
2A /ritten accounts of the &CCsH&Ps political structure an$ institution"
DA Pictures sho(in' lon' ter) occupation such as those of ol$ i)proe)ents, burial 'roun$s, sacre$ places an$ ol$
illa'es"
6A 1istorical accounts, inclu$in' pacts an$ a'ree)ents concernin' boun$aries entere$ into by the &CCsH&Ps concerne$
(ith other &CCsH&Ps"
CA 2urey plans an$ s0etch )aps"
;A Anthropolo'ical $ata"
7A 3enealo'ical sureys"
<A Pictures an$ $escriptie histories of tra$itional co))unal forests an$ huntin' 'roun$s"
9A Pictures an$ $escriptie histories of tra$itional lan$)ar0s such as )ountains, riers, cree0s, ri$'es, hills, terraces an$
the li0e" an$
1BA /rite*ups of na)es an$ places $erie$ fro) the natie $ialect of the co))unity!
eA Preparation of Maps! * ?n the basis of such inesti'ation an$ the fin$in's of fact base$ thereon, the Ancestral
.o)ains ?ffice of the NC&P shall prepare a peri)eter )ap, co)plete (ith technical $escriptions, an$ a $escription of the
natural features an$ lan$)ar0s e)brace$ therein"
fA Report of &nesti'ation an$ ?ther .ocu)ents! * A co)plete copy of the preli)inary census an$ a report of
inesti'ation, shall be prepare$ by the Ancestral .o)ains ?ffice of the NC&P"
'A Notice an$ Publication! * A copy of each $ocu)ent, inclu$in' a translation in the natie lan'ua'e of the &CCsH&Ps
concerne$ shall be poste$ in a pro)inent place therein for at least fifteen @1CA $ays! A copy of the $ocu)ent shall also be
poste$ at the local, proincial an$ re'ional offices of the NC&P, an$ shall be publishe$ in a ne(spaper of 'eneral
circulation once a (ee0 for t(o @2A consecutie (ee0s to allo( other clai)ants to file opposition thereto (ithin fifteen @1CA
$ays fro) $ate of such publication7 Proi$e$, #hat in areas (here no such ne(spaper e5ists, broa$castin' in a ra$io
station (ill be a ali$ substitute7 Proi$e$, further, #hat )ere postin' shall be $ee)e$ sufficient if both ne(spaper an$
ra$io station are not aailable"
hA En$orse)ent to NC&P! * /ithin fifteen @1CA $ays fro) publication, an$ of the inspection process, the Ancestral .o)ains
?ffice shall prepare a report to the NC&P en$orsin' a faorable action upon a clai) that is $ee)e$ to hae sufficient
proof! 1o(eer, if the proof is $ee)e$ insufficient, the Ancestral .o)ains ?ffice shall re,uire the sub)ission of a$$itional
ei$ence7 Proi$e$, #hat the Ancestral .o)ains ?ffice shall re4ect any clai) that is $ee)e$ patently false or frau$ulent
after inspection an$ erification7 Proi$e$, further, #hat in case of re4ection, the Ancestral .o)ains ?ffice shall 'ie the
applicant $ue notice, copy furnishe$ all concerne$, containin' the 'roun$s for $enial! #he $enial shall be appealable to
the NC&P7 Proi$e$, further)ore, #hat in cases (here there are conflictin' clai)s a)on' &CCsH&Ps on the boun$aries of
ancestral $o)ain clai)s, the Ancestral .o)ains ?ffice shall cause the conten$in' parties to )eet an$ assist the) in
co)in' up (ith a preli)inary resolution of the conflict, (ithout pre4u$ice to its full a$4u$ication accor$in' to the section
belo(!
5 5 5 5
#o re)oe all $oubts about the irreconcilability of the M?A*A. (ith the present le'al syste), a $iscussion of not only the
Constitution an$ $o)estic statutes, but also of international la( is in or$er, for
A"&+-8# II, S#-&+o% 2 o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% !&&#! &,& &,# P,+8+$$+%#! N'o$&! &,# 2#%#"88) --#$&#' $"+%-+$8#! o1
+%&#"%&+o%8 8; ! $"& o1 &,# 8; o1 &,# 8%'.N
Applyin' this proision of the Constitution, the Court, in Me(off )% Director of Prisons,
1C<
hel$ that the >niersal .eclaration
of 1u)an Ri'hts is part of the la( of the lan$ on account of (hich it or$ere$ the release on bail of a $etaine$ alien of
Russian $escent (hose $eportation or$er ha$ not been e5ecute$ een after t(o years! 2i)ilarly, the Court in !*ustin )%
Edu
1C9
applie$ the aforesai$ constitutional proision to the 19;< =ienna Conention on Roa$ 2i'ns an$ 2i'nals!
&nternational la( has lon' reco'ni+e$ the ri'ht to self*$eter)ination of Speoples,S un$erstoo$ not )erely as the entire
population of a 2tate but also a portion thereof! &n consi$erin' the ,uestion of (hether the people of Wuebec ha$ a ri'ht
to unilaterally sece$e fro) Cana$a, the Cana$ian 2upre)e Court in REFERENCE RE 2ECE22&?N ?F W>EBEC
1;B
ha$
occasion to ac0no(le$'e that Sthe ri'ht of a people to self*$eter)ination is no( so (i$ely reco'ni+e$ in international
conentions that the principle has ac,uire$ a status beyon$ JconentionT an$ is consi$ere$ a 'eneral principle of
international la(!S
A)on' the conentions referre$ to are the &nternational Coenant on Ciil an$ Political Ri'hts
1;1
an$ the &nternational
Coenant on Econo)ic, 2ocial an$ Cultural Ri'hts
1;2
(hich state, in Article 1 of both coenants, that all peoples, by irtue
of the ri'ht of self*$eter)ination, Sfreely $eter)ine their political status an$ freely pursue their econo)ic, social, an$
35
cultural $eelop)ent!S
#he peopleTs ri'ht to self*$eter)ination shoul$ not, ho(eer, be un$erstoo$ as e5ten$in' to a unilateral ri'ht of
secession! A $istinction shoul$ be )a$e bet(een the ri'ht of internal an$ e5ternal self*$eter)ination! REFERENCE RE
2ECE22&?N ?F W>EBEC is a'ain instructie7
S@iiA 2cope of the Ri'ht to 2elf*$eter)ination
12;! #he reco'ni+e$ sources of international la( establish that the "+2,& &o !#81-'#&#"7+%&+o% o1 $#o$8# +! %o"788)
1/81+88#' &,"o/2, internal !#81-'#&#"7+%&+o% - $#o$8#P! $/"!/+& o1 +&! $o8+&+-8, #-o%o7+-, !o-+8 %' -/8&/"8
'#0#8o$7#%& ;+&,+% &,# 1"7#;o"A o1 % #.+!&+%2 !&&#. A "+2,& &o e"ternal !#81-'#&#"7+%&+o% D;,+-, +% &,+! -!#
$o&#%&+88) &A#! &,# 1o"7 o1 &,# !!#"&+o% o1 "+2,& &o /%+8&#"8 !#-#!!+o%E "+!#! +% o%8) &,# 7o!& #.&"#7# o1
-!#! %', #0#% &,#%, /%'#" -"#1/88) '#1+%#' -+"-/7!&%-#!. 5 5 5
#"ternal !#81-'#&#"7+%&+o% -% (# '#1+%#' ! +% &,# 1o88o;+%2 !&&#7#%& 1"o7 &,# !eclaration on $riendly
%elations, supra, !
T,# #!&(8+!,7#%& o1 !o0#"#+2% %' +%'#$#%'#%& S&&#, &,# 1"## !!o-+&+o% o" +%&#2"&+o% ;+&, % +%'#$#%'#%&
S&&# o" &,# #7#"2#%-# +%&o %) o&,#" $o8+&+-8 !&&/! 1"##8) '#&#"7+%#' () people constitute )o$es of
i)ple)entin' the ri'ht of self*$eter)ination by that people! @E)phasis a$$e$A
127! T,# +%&#"%&+o%8 8; $"+%-+$8# o1 !#81-'#&#"7+%&+o% ,! #0o80#' ;+&,+% 1"7#;o"A o1 "#!$#-& 1o" &,#
&#""+&o"+8 +%&#2"+&) o1 #.+!&+%2 !&&#!. #he arious international $ocu)ents that support the e5istence of a peopleTs ri'ht
to self*$eter)ination also contain parallel state)ents supportie of the conclusion that the e5ercise of such a ri'ht )ust
be sufficiently li)ite$ to preent threats to an e5istin' stateTs territorial inte'rity or the stability of relations bet(een
soerei'n states!
5 5 5 5 @E)phasis, italics an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
#he Cana$ian Court (ent on to $iscuss the e5ceptional cases in (hich the ri'ht to e5ternal self*$eter)ination can arise,
na)ely, (here a people is un$er colonial rule, is sub4ect to forei'n $o)ination or e5ploitation outsi$e a colonial conte5t,
an$ * less $efinitely but asserte$ by a nu)ber of co))entators * is bloc0e$ fro) the )eanin'ful e5ercise of its ri'ht to
internal self*$eter)ination! #he Court ulti)ately hel$ that the population of Wuebec ha$ no ri'ht to secession, as the
sa)e is not un$er colonial rule or forei'n $o)ination, nor is it bein' $eprie$ of the free$o) to )a0e political choices an$
pursue econo)ic, social an$ cultural $eelop)ent, citin' that Wuebec is e,uitably represente$ in le'islatie, e5ecutie
an$ 4u$icial institutions (ithin Cana$a, een occupyin' pro)inent positions therein!
#he e5ceptional nature of the ri'ht of secession is further e5e)plifie$ in the REP?R# ?F #1E &N#ERNA#&?NA%
C?MM&##EE ?F ->R&2#2 ?N #1E %E3A% A2PEC#2 ?F #1E AA%AN. &2%AN.2 W>E2#&?N!
1;D
#here, 2(e$en
presente$ to the Council of the %ea'ue of Nations the ,uestion of (hether the inhabitants of the Aalan$ &slan$s shoul$ be
authori+e$ to $eter)ine by plebiscite if the archipela'o shoul$ re)ain un$er Finnish soerei'nty or be incorporate$ in the
0in'$o) of 2(e$en! #he Council, before resolin' the ,uestion, appointe$ an &nternational Co))ittee co)pose$ of
three 4urists to sub)it an opinion on the preli)inary issue of (hether the $ispute shoul$, base$ on international la(, be
entirely left to the $o)estic 4uris$iction of Finlan$! #he Co))ittee state$ the rule as follo(s7
5 5 5 9&:n the absence of e5press proisions in international treaties, &,# "+2,& o1 '+!$o!+%2 o1 %&+o%8 &#""+&o") +!
#!!#%&+88) % &&"+(/&# o1 &,# !o0#"#+2%&) o1 #0#") S&&#. Po!+&+0# I%&#"%&+o%8 L; 'o#! %o& "#-o2%+L# &,# "+2,&
o1 %&+o%8 2"o/$!, ! !/-,, &o !#$"&# &,#7!#80#! 1"o7 &,# S&&# o1 ;,+-, &,#) 1o"7 $"& () &,# !+7$8#
#.$"#!!+o% o1 ;+!,, any )ore than it reco'ni+es the ri'ht of other 2tates to clai) such a separation! G#%#"88)
!$#A+%2, &,# 2"%& o" "#1/!8 o1 &,# "+2,& &o $o"&+o% o1 +&! $o$/8&+o% o1 '#&#"7+%+%2 +&! o;% $o8+&+-8 1&# ()
$8#(+!-+&# o" () !o7# o&,#" 7#&,o', +!, #.-8/!+0#8), % &&"+(/&# o1 &,# !o0#"#+2%&) o1 #0#") S&&# ;,+-, +!
'#1+%+&+0#8) -o%!&+&/&#'! A $ispute bet(een t(o 2tates concernin' such a ,uestion, un$er nor)al con$itions therefore,
bears upon a ,uestion (hich &nternational %a( leaes entirely to the $o)estic 4uris$iction of one of the 2tates concerne$!
Any other solution (oul$ a)ount to an infrin'e)ent of soerei'n ri'hts of a 2tate an$ (oul$ inole the ris0 of creatin'
$ifficulties an$ a lac0 of stability (hich (oul$ not only be contrary to the ery i$ea e)bo$ie$ in ter) S2tate,S but (oul$
also en$an'er the interests of the international co))unity! &f this ri'ht is not possesse$ by a lar'e or s)all section of a
nation, neither can it be hel$ by the 2tate to (hich the national 'roup (ishes to be attache$, nor by any other 2tate!
@E)phasis an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
#he Co))ittee hel$ that the $ispute concernin' the Aalan$ &slan$s $i$ not refer to a ,uestion (hich is left by
international la( to the $o)estic 4uris$iction of Finlan$, thereby applyin' the e5ception rather than the rule eluci$ate$
aboe! &ts 'roun$ for $epartin' fro) the 'eneral rule, ho(eer, (as a ery narro( one, na)ely, the Aalan$ &slan$s
a'itation ori'inate$ at a ti)e (hen Finlan$ (as un$er'oin' $rastic political transfor)ation! #he internal situation of
Finlan$ (as, accor$in' to the Co))ittee, so abnor)al that, for a consi$erable ti)e, the con$itions re,uire$ for the
for)ation of a soerei'n 2tate $i$ not e5ist! &n the )i$st of reolution, anarchy, an$ ciil (ar, the le'iti)acy of the Finnish
national 'oern)ent (as $ispute$ by a lar'e section of the people, an$ it ha$, in fact, been chase$ fro) the capital an$
forcibly preente$ fro) carryin' out its $uties! #he ar)e$ ca)ps an$ the police (ere $ii$e$ into t(o opposin' forces! &n
li'ht of these circu)stances, Finlan$ (as not, $urin' the releant ti)e perio$, a S$efinitiely constitute$S soerei'n state!
#he Co))ittee, therefore, foun$ that Finlan$ $i$ not possess the ri'ht to (ithhol$ fro) a portion of its population the
option to separate itself * a ri'ht (hich soerei'n nations 'enerally hae (ith respect to their o(n populations!
#urnin' no( to the )ore specific cate'ory of in$i'enous peoples, this ter) has been use$, in scholarship as (ell as
international, re'ional, an$ state practices, to refer to 'roups (ith $istinct cultures, histories, an$ connections to lan$
@spiritual an$ other(iseA that hae been forcibly incorporate$ into a lar'er 'oernin' society! #hese 'roups are re'ar$e$
as Sin$i'enousS since they are the liin' $escen$ants of pre*inasion inhabitants of lan$s no( $o)inate$ by others!
36
?ther(ise state$, in$i'enous peoples, nations, or co))unities are culturally $istinctie 'roups that fin$ the)seles
en'ulfe$ by settler societies born of the forces of e)pire an$ con,uest!
1;6
E5a)ples of 'roups (ho hae been re'ar$e$
as in$i'enous peoples are the Maori of Ne( Mealan$ an$ the abori'inal peoples of Cana$a!
As (ith the broa$er cate'ory of Speoples,S in$i'enous peoples situate$ (ithin states $o not hae a 'eneral ri'ht to
in$epen$ence or secession fro) those states un$er international la(,
1;C
but they $o hae ri'hts a)ountin' to (hat (as
$iscusse$ aboe as the ri'ht to +%&#"%8 self*$eter)ination!
&n a historic $eelop)ent last 2epte)ber 1D, 2BB7, the >N 3eneral Asse)bly a$opte$ the >nite$ Nations .eclaration on
the Ri'hts of &n$i'enous Peoples @>N .R&PA throu'h G#%#"8 A!!#7(8) R#!o8/&+o% 41=293. T,# 0o&# ;! 16D to 6,
the Philippines bein' inclu$e$ a)on' those in faor, an$ the four otin' a'ainst bein' Australia, Cana$a, Ne( Mealan$,
an$ the >!2! #he .eclaration clearly reco'ni+e$ the "+2,& o1 +%'+2#%o/! $#o$8#! &o !#81-'#&#"7+%&+o%,
#%-o7$!!+%2 &,# "+2,& &o /&o%o7) o" !#81-2o0#"%7#%&, &o ;+&6
A"&+-8# B
&n$i'enous peoples hae the ri'ht to !#81-'#&#"7+%&+o%! By irtue of that ri'ht they freely $eter)ine their political status
an$ freely pursue their econo)ic, social an$ cultural $eelop)ent!
A"&+-8# 4
&n$i'enous peoples, in e5ercisin' their ri'ht to self*$eter)ination, hae &,# "+2,& &o /&o%o7) o" !#81-2o0#"%7#%& +%
7&&#"! "#8&+%2 &o &,#+" +%&#"%8 %' 8o-8 11+"!, as (ell as (ays an$ )eans for financin' their autono)ous
functions!
A"&+-8# 3
&n$i'enous peoples hae the ri'ht to )aintain an$ stren'then their $istinct political, le'al, econo)ic, social an$ cultural
institutions, (hile retainin' their ri'ht to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, econo)ic, social an$ cultural
life of the 2tate!
2elf*'oern)ent, as use$ in international le'al $iscourse pertainin' to in$i'enous peoples, has been un$erstoo$ as
e,uialent to Sinternal self*$eter)ination!S
1;;
#he e5tent of self*$eter)ination proi$e$ for in the >N .R&P is )ore
particularly $efine$ in its subse,uent articles, so)e of (hich are ,uote$ hereun$er7
A"&+-8# 5
1! &n$i'enous peoples an$ in$ii$uals hae the ri'ht not to be sub4ecte$ to force$ assi)ilation or $estruction of their
culture!
2! S&&#! !,88 $"o0+'# #11#-&+0# 7#-,%+!7! 1o" $"#0#%&+o% o1, %' "#'"#!! 1o"6
@aA A%) -&+o% ;,+-, ,! &,# +7 o" #11#-& o1 '#$"+0+%2 &,#7 o1 &,#+" +%&#2"+&) ! '+!&+%-& $#o$8#!, o" o1 &,#+"
-/8&/"8 08/#! o" #&,%+- +'#%&+&+#!G
@bA A%) -&+o% ;,+-, ,! &,# +7 o" #11#-& o1 '+!$o!!#!!+%2 &,#7 o1 &,#+" 8%'!, &#""+&o"+#! o" "#!o/"-#!G
@cA A%) 1o"7 o1 1o"-#' $o$/8&+o% &"%!1#" ;,+-, ,! &,# +7 o" #11#-& o1 0+o8&+%2 o" /%'#"7+%+%2 %) o1 &,#+"
"+2,&!G
@$A Any for) of force$ assi)ilation or inte'ration"
@eA A%) 1o"7 o1 $"o$2%' '#!+2%#' &o $"o7o&# o" +%-+&# "-+8 o" #&,%+- '+!-"+7+%&+o% '+"#-&#' 2+%!& &,#7.
A"&+-8# 21
1! &n$i'enous peoples hae the ri'ht, (ithout $iscri)ination, to the i)proe)ent of their econo)ic an$ social con$itions,
inclu$in', inter alia, in the areas of e$ucation, e)ploy)ent, ocational trainin' an$ retrainin', housin', sanitation, health
an$ social security!
2! 2tates shall ta0e effectie )easures an$, (here appropriate, special )easures to ensure continuin' i)proe)ent of
their econo)ic an$ social con$itions! Particular attention shall be pai$ to the ri'hts an$ special nee$s of in$i'enous
el$ers, (o)en, youth, chil$ren an$ persons (ith $isabilities!
A"&+-8# 24
1! I%'+2#%o/! $#o$8#! ,0# &,# "+2,& &o &,# 8%'!, &#""+&o"+#! %' "#!o/"-#! ;,+-, &,#) ,0# &"'+&+o%88) o;%#',
o--/$+#' o" o&,#";+!# /!#' o" -:/+"#'.
2! &n$i'enous peoples hae the ri'ht to o(n, use, $eelop an$ control the lan$s, territories an$ resources that they
possess by reason of tra$itional o(nership or other tra$itional occupation or use, as (ell as those (hich they hae
37
other(ise ac,uire$!
D! 2tates shall 'ie le'al reco'nition an$ protection to these lan$s, territories an$ resources! 2uch reco'nition shall be
con$ucte$ (ith $ue respect to the custo)s, tra$itions an$ lan$ tenure syste)s of the in$i'enous peoples concerne$!
A"&+-8# B@
1! Military actiities shall not ta0e place in the lan$s or territories of in$i'enous peoples, unless 4ustifie$ by a releant
public interest or other(ise freely a'ree$ (ith or re,ueste$ by the in$i'enous peoples concerne$!
2! 2tates shall un$erta0e effectie consultations (ith the in$i'enous peoples concerne$, throu'h appropriate proce$ures
an$ in particular throu'h their representatie institutions, prior to usin' their lan$s or territories for )ilitary actiities!
A"&+-8# B2
1! &n$i'enous peoples hae the ri'ht to $eter)ine an$ $eelop priorities an$ strate'ies for the $eelop)ent or use of
their lan$s or territories an$ other resources!
2! 2tates shall consult an$ cooperate in 'oo$ faith (ith the in$i'enous peoples concerne$ throu'h their o(n
representatie institutions in or$er to obtain their free an$ infor)e$ consent prior to the approal of any pro4ect affectin'
their lan$s or territories an$ other resources, particularly in connection (ith the $eelop)ent, utili+ation or e5ploitation of
)ineral, (ater or other resources!
D! 2tates shall proi$e effectie )echanis)s for 4ust an$ fair re$ress for any such actiities, an$ appropriate )easures
shall be ta0en to )iti'ate a$erse eniron)ental, econo)ic, social, cultural or spiritual i)pact!
A"&+-8# B>
1! &n$i'enous peoples hae the ri'ht to the reco'nition, obserance an$ enforce)ent of treaties, a'ree)ents an$ other
constructie arran'e)ents conclu$e$ (ith 2tates or their successors an$ to hae 2tates honour an$ respect such
treaties, a'ree)ents an$ other constructie arran'e)ents!
2! Nothin' in this .eclaration )ay be interprete$ as $i)inishin' or eli)inatin' the ri'hts of in$i'enous peoples containe$
in treaties, a'ree)ents an$ other constructie arran'e)ents!
A"&+-8# B5
2tates in consultation an$ cooperation (ith in$i'enous peoples, shall ta0e the appropriate )easures, inclu$in' le'islatie
)easures, to achiee the en$s of this .eclaration!
Assu)in' that the >N .R&P, li0e the >niersal .eclaration on 1u)an Ri'hts, )ust no( be re'ar$e$ as e)bo$yin'
custo)ary international la( * a ,uestion (hich the Court nee$ not $efinitiely resole here * the obli'ations enu)erate$
therein $o not strictly re,uire the Republic to 'rant the Ban'sa)oro people, throu'h the instru)entality of the B-E, the
particular ri'hts an$ po(ers proi$e$ for in the M?A*A.! Een the )ore specific proisions of the >N .R&P are 'eneral
in scope, allo(in' for fle5ibility in its application by the $ifferent 2tates!
#here is, for instance, no re,uire)ent in the >N .R&P that 2tates no( 'uarantee in$i'enous peoples their o(n police
an$ internal security force! &n$ee$, Article < presupposes that it is the 2tate (hich (ill proi$e protection for in$i'enous
peoples a'ainst acts li0e the force$ $ispossession of their lan$s * a function that is nor)ally perfor)e$ by police officers!
&f the protection of a ri'ht so essential to in$i'enous peopleTs i$entity is ac0no(le$'e$ to be the responsibility of the
2tate, then surely the protection of ri'hts less si'nificant to the) as such peoples (oul$ also be the $uty of 2tates! Nor is
there in the >N .R&P an ac0no(le$'e)ent of the ri'ht of in$i'enous peoples to the aerial $o)ain an$ at)ospheric
space! /hat it uphol$s, in Article 2; thereof, is the ri'ht of in$i'enous peoples to the lan$s, territories an$ resources
(hich they hae tra$itionally o(ne$, occupie$ or other(ise use$ or ac,uire$!
Moreoer, the >N .R&P, (hile uphol$in' the ri'ht of in$i'enous peoples to autono)y, $oes not obli'ate 2tates to 'rant
in$i'enous peoples the near*in$epen$ent status of an associate$ state! All the ri'hts reco'ni+e$ in that $ocu)ent are
,ualifie$ in A"&+-8# 44 ! 1o88o;!6
1! No&,+%2 +% &,+! D#-8"&+o% 7) (# interprete$ as i)plyin' for any 2tate, people, 'roup or person any ri'ht to
en'a'e in any actiity or to perfor) any act contrary to the Charter of the >nite$ Nations or -o%!&"/#' ! /&,o"+L+%2 o"
#%-o/"2+%2 %) -&+o% ;,+-, ;o/8' '+!7#7(#" o" +7$+", &o&88) o" +% $"&, &,# &#""+&o"+8 +%&#2"+&) o" $o8+&+-8
/%+&) o1 !o0#"#+2% %' +%'#$#%'#%& S&&#!.
Een if the >N .R&P (ere consi$ere$ as part of the la( of the lan$ pursuant to Article &&, 2ection 2 of the Constitution, it
(oul$ not suffice to uphol$ the ali$ity of the M?A*A. so as to ren$er its co)pliance (ith other la(s unnecessary!
I& +!, &,#"#1o"#, -8#" &,& &,# MOA-AD -o%&+%! %/7#"o/! $"o0+!+o%! &,& -%%o& (# "#-o%-+8#' ;+&, &,#
Co%!&+&/&+o% %' &,# 8;! ! $"#!#%&8) ;o"'#'! Respon$ents proffer, ho(eer, that the si'nin' of the M?A*A. alone
(oul$ not hae entaile$ any iolation of la( or 'rae abuse of $iscretion on their part, precisely because it stipulates that
the proisions thereof inconsistent (ith the la(s shall not ta0e effect until these la(s are a)en$e$! #hey cite para'raph 7
of the M?A*A. stran$ on 3?=ERNANCE ,uote$ earlier, but (hich is repro$uce$ belo( for conenience7
38
7! #he Parties a'ree that the )echanis)s an$ )o$alities for the actual i)ple)entation of this M?A*A. shall be spelt out
in the Co)prehensie Co)pact to )utually ta0e such steps to enable it to occur effectiely!
Any proisions of the M?A*A. re,uirin' a)en$)ents to the e5istin' le'al fra)e(or0 shall co)e into force upon si'nin'
of a Co)prehensie Co)pact an$ upon effectin' the necessary chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0 (ith $ue re'ar$ to non
$ero'ation of prior a'ree)ents an$ (ithin the stipulate$ ti)efra)e to be containe$ in the Co)prehensie Co)pact!
&n$ee$, the fore'oin' stipulation 0eeps )any controersial proisions of the M?A*A. fro) co)in' into force until the
necessary chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0 are effecte$! W,+8# &,# ;o"' NCo%!&+&/&+o%N +! %o& 7#%&+o%#' +% &,#
$"o0+!+o% %o; /%'#" -o%!+'#"&+o% o" %);,#"# #8!# +% &,# MOA-AD, &,# &#"7 N8#28 1"7#;o"AN +! -#"&+%8)
("o' #%o/2, &o +%-8/'# &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%!
Not(ithstan$in' the suspensie clause, ho(eer, respon$ents, by their )ere act of incorporatin' in the M?A*A. the
proisions thereof re'ar$in' the associatie relationship bet(een the B-E an$ the Central 3oern)ent, hae alrea$y
iolate$ the Me)oran$u) of &nstructions Fro) #he Presi$ent $ate$ March 1, 2BB1, (hich states that the Sne'otiations
shall be con$ucte$ in accor$ance (ith 5 5 5 the principles of the soerei'nty an$ &#""+&o"+8 +%&#2"+&) of the Republic of
the Philippines!S @E)phasis supplie$A Establishin' an associatie relationship bet(een the B-E an$ the Central
3oern)ent is, for the reasons alrea$y $iscusse$, a preparation for in$epen$ence, or (orse, an i)plicit ac0no(le$')ent
of an in$epen$ent status alrea$y preailin'!
Een apart fro) the aboe*)entione$ Me)oran$u), ho(eer, the M?A*A. is $efectie because the suspensie clause
is inali$, as $iscusse$ belo(!
#he authority of the 3RP Peace Ne'otiatin' Panel to ne'otiate (ith the M&%F is foun$e$ on E!?! No! D, 2ection C@cA,
(hich states that there shall be establishe$ 3oern)ent Peace Ne'otiatin' Panels for ne'otiations (ith $ifferent rebel
'roups to be Sappointe$ by the Presi$ent as her official e)issaries to con$uct ne'otiations, $ialo'ues, an$ face*to*face
$iscussions (ith rebel 'roups!S #hese ne'otiatin' panels are to report to the Presi$ent, throu'h the PAPP on the con$uct
an$ pro'ress of the ne'otiations!
&t bears notin' that the 3RP Peace Panel, in e5plorin' lastin' solutions to the Moro Proble) throu'h its ne'otiations (ith
the M&%F, (as not restricte$ by E!?! No! D only to those options aailable un$er the la(s as they presently stan$! ?ne of
the co)ponents of a co)prehensie peace process, (hich E!?! No! D collectiely refers to as the SPaths to Peace,S is
the pursuit of social, econo)ic, an$ political refor)s (hich )ay re,uire ne( le'islation or een constitutional
a)en$)ents! 2ec! 6@aA of E!?! No! D, (hich reiterates 2ection D@aA, of E!?! No! 12C,
1;7
states7
2EC#&?N 6! #he 2i5 Paths to Peace! * #he co)ponents of the co)prehensie peace process co)prise the processes
0no(n as the SPaths to PeaceS! #hese co)ponent processes are interrelate$ an$ not )utually e5clusie, an$ )ust
therefore be pursue$ si)ultaneously in a coor$inate$ an$ inte'rate$ fashion! #hey shall inclu$e, but )ay not be li)ite$
to, the follo(in'7
a! P>R2>&# ?F 2?C&A%, EC?N?M&C AN. P?%&#&CA% REF?RM2! #his co)ponent inoles the 0+2o"o/!
+7$8#7#%&&+o% o1 0"+o/! $o8+-+#!, "#1o"7!, $"o2"7! %' $"o<#-&! +7#' & ''"#!!+%2 &,# "oo& -/!#! o1
+%&#"%8 "7#' -o%18+-&! %' !o-+8 /%"#!&. T,+! 7) "#:/+"# '7+%+!&"&+0# -&+o%, %#; 8#2+!8&+o% o" #0#%
-o%!&+&/&+o%8 7#%'7#%&!.
5 5 5 5 @E)phasis supplie$A
#he M?A*A., therefore, )ay reasonably be perceie$ as an atte)pt of respon$ents to a$$ress, pursuant to this
proision of E!?! No! D, the root causes of the ar)e$ conflict in Min$anao! #he E!?! authori+e$ the) to Sthin0 outsi$e the
bo5,S so to spea0! 1ence, they ne'otiate$ an$ (ere set on si'nin' the M?A*A. that inclu$e$ arious social, econo)ic,
an$ political refor)s (hich cannot, ho(eer, all be acco))o$ate$ (ithin the present le'al fra)e(or0, an$ (hich thus
(oul$ re,uire ne( le'islation an$ constitutional a)en$)ents!
#he in,uiry on the le'ality of the Ssuspensie clause,S ho(eer, cannot stop here, because it )ust be as0e$ ;,#&,#" &,#
P"#!+'#%& ,#"!#81 7) #.#"-+!# &,# $o;#" '#8#2&#' &o &,# GRP P#-# P%#8 /%'#" E.O. No. B, S#-. 4DE.
#he Presi$ent cannot $ele'ate a po(er that she herself $oes not possess! May the Presi$ent, in the course of peace
ne'otiations, a'ree to pursue refor)s that (oul$ re,uire ne( le'islation an$ constitutional a)en$)ents, or shoul$ the
refor)s be restricte$ only to those solutions (hich the present la(s allo(K #he ans(er to this ,uestion re,uires a
$iscussion of &,# #.&#%& o1 &,# P"#!+'#%&P! $o;#" &o -o%'/-& $#-# %#2o&+&+o%!!
#hat the authority of the Presi$ent to con$uct peace ne'otiations (ith rebel 'roups is not e5plicitly )entione$ in the
Constitution $oes not )ean that she has no such authority! &n 6anlakas )% E'ecuti)e 6ecretary,
1;<
in issue (as the
authority of the Presi$ent to $eclare a state of rebellion * an authority (hich is not e5pressly proi$e$ for in the
Constitution! #he Court hel$ thus7
S&n her ponencia in Marcos )% Man*lapus, -ustice Cortes put her thesis into 4urispru$ence! #here, the Court, by a sli) <*7
)ar'in, uphel$ the Presi$entTs po(er to forbi$ the return of her e5ile$ pre$ecessor! #he rationale for the )a4orityTs rulin'
reste$ on the Presi$entTs
! ! ! /%!&&#' "#!+'/8 $o;#"! ;,+-, "# +7$8+#' 1"o7 &,# 2"%& o1 #.#-/&+0# $o;#" %' ;,+-, "# %#-#!!") 1o"
,#" &o -o7$8) ;+&, ,#" '/&+#! /%'#" &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%. T,# $o;#"! o1 &,# P"#!+'#%& "# %o& 8+7+&#' &o ;,& "#
#.$"#!!8) #%/7#"&#' +% &,# "&+-8# o% &,# E.#-/&+0# D#$"&7#%& %' +% !-&&#"#' $"o0+!+o%! o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%.
#his is so, not(ithstan$in' the ao(e$ intent of the )e)bers of the Constitutional Co))ission of 19<; to li)it the
39
po(ers of the Presi$ent as a reaction to the abuses un$er the re'i)e of Mr! Marcos, for the result (as a li)itation of
specific po(ers of the Presi$ent, particularly those relatin' to the co))an$er*in*chief clause, but not a $i)inution of the
'eneral 'rant of e5ecutie po(er!
#hus, &,# P"#!+'#%&P! /&,o"+&) &o '#-8"# !&&# o1 "#(#88+o% !$"+%2! +% &,# 7+% 1"o7 ,#" $o;#"! ! -,+#1
#.#-/&+0# %', & &,# !7# &+7#, '";! !&"#%2&, 1"o7 ,#" Co77%'#"-+%-C,+#1 $o;#"!. 5 5 5 @E)phasis an$
un$erscorin' supplie$A
2i)ilarly, the Presi$entTs po(er to con$uct peace ne'otiations is i)plicitly inclu$e$ in her po(ers as Chief E5ecutie an$
Co))an$er*in*Chief! As Chief E5ecutie, the Presi$ent has the 'eneral responsibility to pro)ote public peace, an$ as
Co))an$er*in*Chief, she has the )ore specific $uty to preent an$ suppress rebellion an$ la(less iolence!
1;9
As the e5perience of nations (hich hae si)ilarly 'one throu'h internal ar)e$ conflict (ill sho(, ho(eer, peace is rarely
attaine$ by si)ply pursuin' a )ilitary solution! ?ftenti)es, chan'es as far*reachin' as a fun$a)ental reconfi'uration of
the nationTs constitutional structure is re,uire$! #he obserations of .r! Lirsti 2a)uels are enli'htenin', to (it7
5 5 5 9#:he fact re)ains that a successful political an$ 'oernance transition )ust for) the core of any post*conflict
peace*buil$in' )ission! As (e hae obsere$ in %iberia an$ 1aiti oer the last ten years, conflict cessation (ithout
)o$ification of the political eniron)ent, een (here state*buil$in' is un$erta0en throu'h technical electoral assistance
an$ institution* or capacity*buil$in', is unli0ely to succee$! ?n aera'e, )ore than CB percent of states e)er'in' fro)
conflict return to conflict! Moreoer, a substantial proportion of transitions hae resulte$ in (ea0 or li)ite$ $e)ocracies!
#he $esi'n of a constitution an$ its constitution*)a0in' process can play an i)portant role in the political an$
'oernance transition! Constitution*)a0in' after conflict is an opportunity to create a co))on ision of the future of a
state an$ a roa$ )ap on ho( to 'et there! #he constitution can be partly a peace a'ree)ent an$ partly a fra)e(or0
settin' up the rules by (hich the ne( $e)ocracy (ill operate!
17B
&n the sa)e ein, Professor Christine Bell, in her article on the nature an$ le'al status of peace a'ree)ents, obsere$
that the typical (ay that peace a'ree)ents establish or confir) )echanis)s for $e)ilitari+ation an$ $e)obili+ation is by
lin0in' the) to %#; -o%!&+&/&+o%8 !&"/-&/"#! a$$ressin' 'oernance, elections, an$ le'al an$ hu)an ri'hts
institutions!
171
&n the Philippine e5perience, the lin0 bet(een peace a'ree)ents an$ constitution*)a0in' has been reco'ni+e$ by no
less than the fra)ers of the Constitution! Behin$ the proisions of the Constitution on autono)ous re'ions
172
is the
fra)ersT intention to i)ple)ent a particular peace a'ree)ent, na)ely, the #ripoli A'ree)ent of 197; bet(een the 3RP
an$ the MN%F, si'ne$ by then >n$ersecretary of National .efense Car)elo M! Barbero an$ then MN%F Chair)an Nur
Misuari!
MR! R?M>%?! #here are other spea0ers" so, althou'h & hae so)e )ore ,uestions, & (ill resere )y ri'ht to as0 the) if
they are not coere$ by the other spea0ers! & hae only t(o ,uestions!
I ,#"' o%# o1 &,# Co77+!!+o%#"! !) &,& 8o-8 /&o%o7) 8"#') #.+!&! +% &,# M/!8+7 "#2+o%" it is (or0in' ery
(ell" it has, in fact, $i)inishe$ a 'reat $eal of the proble)s! 2o, )y ,uestion is7 !+%-# &,& 8"#') #.+!&!, ;,) 'o ;#
,0# &o 2o +%&o !o7#&,+%2 %#;O
MR! ?P%E! May & ans(er that on behalf of Chair)an Nolle$o! Co))issioner Nusup Abuba0ar is ri'ht that -#"&+%
'#1+%+&# !&#$! ,0# (##% &A#% &o +7$8#7#%& &,# $"o0+!+o%! o1 &,# T"+$o8+ A2"##7#%& ;+&, "#!$#-& &o %
/&o%o7o/! "#2+o% +% M+%'%o. T,+! +! 2oo' 1+"!& !&#$, (/& &,#"# +! %o :/#!&+o% &,& &,+! +! 7#"#8) $"&+8
"#!$o%!# &o &,# T"+$o8+ A2"##7#%& +&!#81 %' &o &,# 1/88#" !&%'"' o1 "#2+o%8 /&o%o7) -o%&#7$8&#' +% &,&
2"##7#%&, %' %o; () !&&# $o8+-).
17D
@E)phasis supplie$A
#he constitutional proisions on autono)y an$ the statutes enacte$ pursuant to the) hae, to the cre$it of their $rafters,
been partly successful! Nonetheless, the Filipino people are still face$ (ith the reality of an on*'oin' conflict bet(een the
3oern)ent an$ the M&%F! &f the Presi$ent is to be e5pecte$ to fin$ )eans for brin'in' this conflict to an en$ an$ to
achiee lastin' peace in Min$anao, then she )ust be 'ien the lee(ay to e5plore, in the course of peace ne'otiations,
solutions that )ay re,uire chan'es to the Constitution for their i)ple)entation! Bein' uni,uely este$ (ith the po(er to
con$uct peace ne'otiations (ith rebel 'roups, the Presi$ent is in a sin'ular position to 0no( the precise nature of their
'rieances (hich, if resole$, )ay brin' an en$ to hostilities!
#he Presi$ent )ay not, of course, unilaterally i)ple)ent the solutions that she consi$ers iable, but she )ay not be
preente$ fro) sub)ittin' the) as reco))en$ations to Con'ress, (hich coul$ then, if it is )in$e$, act upon the)
pursuant to the le'al proce$ures for constitutional a)en$)ent an$ reision! &n particular, Con'ress (oul$ hae the
option, pursuant to Article I=&&, 2ections 1 an$ D of the Constitution, to propose the reco))en$e$ a)en$)ents or
reision to the people, call a constitutional conention, or sub)it to the electorate the ,uestion of callin' such a
conention!
/hile the Presi$ent $oes not possess constituent po(ers * as those po(ers )ay be e5ercise$ only by Con'ress, a
Constitutional Conention, or the people throu'h initiatie an$ referen$u) * she )ay sub)it proposals for constitutional
chan'e to Con'ress in a )anner that $oes not inole the arro'ation of constituent po(ers!
&n 6anidad )% C"MELEC,
176
in issue (as the le'ality of then Presi$ent MarcosT act of $irectly sub)ittin' proposals for
constitutional a)en$)ents to a referen$u), bypassin' the interi) National Asse)bly (hich (as the bo$y este$ by the
197D Constitution (ith the po(er to propose such a)en$)ents! Presi$ent Marcos, it (ill be recalle$, neer conene$ the
interi) National Asse)bly! #he )a4ority uphel$ the Presi$entTs act, hol$in' that Sthe ur'es of absolute necessityS
40
co)pelle$ the Presi$ent as the a'ent of the people to act as he $i$, there bein' no interi) National Asse)bly to propose
constitutional a)en$)ents! A'ainst this rulin', -ustices #eehan0ee an$ MuUo+ Pal)a i'orously $issente$! #he CourtTs
concern at present, ho(eer, is not (ith re'ar$ to the point on (hich it (as then $ii$e$ in that controersial case, but on
that (hich (as not $ispute$ by either si$e!
-ustice #eehan0eeTs $issent,
17C
in particular, bears notin'! /hile he $isa'ree$ that the Presi$ent )ay $irectly sub)it
propose$ constitutional a)en$)ents to a referen$u), i)plicit in his opinion is a reco'nition that he (oul$ hae uphel$
the Presi$entTs action alon' (ith the )a4ority ha$ the Presi$ent conene$ the interi) National Asse)bly an$ course$ his
proposals throu'h it! #hus -ustice #eehan0ee opine$7
S2ince the Constitution proi$es for the or'ani+ation of the essential $epart)ents of 'oern)ent, $efines an$ $eli)its the
po(ers of each an$ prescribes the )anner of the e5ercise of such po(ers, an$ the constituent po(er has not been
'rante$ to but has been (ithhel$ fro) the Presi$ent or Pri)e Minister, it follo(s that the Presi$entTs ,uestione$ $ecrees
proposin' an$ sub)ittin' constitutional a)en$)ents $irectly to the people D;+&,o/& &,# +%&#"0#%&+o% o1 &,# +%&#"+7
N&+o%8 A!!#7(8) +% ;,o7 &,# $o;#" +! #.$"#!!8) 0#!&#'E are $eoi$ of constitutional an$ le'al basis!S
17;
@E)phasis supplie$A
Fro) the fore'oin' $iscussion, the principle )ay be inferre$ that the Presi$ent * in the course of con$uctin' peace
ne'otiations * )ay ali$ly consi$er i)ple)entin' een those policies that re,uire chan'es to the Constitution, but she
)ay %o& unilaterally i)ple)ent the) ;+&,o/& &,# +%&#"0#%&+o% o1 Co%2"#!!, o" -& +% %) ;) ! +1 &,# !!#%& o1 &,&
(o') ;#"# !!/7#' ! -#"&+%&)!
2ince, un$er the present Constitution, the people also hae the po(er to $irectly propose a)en$)ents throu'h initiatie
an$ referen$u), the Presi$ent )ay also sub)it her reco))en$ations to the people, not as a for)al proposal to be ote$
on in a plebiscite si)ilar to (hat Presi$ent Marcos $i$ in 6anidad, but for their in$epen$ent consi$eration of (hether
these reco))en$ations )erit bein' for)ally propose$ throu'h initiatie!
#hese reco))en$ations, ho(eer, )ay a)ount to nothin' )ore than the Presi$entTs su''estions to the people, for any
further inole)ent in the process of initiatie by the Chief E5ecutie )ay itiate its character as a 'enuine SpeopleTs
initiatie!S #he only initiatie reco'ni+e$ by the Constitution is that (hich truly procee$s fro) the people! As the Court
state$ in Lambino )% C"MELEC7
177
S#he %a)bino 3roup clai)s that their initiatie is the JpeopleTs oice!T 1o(eer, the %a)bino 3roup unabashe$ly states in
>%AP Resolution No! 2BB;*B2, in the erification of their petition (ith the C?ME%EC, that J>%AP )aintains its un,ualifie$
support to the a'en$a of 1er E5cellency Presi$ent 3loria Macapa'al*Arroyo for constitutional refor)s!T #he %a)bino
3roup thus '7+&! that their JpeopleTsT initiatie is an J/%:/8+1+#' !/$$o"& &o &,# 2#%'P of the incu)bent Presi$ent to
chan'e the Constitution! #his fore(arns the Court to be (ary of incantations of JpeopleTs oiceT or Jsoerei'n (illT in the
present initiatie!S
&t (ill be obsere$ that the Presi$ent has authority, as state$ in her oath of office,
17<
only to presere an$ $efen$ the
Constitution! 2uch presi$ential po(er $oes not, ho(eer, e5ten$ to allo(in' her to chan'e the Constitution, but si)ply to
reco))en$ propose$ a)en$)ents or reision! As lon' as she li)its herself to reco))en$in' these chan'es an$
sub)its to the proper proce$ure for constitutional a)en$)ents an$ reision, her )ere reco))en$ation nee$ not be
construe$ as an unconstitutional act!
#he fore'oin' $iscussion focuse$ on the Presi$entTs authority to propose -o%!&+&/&+o%8 a)en$)ents, since her
authority to propose ne( 8#2+!8&+o% is not in controersy! &t has been an accepte$ practice for Presi$ents in this
4uris$iction to propose ne( le'islation! ?ne of the )ore pro)inent instances the practice is usually $one is in the yearly
2tate of the Nation A$$ress of the Presi$ent to Con'ress! Moreoer, the annual 'eneral appropriations bill has al(ays
been base$ on the bu$'et prepare$ by the Presi$ent, (hich * for all intents an$ purposes * is a proposal for ne(
le'islation co)in' fro) the Presi$ent!
179
T,# N!/!$#%!+0# -8/!#N +% &,# MOA-AD 0+#;#' +% 8+2,& o1 &,# (o0#-'+!-/!!#' !&%'"'!
3ien the li)ite$ nature of the Presi$entTs authority to propose constitutional a)en$)ents, she -%%o& 2/"%&## to any
thir$ party that the re,uire$ a)en$)ents (ill eentually be put in place, nor een be sub)itte$ to a plebiscite! #he )ost
she coul$ $o is sub)it these proposals as reco))en$ations either to Con'ress or the people, in (ho) constituent
po(ers are este$!
Para'raph 7 on 3oernance of the M?A*A. states, ho(eer, that all proisions thereof (hich cannot be reconcile$ (ith
the present Constitution an$ la(s Sshall co)e into force upon si'nin' of a Co)prehensie Co)pact an$ upon effectin'
the necessary chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0!S #his stipulation $oes not bear the )ar0s of a suspensie con$ition *
$efine$ in ciil la( as a future an$ uncertain eent * but of a ter)! &t is not a ,uestion of ;,#&,#" the necessary chan'es
to the le'al fra)e(or0 (ill be effecte$, but ;,#%! #hat there is no uncertainty bein' conte)plate$ is plain fro) (hat
follo(s, for the para'raph 'oes on to state that the conte)plate$ chan'es shall be S(ith $ue re'ar$ to non $ero'ation of
prior a'ree)ents an$ (ithin the stipulate$ ti)efra)e to be containe$ in the Co)prehensie Co)pact!S
Pursuant to this stipulation, therefore, it is 7%'&o") for the 3RP to effect the chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0
conte)plate$ in the M?A*A. * (hich chan'es (oul$ inclu$e constitutional a)en$)ents, as $iscusse$ earlier! &t bears
notin' that,
B) &,# &+7# &,#!# -,%2#! "# $/& +% $8-#, &,# MOA-AD +&!#81 ;o/8' (# -o/%&#' 7o%2 &,# N$"+o" 2"##7#%&!N
1"o7 ;,+-, &,#"# -o/8' (# %o '#"o2&+o%.
41
/hat re)ains for $iscussion in the Co)prehensie Co)pact (oul$ )erely be the i)ple)entin' $etails for these
Sconsensus pointsS an$, notably, the $ea$line for effectin' the conte)plate$ chan'es to the le'al fra)e(or0!
Plainly, stipulation*para'raph 7 on 3?=ERNANCE is +%-o%!+!&#%& ;+&, &,# 8+7+&! o1 &,# P"#!+'#%&P! /&,o"+&) &o
$"o$o!# -o%!&+&/&+o%8 7#%'7#%&!, it bein' a irtual 'uarantee that the Constitution an$ the la(s of the Republic of
the Philippines (ill certainly be a$4uste$ to confor) to all the Sconsensus pointsS foun$ in the M?A*A.! 1ence, it )ust be
struc0 $o(n as /%-o%!&+&/&+o%8!
A co)parison bet(een the Ssuspensie clauseS of the M?A*A. (ith a si)ilar proision appearin' in the 199; final peace
a'ree)ent bet(een the MN%F an$ the 3RP is )ost instructie!
As a bac0$rop, the parties to the 199; A'ree)ent stipulate$ that it (oul$ be i)ple)ente$ in t(o phases! P,!# I
coere$ a three*year transitional perio$ inolin' the puttin' up of ne( a$)inistratie structures throu'h E5ecutie ?r$er,
such as the 2pecial Mone of Peace an$ .eelop)ent @2M?PA.A an$ the 2outhern Philippines Council for Peace an$
.eelop)ent @2PCP.A, (hile P,!# II coere$ the establish)ent of the ne( re'ional autono)ous 'oern)ent throu'h
a)en$)ent or repeal of R!A! No! ;7D6, (hich (as then the ?r'anic Act of the ARMM!
#he stipulations on Phase && consiste$ of specific a'ree)ents on the structure of the e5pan$e$ autono)ous re'ion
enisione$ by the parties! #o that e5tent, they are si)ilar to the proisions of the M?A*A.! #here is, ho(eer, a crucial
$ifference bet(een the t(o a'ree)ents! /hile the M?A*A. 0+"&/88) 2/"%&##! &,& &,# N%#-#!!") -,%2#! &o &,#
8#28 1"7#;o"AN ;+88 (# $/& +% $8-#, the 3RP*MN%F final peace a'ree)ent states thus7 SAccor$in'ly, these
proisions 9on Phase &&: shall be "#-o77#%'#' by the 3RP to Con'ress for incorporation in the a)en$atory or repealin'
la(!S
Concerns hae been raise$ that the M?A*A. (oul$ hae 'ien rise to a bin$in' international la( obli'ation on the part
of the Philippines to chan'e its Constitution in confor)ity thereto, on the 'roun$ that it )ay be consi$ere$ either as a
bin$in' a'ree)ent un$er international la(, or a unilateral $eclaration of the Philippine 'oern)ent to the international
co))unity that it (oul$ 'rant to the Ban'sa)oro people all the concessions therein state$! Neither 'roun$ fin$s
sufficient support in international la(, ho(eer!
#he M?A*A., as earlier )entione$ in the oerie( thereof, (oul$ hae inclu$e$ forei'n $i'nitaries as si'natories! &n
a$$ition, representaties of other nations (ere inite$ to (itness its si'nin' in Luala %u)pur! #hese circu)stances
rea$ily lea$ one to sur)ise that the M?A*A. (oul$ hae ha$ the status of a bin$in' international a'ree)ent ha$ it been
si'ne$! An e5a)ination of the preailin' principles in international la(, ho(eer, lea$s to the contrary conclusion!
#he .ecision on Challen'e to -uris$iction7 %o)X Accor$ A)nesty
1<B
@the %o)X Accor$ caseA of the 2pecial Court of
2ierra %eone is enli'htenin'! #he %o)X Accor$ (as a peace a'ree)ent si'ne$ on -uly 7, 1999 bet(een the 3oern)ent
of 2ierra %eone an$ the Reolutionary >nite$ Front @R>FA, a rebel 'roup (ith (hich the 2ierra %eone 3oern)ent ha$
been in ar)e$ conflict for aroun$ ei'ht years at the ti)e of si'nin'! #here (ere non*contractin' si'natories to the
a'ree)ent, a)on' (hich (ere the 3oern)ent of the #o'olese Republic, the Econo)ic Co))unity of /est African
2tates, an$ the >N!
?n -anuary 1;, 2BB2, after a successful ne'otiation bet(een the >N 2ecretary*3eneral an$ the 2ierra %eone
3oern)ent, another a'ree)ent (as entere$ into by the >N an$ that 3oern)ent (hereby the 2pecial Court of 2ierra
%eone (as establishe$! #he sole purpose of the 2pecial Court, an international court, (as to try persons (ho bore the
'reatest responsibility for serious iolations of international hu)anitarian la( an$ 2ierra %eonean la( co))itte$ in the
territory of 2ierra %eone since Noe)ber DB, 199;!
A)on' the stipulations of the %o)X Accor$ (as a proision for the full par$on of the )e)bers of the R>F (ith respect to
anythin' $one by the) in pursuit of their ob4ecties as )e)bers of that or'ani+ation since the conflict be'an!
&n the %o)X Accor$ case, the .efence ar'ue$ that the Accor$ create$ an +%&#"%&+o%88) (+%'+%2 obli'ation not to
prosecute the beneficiaries of the a)nesty proi$e$ therein, citin', a)on' other thin's, the participation of forei'n
$i'nitaries an$ international or'ani+ations in the finali+ation of that a'ree)ent! #he 2pecial Court, ho(eer, re4ecte$ this
ar'u)ent, rulin' that the %o)e Accor$ is not a treaty an$ that it can only create bin$in' obli'ations an$ ri'hts bet(een
the parties in )unicipal la(, not in international la(! 1ence, the 2pecial Court hel$, it is ineffectie in $epriin' an
international court li0e it of 4uris$iction!
SD7! &n re'ar$ to the nature of a ne'otiate$ settle)ent of an internal ar)e$ conflict +& +! #!) &o !!/7# %' &o "2/#
;+&, !o7# '#2"## o1 $8/!+(+8+&), ! D#1#%-# -o/%!#8 1o" &,# '#1#%'%&! !##7 &o ,0# 'o%#, &,& &,# 7#"# 1-&
&,& +% ''+&+o% &o &,# $"&+#! &o &,# -o%18+-&, &,# 'o-/7#%& 1o"78+L+%2 &,# !#&&8#7#%& +! !+2%#' () 1o"#+2% ,#'!
o1 !&&# o" &,#+" "#$"#!#%&&+0#! %' "#$"#!#%&&+0#! o1 +%&#"%&+o%8 o"2%+L&+o%!, 7#%! &,# 2"##7#%& o1 &,#
$"&+#! +! +%&#"%&+o%8+L#' !o ! &o -"#&# o(8+2&+o%! +% +%&#"%&+o%8 8;.
5 5 5 5
6B! Al)ost eery conflict resolution (ill inole the parties to the conflict an$ the )e$iator or facilitator of the settle)ent,
or persons or bo$ies un$er (hose auspices the settle)ent too0 place but (ho are not at all parties to the conflict, are not
contractin' parties an$ (ho $o not clai) any obli'ation fro) the contractin' parties or incur any obli'ation fro) the
settle)ent!
61! I% &,+! -!#, &,# $"&+#! &o &,# -o%18+-& "# &,# 8;1/8 /&,o"+&) o1 &,# S&&# %' &,# RUF ;,+-, ,! %o !&&/!
o1 !&&#,oo' %' +! &o 88 +%&#%&! %' $/"$o!#! 1-&+o% ;+&,+% &,# !&&#. T,# %o%--o%&"-&+%2 !+2%&o"+#! o1 &,#
Lo7Q A2"##7#%& ;#"# 7o"8 2/"%&o"! o1 &,# $"+%-+$8# &,&, +% &,# &#"7! o1 A"&+-8# HHHIV o1 &,# A2"##7#%&,
42
N&,+! $#-# 2"##7#%& +! +7$8#7#%&#' ;+&, +%&#2"+&) %' +% 2oo' 1+&, () (o&, $"&+#!N. T,# 7o"8 2/"%&o"!
!!/7#' %o 8#28 o(8+2&+o%. &t is recalle$ that the >N by its representatie appen$e$, presu)ably for aoi$ance of
$oubt, an un$erstan$in' of the e5tent of the a'ree)ent to be i)ple)ente$ as not inclu$in' certain international cri)es!
62! An international a'ree)ent in the nature of a treaty )ust create ri'hts an$ obli'ations re'ulate$ by international la(
so that a breach of its ter)s (ill be a breach $eter)ine$ un$er international la( (hich (ill also proi$e principle )eans
of enforce)ent! T,# Lo7Q A2"##7#%& -"#&#' %#+&,#" "+2,&! %o" o(8+2&+o%! -$(8# o1 (#+%2 "#2/8&#' ()
+%&#"%&+o%8 8;. A% 2"##7#%& !/-, ! &,# Lo7Q A2"##7#%& ;,+-, ("+%2! &o % #%' % +%&#"%8 "7#' -o%18+-&
%o 'o/(& -"#&#! 1-&/8 !+&/&+o% o1 "#!&o"&+o% o1 $#-# &,& &,# +%&#"%&+o%8 -o77/%+&) -&+%2 &,"o/2, &,#
S#-/"+&) Co/%-+8 7) &A# %o&# o1. T,&, ,o;#0#", ;+88 %o& -o%0#"& +& &o % +%&#"%&+o%8 2"##7#%& ;,+-, -"#&#!
% o(8+2&+o% #%1o"-#(8# +% +%&#"%&+o%8, ! '+!&+%2/+!,#' 1"o7 7/%+-+$8, 8;. A breach of the ter)s of such a
peace a'ree)ent resultin' in resu)ption of internal ar)e$ conflict or creatin' a threat to peace in the $eter)ination of
the 2ecurity Council )ay in$icate a reersal of the factual situation of peace to be isite$ (ith possible le'al
conse,uences arisin' fro) the ne( situation of conflict create$! 2uch conse,uences such as action by the 2ecurity
Council pursuant to Chapter =&& arise fro) the situation an$ not fro) the a'ree)ent, nor fro) the obli'ation i)pose$ by
it! 2uch action cannot be re'ar$e$ as a re)e$y for the breach! A $#-# 2"##7#%& ;,+-, !#&&8#! % +%&#"%8 "7#'
-o%18+-& -%%o& (# !-"+(#' &,# !7# !&&/! ! o%# ;,+-, !#&&8#! % +%&#"%&+o%8 "7#' -o%18+-& ;,+-,,
#!!#%&+88), 7/!& (# (#&;##% &;o o" 7o"# ;""+%2 S&&#!. T,# Lo7Q A2"##7#%& -%%o& (# -,"-&#"+!#' ! %
+%&#"%&+o%8 +%!&"/7#%&. 5 5 5S @E)phasis, italics an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
2i)ilarly, that the M?A*A. (oul$ hae been si'ne$ by representaties of 2tates an$ international or'ani+ations not
parties to the A'ree)ent (oul$ not hae suffice$ to est in it a bin$in' character un$er international la(!
&n another ein, concern has been raise$ that the M?A*A. (oul$ a)ount to a unilateral $eclaration of the Philippine
2tate, bin$in' un$er international la(, that it (oul$ co)ply (ith all the stipulations state$ therein, (ith the result that it
(oul$ hae to a)en$ its Constitution accor$in'ly re'ar$less of the true (ill of the people! Cite$ as authority for this ie(
is !ustralia )% France,
1<1
also 0no(n as the Nuclear #ests Case, $eci$e$ by the &nternational Court of -ustice @&C-A!
&n the Nuclear #ests Case, Australia challen'e$ before the &C- the le'ality of FranceTs nuclear tests in the 2outh Pacific!
France refuse$ to appear in the case, but public state)ents fro) its Presi$ent, an$ si)ilar state)ents fro) other French
officials inclu$in' its Minister of .efence, that its 1976 series of at)ospheric tests (oul$ be its last, persua$e$ the &C- to
$is)iss the case!
1<2
#hose state)ents, the &C- hel$, a)ounte$ to a le'al un$erta0in' a$$resse$ to the international
co))unity, (hich re,uire$ no acceptance fro) other 2tates for it to beco)e effectie!
Essential to the &C- rulin' is its fin$in' that the French 'oern)ent inten$e$ to be boun$ to the international co))unity
in issuin' its public state)ents, i+7
6D! &t is (ell reco'ni+e$ that $eclarations )a$e by (ay of unilateral acts, concernin' le'al or factual situations, )ay hae
the effect of creatin' le'al obli'ations! .eclarations of this 0in$ )ay be, an$ often are, ery specific! W,#% +& +! &,#
+%&#%&+o% o1 &,# S&&# 7A+%2 &,# '#-8"&+o% &,& +& !,o/8' (#-o7# (o/%' --o"'+%2 &o +&! &#"7!, &,& +%&#%&+o%
-o%1#"! o% &,# '#-8"&+o% &,# -,"-&#" o1 8#28 /%'#"&A+%2, &,# S&&# (#+%2 &,#%-#1o"&, 8#288) "#:/+"#' &o
1o88o; -o/"!# o1 -o%'/-& -o%!+!&#%& ;+&, &,# '#-8"&+o%. An un$erta0in' of this 0in$, if 'ien publicly, an$ (ith an
intent to be boun$, een thou'h not )a$e (ithin the conte5t of international ne'otiations, is bin$in'! &n these
circu)stances, nothin' in the nature of a ,ui$ pro ,uo nor any subse,uent acceptance of the $eclaration, nor een any
reply or reaction fro) other 2tates, is re,uire$ for the $eclaration to ta0e effect, since such a re,uire)ent (oul$ be
inconsistent (ith the strictly unilateral nature of the 4uri$ical act by (hich the pronounce)ent by the 2tate (as )a$e!
66! ?f course, %o& 88 /%+8&#"8 -&! +7$8) o(8+2&+o%G (/& S&&# 7) -,oo!# &o &A# /$ -#"&+% $o!+&+o% +%
"#8&+o% &o $"&+-/8" 7&&#" ;+&, &,# +%&#%&+o% o1 (#+%2 (o/%'-&,# +%&#%&+o% +! &o (# !-#"&+%#' ()
+%&#"$"#&&+o% o1 &,# -&. /hen 2tates )a0e state)ents by (hich their free$o) of action is to be li)ite$, a restrictie
interpretation is calle$ for!
5 5 5 5
C1! I% %%o/%-+%2 &,& &,# 19>4 !#"+#! o1 &7o!$,#"+- &#!&! ;o/8' (# &,# 8!&, &,# F"#%-, Go0#"%7#%& -o%0#)#'
&o &,# ;o"8' & 8"2#, +%-8/'+%2 &,# A$$8+-%&, +&! +%&#%&+o% #11#-&+0#8) &o &#"7+%&# &,#!# &#!&!. I& ;! (o/%' &o
!!/7# &,& o&,#" S&&#! 7+2,& &A# %o&# o1 &,#!# !&&#7#%&! %' "#8) o% &,#+" (#+%2 #11#-&+0#. T,# 08+'+&) o1
&,#!# !&&#7#%&! %' &,#+" 8#28 -o%!#:/#%-#! 7/!& (# -o%!+'#"#' ;+&,+% &,# 2#%#"8 1"7#;o"A o1 &,# !#-/"+&)
o1 +%&#"%&+o%8 +%&#"-o/"!#, an$ the confi$ence an$ trust (hich are so essential in the relations a)on' 2tates! I& +!
1"o7 &,# -&/8 !/(!&%-# o1 &,#!# !&&#7#%&!, %' 1"o7 &,# -+"-/7!&%-#! &&#%'+%2 &,#+" 7A+%2, &,& &,# 8#28
+7$8+-&+o%! o1 &,# /%+8&#"8 -& 7/!& (# '#'/-#'. T,# o(<#-&! o1 &,#!# !&&#7#%&! "# -8#" %' &,#) ;#"#
''"#!!#' &o &,# +%&#"%&+o%8 -o77/%+&) ! ;,o8#, %' &,# Co/"& ,o8'! &,& &,#) -o%!&+&/&# % /%'#"&A+%2
$o!!#!!+%2 8#28 #11#-&. #he Court consi$ers Y27B that the Presi$ent of the Republic, in $eci$in' upon the effectie
cessation of at)ospheric tests, 'ae an un$erta0in' to the international co))unity to (hich his (or$s (ere a$$resse$! 5
5 5 @E)phasis an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
As 'athere$ fro) the aboe*,uote$ rulin' of the &C-, public state)ents of a state representatie )ay be construe$ as a
unilateral $eclaration only (hen the follo(in' con$itions are present7 the state)ents (ere clearly a$$resse$ to the
international co))unity, the state inten$e$ to be boun$ to that co))unity by its state)ents, an$ that not to 'ie le'al
effect to those state)ents (oul$ be $etri)ental to the security of international intercourse! Plainly, unilateral $eclarations
arise only in peculiar circu)stances!
#he li)ite$ applicability of the Nuclear #ests Case rulin' (as reco'ni+e$ in a later case $eci$e$ by the &C- entitle$
.urkina Faso )% Mali,
1<D
also 0no(n as the Case Concernin' the Frontier .ispute! #he public $eclaration sub4ect of that
case (as a state)ent )a$e by the Presi$ent of Mali, in an interie( by a forei'n press a'ency, that Mali (oul$ abi$e by
43
the $ecision to be issue$ by a co))ission of the ?r'ani+ation of African >nity on a frontier $ispute then pen$in'
bet(een Mali an$ Bur0ina Faso!
>nli0e in the Nuclear #ests Case, the &C- hel$ that the state)ent of MaliTs Presi$ent (as not a unilateral act (ith le'al
i)plications! &t clarifie$ that its rulin' in the Nuclear #ests case reste$ on the peculiar circu)stances surroun$in' the
French $eclaration sub4ect thereof, to (it7
6B! &n or$er to assess the intentions of the author of a unilateral act, account )ust be ta0en of all the factual
circu)stances in (hich the act occurre$! For e5a)ple, +% &,# N/-8#" T#!&! -!#!, &,# Co/"& &ooA &,# 0+#; &,& !+%-#
&,# $$8+-%& S&&#! ;#"# %o& &,# o%8) o%#! -o%-#"%#' & &,# $o!!+(8# -o%&+%/%-# o1 &7o!$,#"+- &#!&+%2 () &,#
F"#%-, Go0#"%7#%&, &,& Go0#"%7#%&P! /%+8&#"8 '#-8"&+o%! ,' R-o%0#)#' &o &,# ;o"8' & 8"2#, +%-8/'+%2 &,#
A$$8+-%&, +&! +%&#%&+o% #11#-&+0#8) &o &#"7+%&# &,#!# &#!&!R @&!C!-! Reports 1976, p! 2;9, para! C1" p! 676, para! CDA!
I% &,# $"&+-/8" -+"-/7!&%-#! o1 &,o!# -!#!, &,# F"#%-, Go0#"%7#%& -o/8' %o& #.$"#!! % +%&#%&+o% &o (#
(o/%' o&,#";+!# &,% () /%+8&#"8 '#-8"&+o%!. I& +! '+11+-/8& &o !## ,o; +& -o/8' ,0# --#$&#' &,# &#"7! o1
%#2o&+&#' !o8/&+o% ;+&, #-, o1 &,# $$8+-%&! ;+&,o/& &,#"#() <#o$"'+L+%2 +&! -o%&#%&+o% &,& +&! -o%'/-& ;!
8;1/8. T,# -+"-/7!&%-#! o1 &,# $"#!#%& -!# "# "'+-88) '+11#"#%&. H#"#, &,#"# ;! %o&,+%2 &o ,+%'#" &,#
P"&+#! 1"o7 7%+1#!&+%2 % +%&#%&+o% &o --#$& &,# (+%'+%2 -,"-&#" o1 &,# -o%-8/!+o%! o1 &,# O"2%+L&+o% o1
A1"+-% U%+&) M#'+&+o% Co77+!!+o% () &,# %o"78 7#&,o'6 1o"78 2"##7#%& o% &,# (!+! o1 "#-+$"o-+&).
2ince no a'ree)ent of this 0in$ (as conclu$e$ bet(een the Parties, the Cha)ber fin$s that there are no 'roun$s to
interpret the $eclaration )a$e by MaliTs hea$ of 2tate on 11 April 197C as a unilateral act (ith le'al i)plications in re'ar$
to the present case! @E)phasis an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
Assessin' the M?A*A. in li'ht of the aboe criteria, it (oul$ not hae a)ounte$ to a unilateral $eclaration on the part of
the Philippine 2tate to the international co))unity! #he Philippine panel $i$ not $raft the sa)e (ith the clear intention of
bein' boun$ thereby to the international co))unity as a (hole or to any 2tate, but only to the M&%F! /hile there (ere
2tates an$ international or'ani+ations inole$, one (ay or another, in the ne'otiation an$ pro4ecte$ si'nin' of the M?A*
A., they participate$ )erely as (itnesses or, in the case of Malaysia, as facilitator! As hel$ in the %o)X Accor$ case, the
)ere fact that in a$$ition to the parties to the conflict, the peace settle)ent is si'ne$ by representaties of states an$
international or'ani+ations $oes not )ean that the a'ree)ent is internationali+e$ so as to create obli'ations in
international la(!
2ince the co))it)ents in the M?A*A. (ere not a$$resse$ to 2tates, not to 'ie le'al effect to such co))it)ents (oul$
not be $etri)ental to the security of international intercourse * to the trust an$ confi$ence essential in the relations a)on'
2tates!
&n one i)portant respect, the circu)stances surroun$in' the M?A*A. are closer to that of .urkina Faso (herein, as
alrea$y $iscusse$, the Mali Presi$entTs state)ent (as not hel$ to be a bin$in' unilateral $eclaration by the &C-! As in that
case, there (as also nothin' to hin$er the Philippine panel, ha$ it really been its intention to be boun$ to other 2tates, to
)anifest that intention by for)al a'ree)ent! 1ere, that for)al a'ree)ent (oul$ hae co)e about by the inclusion in the
M?A*A. of a clear co))it)ent to be le'ally boun$ to the international co))unity, not 4ust the M&%F, an$ by an e,ually
clear in$ication that the si'natures of the participatin' states*representaties (oul$ constitute an acceptance of that
co))it)ent! Enterin' into such a for)al a'ree)ent (oul$ not hae resulte$ in a loss of face for the Philippine
'oern)ent before the international co))unity, (hich (as one of the $ifficulties that preente$ the French 3oern)ent
fro) enterin' into a for)al a'ree)ent (ith other countries! #hat the Philippine panel $i$ not enter into such a for)al
a'ree)ent su''ests that it ha$ no intention to be boun$ to the international co))unity! ?n that 'roun$, the M?A*A.
)ay %o& (# consi$ere$ a unilateral $eclaration un$er international la(!
#he M?A*A. not bein' a $ocu)ent that can bin$ the Philippines un$er international la( not(ithstan$in', respon$entsT
al)ost consu))ate$ act of 2/"%&##+%2 7#%'7#%&! &o &,# 8#28 1"7#;o"A +!, () +&!#81, !/11+-+#%& &o -o%!&+&/&#
2"0# (/!# o1 '+!-"#&+o%! #he 'rae abuse lies not in the fact that they consi$ere$, as a solution to the Moro Proble),
the creation of a state (ithin a state, but in their bra+en ;+88+%2%#!! &o 2/"%&## &,& Co%2"#!! %' &,# !o0#"#+2%
F+8+$+%o $#o$8# ;o/8' 2+0# &,#+" +7$"+7&/" &o &,#+" !o8/&+o%! >phol$in' such an act (oul$ a)ount to authori+in' a
usurpation of the constituent po(ers este$ only in Con'ress, a Constitutional Conention, or the people the)seles
throu'h the process of initiatie, for the only (ay that the E5ecutie can ensure the outco)e of the a)en$)ent process
is throu'h an un$ue influence or interference (ith that process!
#he soerei'n people )ay, if it so $esire$, 'o to the e5tent of 'iin' up a portion of its o(n territory to the Moros for the
sa0e of peace, for it can chan'e the Constitution in any it (ants, so lon' as the chan'e is not inconsistent (ith (hat, in
international la(, is 0no(n as #us Co*ens!
1<6
Respon$ents, ho(eer, )ay not pree)pt it in that $ecision!
SUMMARY
#he petitions are ripe for a$4u$ication! #he failure of respon$ents to consult the local 'oern)ent units or co))unities
affecte$ constitutes a $eparture by respon$ents fro) their )an$ate un$er E!?! No! D! Moreoer, respon$ents e5cee$e$
their authority by the )ere act of 'uaranteein' a)en$)ents to the Constitution! Any alle'e$ iolation of the Constitution
by any branch of 'oern)ent is a proper )atter for 4u$icial reie(!
As the petitions inole constitutional issues (hich are of para)ount public interest or of transcen$ental i)portance, the
Court 'rants the petitioners, petitioners*in*interention an$ interenin' respon$ents the re,uisite locus standi in 0eepin'
(ith the liberal stance a$opte$ in Da)id )% Macapa*al/!rroyo!
Contrary to the assertion of respon$ents that the non*si'nin' of the M?A*A. an$ the eentual $issolution of the 3RP
Peace Panel )oote$ the present petitions, the Court fin$s that the present petitions proi$e an e5ception to the S)oot
an$ aca$e)icS principle in ie( of @aA the 'rae iolation of the Constitution inole$" @bA the e5ceptional character of the
situation an$ para)ount public interest" @cA the nee$ to for)ulate controllin' principles to 'ui$e the bench, the bar, an$
44
the public" an$ @$A the fact that the case is capable of repetition yet ea$in' reie(!
#he M?A*A. is a si'nificant part of a series of a'ree)ents necessary to carry out the 3RP*M&%F #ripoli A'ree)ent on
Peace si'ne$ by the 'oern)ent an$ the M&%F bac0 in -une 2BB1! 1ence, the present M?A*A. can be rene'otiate$ or
another one $ra(n up that coul$ contain si)ilar or si'nificantly $issi)ilar proisions co)pare$ to the ori'inal!
#he Court, ho(eer, fin$s that the prayers for )an$a)us hae been ren$ere$ )oot in ie( of the respon$entsT action in
proi$in' the Court an$ the petitioners (ith the official copy of the final $raft of the M?A*A. an$ its anne5es!
#he peopleTs ri'ht to infor)ation on )atters of public concern un$er 2ec! 7, Article &&& of the Constitution is in splendid
symmetry (ith the state policy of full public $isclosure of all its transactions inolin' public interest un$er 2ec! 2<, Article
&& of the Constitution! #he ri'ht to infor)ation 'uarantees the ri'ht of the people to $e)an$ infor)ation, (hile 2ection 2<
reco'ni+es the $uty of official$o) to 'ie infor)ation een if nobo$y $e)an$s! #he co)plete an$ effectie e5ercise of
the ri'ht to infor)ation necessitates that its co)ple)entary proision on public $isclosure $erie the sa)e self*e5ecutory
nature, sub4ect only to reasonable safe'uar$s or li)itations as )ay be proi$e$ by la(!
#he contents of the M?A*A. is a )atter of para)ount public concern inolin' public interest in the hi'hest or$er! &n
$eclarin' that the ri'ht to infor)ation conte)plates steps an$ ne'otiations lea$in' to the consu))ation of the contract,
4urispru$ence fin$s no $istinction as to the e5ecutory nature or co))ercial character of the a'ree)ent!
An essential ele)ent of these t(in free$o)s is to 0eep a continuin' $ialo'ue or process of co))unication bet(een the
'oern)ent an$ the people! Corollary to these t(in ri'hts is the $esi'n for fee$bac0 )echanis)s! #he ri'ht to public
consultation (as enisione$ to be a species of these public ri'hts!
At least three pertinent la(s ani)ate these constitutional i)peraties an$ 4ustify the e5ercise of the peopleTs ri'ht to be
consulte$ on releant )atters relatin' to the peace a'en$a!
"ne, E!?! No! D itself is replete (ith )echanics for continuin' consultations on both national an$ local leels an$ for a
principal foru) for consensus*buil$in'! &n fact, it is the $uty of the Presi$ential A$iser on the Peace Process to con$uct
re'ular $ialo'ues to see0 releant infor)ation, co))ents, a$ice, an$ reco))en$ations fro) peace partners an$
concerne$ sectors of society!
T&o, Republic Act No! 71;B or the %ocal 3oern)ent Co$e of 1991 re,uires all national offices to con$uct consultations
before any pro4ect or pro'ra) critical to the eniron)ent an$ hu)an ecolo'y inclu$in' those that )ay call for the eiction
of a particular 'roup of people resi$in' in such locality, is i)ple)ente$ therein! #he M?A*A. is one peculiar pro'ra) that
une,uiocally an$ unilaterally ests o(nership of a ast territory to the Ban'sa)oro people, (hich coul$ perasiely an$
$rastically result to the $iaspora or $isplace)ent of a 'reat nu)ber of inhabitants fro) their total eniron)ent!
Three, Republic Act No! <D71 or the &n$i'enous Peoples Ri'hts Act of 1997 proi$es for clear*cut proce$ure for the
reco'nition an$ $elineation of ancestral $o)ain, (hich entails, a)on' other thin's, the obserance of the free an$ prior
infor)e$ consent of the &n$i'enous Cultural Co))unitiesH&n$i'enous Peoples! Notably, the statute does not *rant the
E'ecuti)e Department or any *o)ernment a*ency the po&er to delineate and reco*ni;e an ancestral domain claim by
mere a*reement or compromise!
#he inocation of the $octrine of e5ecutie priile'e as a $efense to the 'eneral ri'ht to infor)ation or the specific ri'ht to
consultation is untenable! #he arious e5plicit le'al proisions fly in the face of e5ecutie secrecy! &n any eent,
respon$ents effectiely (aie$ such $efense after it uncon$itionally $isclose$ the official copies of the final $raft of the
M?A*A., for 4u$icial co)pliance an$ public scrutiny!
&n su), the Presi$ential A$iser on the Peace Process co))itte$ 'rae abuse of $iscretion (hen he faile$ to carry out
the pertinent consultation process, as )an$ate$ by E!?! No! D, Republic Act No! 71;B, an$ Republic Act No! <D71! #he
furtie process by (hich the M?A*A. (as $esi'ne$ an$ crafte$ runs contrary to an$ in e5cess of the le'al authority, an$
a)ounts to a (hi)sical, capricious, oppressie, arbitrary an$ $espotic e5ercise thereof! &t illustrates a 'ross easion of
positie $uty an$ a irtual refusal to perfor) the $uty en4oine$!
#he M?A*A. cannot be reconcile$ (ith the present Constitution an$ la(s! Not only its specific proisions but the ery
concept un$erlyin' the), na)ely, the associatie relationship enisione$ bet(een the 3RP an$ the B-E, are
/%-o%!&+&/&+o%8, for the concept presupposes that the associate$ entity is a state an$ i)plies that the sa)e is on its
(ay to in$epen$ence!
/hile there is a clause in the M?A*A. statin' that the proisions thereof inconsistent (ith the present le'al fra)e(or0
(ill not be effectie until that fra)e(or0 is a)en$e$, the sa)e $oes not cure its $efect! #he inclusion of proisions in the
M?A*A. establishin' an associatie relationship bet(een the B-E an$ the Central 3oern)ent is, itself, a iolation of
the Me)oran$u) of &nstructions Fro) #he Presi$ent $ate$ March 1, 2BB1, a$$resse$ to the 'oern)ent peace panel!
Moreoer, as the clause is (or$e$, it irtually 'uarantees that the necessary a)en$)ents to the Constitution an$ the
la(s (ill eentually be put in place! Neither the 3RP Peace Panel nor the Presi$ent herself is authori+e$ to )a0e such a
'uarantee! >phol$in' such an act (oul$ a)ount to authori+in' a usurpation of the constituent po(ers este$ only in
Con'ress, a Constitutional Conention, or the people the)seles throu'h the process of initiatie, for the only (ay that
the E5ecutie can ensure the outco)e of the a)en$)ent process is throu'h an un$ue influence or interference (ith that
process!
/hile the M?A*A. (oul$ not a)ount to an international a'ree)ent or unilateral $eclaration bin$in' on the Philippines
un$er international la(, respon$entsT act of 'uaranteein' a)en$)ents is, by itself, alrea$y a constitutional iolation that
ren$ers the M?A*A. fatally $efectie!
45
WHEREFORE, respon$entsT )otion to $is)iss is DENIED! #he )ain an$ interenin' petitions are 3&=EN .>E
C?>R2E an$ hereby 3RAN#E.!
#he Me)oran$u) of A'ree)ent on the Ancestral .o)ain Aspect of the 3RP*M&%F #ripoli A'ree)ent on Peace of 2BB1
is $eclare$ contrary to la( an$ the Constitution!
SO ORDERED!
Republic of the Philippines
2upre)e Court
Manila

46
THIRD DIVISION


SALVADOR ATI*ADO %' SALVADOR MONREAL,
Petitioners,



*)ersus *



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respon$ent!
G.R. No. 1>B522

Present7

CARP&? M?RA%E2, Chairperson,
BR&?N,
BER2AM&N,
=&%%ARAMA, -R!, an$
2EREN?, ##%

Pro)ul'ate$7

?ctober 1D, 2B1B
5*****************************************************************************************5

D E C I S I O N


BERSAMIN, J.6


?n May 6, 2BBB, the Re'ional #rial Court @R#CA, Branch C2, 2orso'on, conicte$ the petitioners of )ur$er!91:
?n .ece)ber 1D, 2BBC, the Court of Appeals @CAA affir)e$ their coniction in C!A!*3!R! CR*1C No! B16CB, but )o$ifie$
the a(ar$e$ $a)a'es!92:

#he petitioners contest the CAGs affir)ance of their coniction in this appeal )ia petition for reie( on
certiorari!

/e affir) their coniction, but (e re$uce the penalty i)pose$ on 2ala$or Monreal because the R#C an$
the CA $i$ not $uly appreciate his )inority at the ti)e of the co))ission of the cri)e! /e or$er his i))e$iate release
fro) prison because he alrea$y sere$ his sentence, as hereby )o$ifie$! Also, (e a$$ to the $a)a'es to (hich the
heirs of the icti) (ere entitle$ in or$er to accor$ (ith the preailin' la( an$ 4urispru$ence!

A%&#-#'#%&!

?n -une 2B, 1996, the ?ffice of the 2orso'on Proincial Prosecutor for)ally char'e$ the petitioners an$ a
certain .anilo Ati+a$o @.aniloA (ith )ur$er throu'h the follo(in' infor)ation, to (it7

#hat on or about the 1<
th
$ay of April 1996, at Baran'ay Bo'Ua, Municipality of Castilla,
Proince of 2orso'on, Philippines, an$ (ithin the 4uris$iction of this 1onorable Court, the aboe*
na)e$ accuse$, conspirin', confe$eratin' an$ )utually helpin' one another, $i$ then an$ there,
(illfully, unla(fully an$ feloniously, (ith treachery an$ ei$ent pre)e$itation, an$ (ithout any
4ustifiable cause or )otie, (ith intent to 0ill, ar)e$ (ith han$'uns, attac0, assault an$ shot one
Ro'elio %lona y %lae, a 2an''unian' Bayan )e)ber of Castilla, 2orso'on, thereby inflictin'
upon hi) )ortal an$ serious (oun$s (hich $irectly cause$ his instantaneous $eath, to the
$a)a'e an$ pre4u$ice of his le'al heirs!

C?N#RARN #? %A/! 9D:

After the petitioners an$ .anilo plea$e$ not *uilty to the infor)ation on Noe)ber 7, 1996,96: the trial
ensue$!

#he (itnesses for the 2tate (ere 2i)eona Miran$illa @Miran$illaA, Ma4or 2aa$ra 3ani @Ma4or 3aniA, .r!
/ilhel)o Abrantes @.r! AbrantesA, %a(rence %lona @%a(renceA, an$ 1er)inia %lona @1er)iniaA!

Miran$illa narrate$ that on April 1<, 1996 she an$ the late Ro'elio %lona @%lonaA, her co))on*la( husban$,
ha$ atten$e$ the fiesta of .aran*ay Bon'a in Castilla, 2orso'on" that at about < pm of that $ate, they ha$ 'one to the
house of Manuel .es$er @.es$erA in the sa)e baran*ay" that as they an$ -ose -esala @-esalaA, a baran*ay ka*a&ad
of the place, (ere seate$ in the sala of .es$erGs house, she hear$ 8thun$erin' stepsF as if people (ere runnin' an$ then
t(o successie 'unshots" that she then sa( Ati+a$o pointin' a 'un at the prostrate bo$y of %lona" that seein' Ati+a$o
about to shoot %lona a'ain, she shoute$7 6top, that+s enou*hZ" that (hile ai$in' %lona, she hear$ three clic0in' soun$s,
an$, turnin' to(ar$s the $irection of the clic0in' soun$s, sa( Monreal point his 'un at her (hile he (as )oin'
bac0(ar$s an$ si)ultaneously a$4ustin' the cylin$er of his 'un" that the petitioners then fle$ the scene of the shootin'"
that she rushe$ to the house of baran*ay captain -uanito %a'onsin' @%a'onsin'A to report the shootin'" an$ that she an$
%a'onsin' brou'ht %lona to a hospital (here %lona (as pronounce$ $ea$!9C:

Ma4or 3ani testifie$ that the petitioners an$ .anilo (ere arreste$ on May 1<, 1996,9;: base$ on the (arrant
of arrest issue$ by -u$'e #eo$isio R! .ino, -r! of the Municipal #rial Court in Castilla, 2orso'on!

.r! Abrantes confir)e$ that %lona $ie$ $ue to t(o 'unshot (oun$s in the bac0 that penetrate$ his spinal
colu)n, lier, an$ ab$o)en!97:

%a(rence an$ 1er)inia state$ that the %lona fa)ily spent PDB,BBB!BB for the funeral e5penses of %lona!9<:

.enyin' the accusation, the petitioners interpose$ alibi% #he (itnesses for the .efense (ere Monreal, Ro'er
47
=illafe @=illafeA, Merlin$a %olos, -oseph %oren+ana @%oren+anaA, -esala, an$ %a'onsin'!

#he .efense sho(e$ that at the ti)e of the co))ission of the cri)e, Ati+a$o ha$ been in his fa)ily
resi$ence in .aran*ay #o)alaytay, Castilla,
2orso'on, because he ha$ been sic0 of influen+a, (hile Monreal an$ .anilo ha$ been in the house of a certain Ariel also
in .aran*ay #o)alaytay, Castilla, 2orso'on $rin0in' 'in" that the petitioners an$ .anilo ha$ not been reco'ni+e$ to be at
the cri)e scene $urin' the shootin' of %lona" an$ that the petitioners ha$ been i)plicate$ only because of their bein'
e)ploye$ by their uncle %oren+ana, the alle'e$ )aster)in$ in the 0illin' of %lona!

As state$, on May 6, 2BBB, the R#C conicte$ the petitioners but ac,uitte$ .anilo, )i;7

/1EREF?RE, pre)ises consi$ere$, the Court fin$s accuse$ 2ala$or Ati+a$o an$
2ala$or Monreal 'uilty beyon$ reasonable $oubt of the cri)e of )ur$er, $efine$ an$ penali+e$
un$er Article 26< of the Reise$ Penal Co$e, (ith the ,ualifyin' circu)stance of treachery, the
Court hereby sentences each of the accuse$ to an i)prison)ent of Reclusion Perpetua an$ to
pay the heirs of Ro'elio %lona the su) of Fifty #housan$ @PCB,BBB!BBA Pesos, Philippines
currency, in soli$u), as ciil in$e)nity, (ithout subsi$iary i)prison)ent in case of insolency" to
rei)burse the heirs of the icti) the a)ount of PDB,BBB!BB as actual e5penses an$ to pay the
cost!

Accuse$ .anilo Ati+a$o on reasonable $oubt is hereby ac,uitte$ of the cri)e char'e$
an$ he bein' a $etention prisoner, his i))e$iate release fro) the proincial 4ail is hereby
or$ere$, unless he is char'e$ of other la(ful cause or causes!

Accuse$ 2ala$or Ati+a$o an$ 2ala$or Monreal bein' $etaine$, shall be cre$ite$ in full
in the serice of their sentence!

2? ?R.ERE.!99:

#he Court referre$ the petitionersG $irect appeal to the CA pursuant to People )% Mateo!91B:

?n .ece)ber 1D, 2BBC, the CA affir)e$ the coniction, $isposin'7

/1EREF?RE, the 4u$')ent of coniction is AFF&RME.! Accuse$*appellants 2ala$or
Ati+a$o an$ 2ala$or Monreal are hereby or$ere$ to suffer the i)prison)ent of eclusion
Perpetua! %i0e(ise, they are or$ere$ to pay the heirs of Ro'elio %lona the a)ount of7 @aA
PCB,BBB!BB as ciil in$e)nity" @bA PDB,BBB!BB as actual $a)a'es" an$ @cA PCB,BBB!BB as )oral
$a)a'es!

2? ?R.ERE.!911:


After the CA $enie$ their motion for reconsideration,912: the petitioners no( appeal!

I!!/#

#he petitioners sub)it that the R#C an$ the CA erre$ in fin$in' the) 'uilty of )ur$er beyon$ reasonable
$oubt base$ on the eye(itness testi)ony of Miran$illa $espite her not bein' a cre$ible (itness" that so)e circu)stances
ren$ere$ Miran$illaGs testi)ony unreliable, na)ely7 @aA she ha$ faile$ to i$entify the) as the assailants of %lona, because
she ha$ not actually (itnesse$ the) shootin' at %lona" @bA she ha$ )erely assu)e$ that they ha$ been the assailants
fro) the fact that they ha$ (or0e$ for %oren+ana, the suppose$ )aster)in$" @cA the autopsy report state$ that %lona ha$
been shot fro) a $istance, not at close ran'e, contrary to Miran$illaGs clai)" @dA Miran$illaGs testi)ony (as contrary to
hu)an e5perience" an$ @eA Miran$illaGs account (as inconsistent (ith that of -esalaGs!

R/8+%2

#he coniction of the petitioners is affir)e$, sub4ect to )o$ifications in the penalty i)pose$ on Monreal an$
in the a)ounts an$ 0in$s of $a)a'es as ciil liability!




I.
F-&/8 1+%'+%2! o1 &,# RTC %' CA
"# --o"'#' "#!$#-&

#he R#C an$ CAGs conclusions (ere base$ on Miran$illaGs positie i$entification of the petitioners as the
)alefactors an$ on her $escription of the acts of each of the) )a$e $urin' her court testi)ony on March ;, 199C,91D:
)i;7

, /ho (ere you sayin' J(e sat to'etherGK
a L$'! %lona, Mr! -ose -esala an$ & (as lettin' )y C years ol$ chil$ to sleep!

, Can you $e)onstrate or $escribe$ before this 1onorable Court the si+e of the sala an$ the
house you (herein @sicAK
a #he si+e of the sale @sicA is about D 5 D )eters!

, No(, please sho( to this 1onorable Court the relatie position, the sittin' arran'e)ent of
yours, L'$! %lona an$ L'$! -esala!
48
a & (as sittin' on a lon' bench then )y chil$ (as on )y lap, then L$'! %lona (as infront of
)e, & (as at the ri'ht si$e of L$'! %lona

, 1o( about L$'! -esalaK
a #his L'$! -esala (as facin' L'$! %lona an$ L'$! %lona (as facin' the $oor in other(or$s,
the $oor (as at his bac0!

, /as the $oor openK
a Nes, sir!

, /as the $oor i))e$iately foun$[ Rather (as this the )ain $oor of the houseK
a #hat (as the )ain $oor lea$in' to the porch of the house!

, An$ fro) the porch is the )ain stairs alrea$yK
a Nes, sir!

, No(, (hat (ere you $oin' there after $inner as you sai$ you hae finishe$ assistin' the
persons in Bon''a about the pro'ra), !!! after that, (hat (ere you $oin' thenK
a & (as lettin' )y chil$ to sleep an$ L'$! %lona (as fannin' )y chil$!

, 1o( about L'$! -esalaK
a 1is hea$ (as stoppin' @sicA because of his $run0enness!

, Can you tell this 1onorable Court, (hile you (ere on that situation, if there (as any inci$ent
that happene$K
a T,#"# ;! !/''#% &,/%'#"+%2 !&#$! ! +1 &,#) ;#"# "/%%+%2 %' &,#"# ;#"#
!/--#!!+0# !,o&!.

, S+7/8&%#o/!8) ;+&, &,#!# &;o D2E !/--#!!+0# !,o&! -% )o/ !## &,# o"+2+% o" ;,o
;! "#!$o%!+(8# 1o" &,# !,o&!O
a U$o% ,#"+%2 &,# !,o&!, I &/"%#' 7) ,#' %' !; S80'o" A&+L'o.

, W,o +! &,+! S80'o" A&+L'oO
a H# ;! &,# o%# ;,o !,o& F2'. L8o%.

, C% )o/ (# (8# &o +'#%&+1) ,+7O
a DW+&%#!! +'#%&+1)+%2 &,# $#"!o%, %' ;,#% !A#' o1 ,+! %7# %!;#"#' S80'o"
A&+L'o.E

, 2o (hen you hear$ the shots, (ho (as actually shotK
a L'$! %lona, because after loo0in' at the @DA persons & sa( L'$! %lona sli$in' $o(n(ar$!

, #hen after that (hat happene$K
a #hen & stoo$ i))e$iately an$ & tol$ the persons responsible Jstop thatGs enou'hG, an$ &
'ae assistance to L'$! %lona!

, #hen after that (hat happene$K
a My intention (as to let L'$! %lona push*up but & hear$ three @DA clic0s of the tri''er of the
'un!

, #hen (hat $i$ you $o (hen you hear$ thatK
a A1&#" ;,+-, I &/"%#' 7) ,#' !/''#%8) &,#% I !; &,+! S80'o" Mo%"#8 (/& & &,&
&+7# I 'o %o& A%o; ,+! %7#.

, T,#% ;,& '+' )o/ !## o1 ,+7O
a I !; &,+! S80'o" Mo%"#8 !&#$$+%2 (-A;"' %' ,# ;! '</!&+%2 &,# -)8+%'#" o1
&,# 2/%.

, No(, (hen you sa( an$ hear$ Ati+a$o three @DA clic0s of the 'un, can you see (here the
'un (as pointe$ atK
a &t (as pointe$ to(ar$s )e!

, 2o, there (ere three @DA shots that $i$ not actually fire$ to(ar$s youK
a Nes, sir!

, So ;,#% )o/ !+' &,& )o/ !; &,+! 7% Mo%"#8, -% )o/ !&+88 "#-o2%+L# &,+! 7%O
a Nes, sir!

, Co/8' )o/ (# (8# &o $o+%& & ,+7, +1 ,# +! +% Co/"&O
a Y#!, !+".

, F+%'8) $8#!# 2o 'o;% %' &$ ,+! !,o/8'#"O
a @(itness 'oin' $o(n an$ procee$e$ to the first bench an$ tap the shoul$er of the person,
the person tappe$ by the (itness ans(ere$ to the na)e 2ala$or Monreal!A

, Nou sai$, (hen you stoo$ up an$ face (ith hi) (hile he (as a$4ustin' his reoler an$ he
(as )oin' bac0(ar$, $i$ you see other persons as his co)panion, if anyK
a At the first ti)e (hen & turne$ )y hea$ bac0, & sa( this Ati+a$o he (as alrea$y on the
process of leain' the place!
49

, /ho is the first na)e of this Ati+a$oK
a .anilo Ati+a$o

, An$ $i$ they actually leae the place at that )o)entK
a 2ala$or Monreal (as the one left!


?ur o(n reie( persua$es us to concur (ith the R#C an$ the CA! &n$ee$, Miran$illaGs positie i$entification
of the petitioners as the 0illers, an$ her $eclarations on (hat each of the petitioners $i$ (hen they )ounte$ their su$$en
$ea$ly assault a'ainst %lona left no $oubt (hatsoeer that they ha$ conspire$ to 0ill an$ ha$ $one so (ith treachery!

&t is a basic rule of appellate a$4u$ication in this 4uris$iction that the trial 4u$'eGs ealuation of the cre$ibility of
a (itness an$ of the (itnessG testi)ony is accor$e$ the hi'hest respect because the trial 4u$'eGs uni,ue opportunity to
obsere $irectly the $e)eanor of the (itness enables hi) to $eter)ine (hether the (itness is tellin' the truth or not!916:
2uch ealuation, (hen affir)e$ by the CA, is bin$in' on the Court unless facts or circu)stances of (ei'ht hae been
oerloo0e$, )isapprehen$e$, or )isinterprete$ that, if consi$ere$, (oul$ )aterially affect the $isposition of the case!91C:
/e thus apply the rule, consi$erin' that the petitioners hae not calle$ attention to an$ proe$ any oerloo0e$,
)isapprehen$e$, or )isinterprete$ circu)stance! Fortifyin' the application of the rule is that Miran$illaGs positie
$eclarations on the i$entities of the assailants preaile$ oer the petitionersG $enials an$ alibi!91;:

>n$er the la(, a conspiracy e5ists (hen t(o or )ore persons co)e to an a'ree)ent concernin' the
co))ission of a felony and $eci$e to co))it it!917: Net, the 2tate $i$ not hae to proe the petitionersG preious
a'ree)ent to co))it the )ur$er,91<: because their conspiracy (as $e$uce$ fro) the )o$e an$ )anner in (hich they
ha$ perpetrate$ their cri)inal act!919: #hey ha$ acte$ in concert in assaultin' %lona, (ith their in$ii$ual acts )anifestin'
a co))unity of purpose an$ $esi'n to achiee their eil en$! As it is, all the conspirators in a cri)e are liable as co*
principals!92B: #hus, they cannot no( successfully assail their coniction as co*principals in )ur$er!

Mur$er is $efine$ an$ punishe$ by Article 26< of the e)ised Penal Code @RPCA, as a)en$e$ by Republic
Act No! 7;C9, (hich proi$es7

Article 26<! Murder! P Any person (ho, not fallin' (ithin the proisions of Article 26;
shall 0ill another, shall be 'uilty of )ur$er an$ shall be punishe$ by reclusion perpetua to $eath,
if co))itte$ (ith any of the follo(in' atten$ant circu)stances7

1! W+&, &"#-,#"), ta0in' a$anta'e of superior stren'th, (ith the ai$ of ar)e$ )en, or
e)ployin' )eans to (ea0en the $efense or of )eans or persons to insure or affor$ i)punity!

2! &n consi$eration of a price, re(ar$, or pro)ise!

D! By )eans of inun$ation, fire, poison, e5plosion, ship(rec0, stran$in' of a essel,
$erail)ent or assault upon a railroa$, fall of an airship, or by )eans of )otor ehicles, or (ith the
use of any other )eans inolin' 'reat (aste an$ ruin!

6! ?n occasion of any of the cala)ities enu)erate$ in the prece$in' para'raph, or of an
earth,ua0e, eruption of a olcano, $estructie cyclone, epi$e)ic or other public cala)ity!

C! /ith ei$ent pre)e$itation!

;! /ith cruelty, by $eliberately an$ inhu)anly au')entin' the sufferin' of the icti), or
outra'in' or scoffin' at his person or corpse!

#here is treachery (hen the offen$er co))its any of the cri)es a'ainst the person, e)ployin' )eans,
)etho$s or for)s in the e5ecution thereof (hich ten$ $irectly an$ specially to insure its e5ecution, (ithout ris0 to hi)self
arisin' fro) the $efense (hich offen$e$ party )i'ht )a0e%921: For treachery to be atten$ant, the )eans, )etho$, or
for) of e5ecution )ust be $eliberate$ upon or consciously a$opte$ by the offen$ers!922: Moreoer, treachery )ust be
present an$ seen by the (itness ri'ht at the inception of the attac0!92D:

#he CA hel$ that Miran$illaGs testi)onial narratie 8sufficiently establishe$ that treachery atten$e$ the attac0
o9n: the icti)F because Ati+a$oGs shootin' the icti) at the latterGs bac0 ha$ been inten$e$ to ensure the e5ecution of
the cri)e" an$ that Ati+a$o an$ MonrealGs conspiracy to 0ill the icti) (as proe$ by their presence at the scene of the
cri)e each ar)e$ (ith a han$'un that they ha$ fire$ e5cept that MonrealGs han$'un $i$ not fire!926:

/e concur (ith the CA on the atten$ance of treachery! #he petitioners )ounte$ their $ea$ly assault (ith
su$$enness an$ (ithout the icti) bein' a(are of its i))inence! Neither an altercation bet(een the icti) an$ the
assailants ha$ prece$e$ the assault, nor ha$ the icti) proo0e$ the assault in the sli'htest! #he assailants ha$
$esi'ne$ their assault to be s(ift an$ une5pecte$, in or$er to $eprie their icti) of the opportunity to $efen$ hi)self!
92C: 2uch )anner constitute$ a $eliberate a$option of a )etho$ of attac0 that ensure$ their unha)pere$ e5ecution of the
cri)e!

II.
Mo'+1+-&+o% o1 &,# P#%8&) o% Mo%"#8
%' o1 &,# C+0+8 D72#!


>n$er Article 26< of the RPC, as a)en$e$ by Republic Act No! 7;C9, the penalty for )ur$er is reclusion
perpetua to $eath! #here bein' no )o$ifyin' circu)stances, the CA correctly i)pose$ the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua on Ati+a$o, (hich (as confor)able (ith Article ;D @2A of the RPC!92;: But reclusion perpetua (as not the
correct penalty for Monreal $ue to his bein' a )inor oer 1C but un$er 1< years of a'e! #he R#C an$ the CA $i$ not
50
appreciate MonrealGs )inority at the ti)e of the co))ission of the )ur$er probably because his birth certificate (as not
presente$ at the trial!

Net, it cannot be $oubte$ that Monreal (as a )inor belo( 1< years of a'e (hen the cri)e (as co))itte$ on
April 1<, 1996! Firstly, his counter*affi$ait e5ecute$ on -une DB 1996 state$ that he (as 17 years of a'e!927: 2econ$ly,
the police blotter recor$in' his arrest )entione$ that he (as 17 years ol$ at the ti)e of his arrest on May 1<, 1996!92<:
#hir$ly, =illafeGs affi$ait $ate$ -une 29, 1996 aerre$ that Monreal (as a )inor on the $ate of the inci$ent!929: Fourthly,
as R#CGs minutes of hearin* $ate$ March 9, 1999 sho(e$,9DB: Monreal (as 22 years ol$ (hen he testifie$ on $irect
e5a)ination on March 9, 1999,9D1: (hich )eant that he (as not oer 1< years of a'e (hen he co))itte$ the cri)e! An$,
fifthly, Miran$illa $escribe$ Monreal as a teena'er an$ youn' loo0in' at the ti)e of the inci$ent!9D2:

#he fore'oin' sho(in' of MonrealGs )inority (as le'ally sufficient, for it confor)e$ (ith the nor)s
subse,uently set un$er 2ection 7 of Republic Act No! 9D66, also 0no(n as the #u)enile #ustice and Welfare !ct of 2BB;,
9DD: )i;7

2ection 7! Determination of !*e% * T,# -,+8' +% -o%18+-& ;+&, &,# 8; !,88 #%<o) &,#
$"#!/7$&+o% o1 7+%o"+&)! 1eH2he shall en4oy all the ri'hts of a chil$ in conflict (ith the la( until
heHshe is proen to be ei'hteen @1<A years ol$ or ol$er! T,# 2# o1 -,+8' 7) (# '#&#"7+%#'
1"o7 &,# -,+8'9! (+"&, -#"&+1+-&#, ($&+!78 -#"&+1+-&# o" %) o&,#" $#"&+%#%& 'o-/7#%&!. I%
&,# (!#%-# o1 &,#!# 'o-/7#%&!, 2# 7) (# (!#' o% +%1o"7&+o% 1"o7 &,# -,+8'
,+7!#81=,#"!#81, &#!&+7o%+#! o1 o&,#" $#"!o%!, &,# $,)!+-8 $$#"%-# o1 &,# -,+8' %'
o&,#" "#8#0%& #0+'#%-#. I% -!# o1 'o/(& ! &o &,# 2# o1 &,# -,+8', +& !,88 (# "#!o80#' +%
,+!=,#" 10o".

Any person contestin' the a'e of the chil$ in conflict (ith the la( prior to the filin' of the
infor)ation in any appropriate court )ay file a case in a su))ary procee$in' for the
$eter)ination of a'e before the Fa)ily Court (hich shall $eci$e the case (ithin t(enty*four @26A
hours fro) receipt of the appropriate plea$in's of all intereste$ parties!

&f a case has been file$ a'ainst the chil$ in conflict (ith the la( an$ is pen$in' in the
appropriate court, the person shall file a )otion to $eter)ine the a'e of the chil$ in the sa)e
court (here the case is pen$in'! Pen$in' hearin' on the sai$ )otion, procee$in's on the )ain
case shall be suspen$e$!

&n all procee$in's, la( enforce)ent officers, prosecutors, 4u$'es an$ other 'oern)ent
officials concerne$ shall e5ert all efforts at $eter)inin' the a'e of the chil$ in conflict (ith the la(!

Pursuant to Article ;< @2A of the RPC,9D6: (hen the offen$er is oer 1C an$ un$er 1< years of a'e, the
penalty ne5t lo(er than that prescribe$ by la( is i)pose$! Base$ on Article ;1 @2A of the RPC, reclusion temporal is the
penalty ne5t lo(er than reclusion perpetua to $eath! Applyin' the ,ndeterminate 6entence La& an$ Article ;6 of the RPC,
therefore, the ran'e of the penalty of i)prison)ent i)posable on Monreal (as prision mayor in any of its perio$s, as the
)ini)u) perio$, to reclusion temporal in its )e$iu) perio$, as the )a5i)u) perio$! Accor$in'ly, his proper
in$eter)inate penalty is fro) si5 years an$ one $ay of prision mayor, as the )ini)u) perio$, to 16 years, ei'ht )onths,
an$ one $ay of reclusion temporal, as the )a5i)u) perio$!

Monreal has been $etaine$ for oer 1; years, that is, fro) the ti)e of his arrest on May 1<, 1996 until the
present! 3ien that the entire perio$ of MonrealGs $etention shoul$ be cre$ite$ in the serice of his sentence, pursuant to
2ection 61 of Republic Act No! 9D66,9DC: the reision of the penalty no( (arrants his i))e$iate release fro) the
penitentiary!

&n this re'ar$, the benefits in faor of chil$ren in conflict (ith the la( as 'rante$ un$er Republic Act No! 9D66,
(hich ai)s to pro)ote the (elfare of )inor offen$ers throu'h pro'ra)s an$ serices, such as $elin,uency preention,
interention, $iersion, rehabilitation an$ re*inte'ration, 'eare$ to(ar$s their $eelop)ent, are retroactiely applie$ to
Monreal as a conict serin' his sentence! &ts 2ection ;< e5pressly so proi$es7

2ection ;<! Children Who 8a)e .een Con)icted and are 6er)in* 6entences! O P#"!o%!
;,o ,0# (##% -o%0+-&#' %' "# !#"0+%2 !#%&#%-# & &,# &+7# o1 &,# #11#-&+0+&) o1 &,+!
A-&, %' ;,o ;#"# (#8o; &,# 2# o1 #+2,&##% D15E )#"! & &,# &+7# o1 &,# -o77+!!+o% o1
&,# o11#%!# 1o" ;,+-, &,#) ;#"# -o%0+-&#' %' "# !#"0+%2 !#%&#%-#, !,88 8+A#;+!# (#%#1+&
1"o7 &,# "#&"o-&+0# $$8+-&+o% o1 &,+! A-&. #hey shall be entitle$ to appropriate $ispositions
proi$e$ un$er this Act an$ their sentences shall be a$4uste$ accor$in'ly! T,#) !,88 (#
+77#'+&#8) "#8#!#' +1 &,#) "# !o :/8+1+#' /%'#" &,+! A-& o" o&,#" $$8+-(8# 8;!.


Both petitioners (ere a$4u$'e$ soli$arily liable to pay $a)a'es to the suriin' heirs of %lona! #heir soli$ary
ciil liability arisin' fro) the co))ission of the cri)e stan$s,9D;: $espite the re$uction of MonrealGs penalty! But (e )ust
refor) the a(ar$s of $a)a'es in or$er to confor) to preailin' 4urispru$ence! #he CA 'rante$ only PCB,BBB!BB as ciil
in$e)nity, PDB,BBB!BB as actual $a)a'es, an$ PCB,BBB!BB as )oral $a)a'es! /e hol$ that the a)ounts for $eath
in$e)nity an$ )oral $a)a'es shoul$ each be raised to P7C,BBB!BB to accor$ (ith preailin' case la("9D7: an$ that
e5e)plary $a)a'es of PDB,BBB!BB $ue to the atten$ance of treachery shoul$ be further a(ar$e$,9D<: to accor$ (ith the
pronounce)ent in People )% Catubi*,9D9: to (it7

#he co))ission of an offense has t(o*pron'e$ effect, one on the public as it breaches
the social or$er an$ other upon the priate icti) as it causes personal sufferin's, each of (hich,
is a$$resse$ by, respectiely, the prescription of heaier punish)ent for the accuse$ an$ by an
a(ar$ of a$$itional $a)a'es to the icti)! T,# +%-"#!# o1 &,# $#%8&) o" !,+1& &o 2"0#"
1#8o%) /%'#"!-o"#! &,# #.-#"(&+o% o1 &,# o11#%!# () &,# &&#%'%-# o1 22"0&+%2
-+"-/7!&%-#!, ;,#&,#" o"'+%") o" :/8+1)+%2, +% +&! -o77+!!+o%. U%8+A# &,# -"+7+%8
8+(+8+&) ;,+-, +! (!+-88) S&&# -o%-#"%, &,# ;"' o1 '72#!, ,o;#0#" +! 8+A#;+!#, +1
51
%o& $"+7"+8), +%&#%'#' 1o" &,# o11#%'#' $"&) ;,o !/11#"! &,#"#(). I& ;o/8' 7A# 8+&&8#
!#%!# 1o" % ;"' o1 #.#7$8") '72#! &o (# '/# &,# $"+0&# o11#%'#' $"&) ;,#% &,#
22"0&+%2 -+"-/7!&%-# +! o"'+%") (/& &o (# ;+&,,#8' ;,#% +& +! :/8+1)+%2. W+&,8, &,#
o"'+%") o" :/8+1)+%2 %&/"# o1 % 22"0&+%2 -+"-/7!&%-# +! '+!&+%-&+o% &,& !,o/8'
o%8) (# o1 -o%!#:/#%-# &o &,# -"+7+%8, "&,#" &,% &o &,# -+0+8 8+(+8+&) o1 &,# o11#%'#". I%
1+%#, "#8&+0# &o &,# -+0+8 !$#-& o1 &,# -!#, % 22"0&+%2 -+"-/7!&%-#, ;,#&,#"
o"'+%") o" :/8+1)+%2, !,o/8' #%&+&8# &,# o11#%'#' $"&) &o % ;"' o1 #.#7$8")
'72#! ;+&,+% &,# /%("+'8#' 7#%+%2 o1 A"&+-8# 22B@ o1 &,# C+0+8 Co'#!

#he a(ar$ of actual $a)a'es of PDB,BBB!BB is uphel$ for bein' supporte$ by the recor$!

WHEREFORE, the Court affir)s the $ecision $ate$ .ece)ber 1D, 2BBC pro)ul'ate$ in CA*3!R! CR*1C No!
B16CB, sub4ect to the follo(in' )o$ifications7

@aA 2ala$or Monreal is sentence$ to suffer the in$eter)inate penalty fro) si5 years an$ one $ay of prision
mayor, as the )ini)u) perio$, to 16 years, ei'ht )onths, an$ one $ay of reclusion temporal, as the )a5i)u) perio$"

@bA #he Court or$ers the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City to i))e$iately release 2ala$or Monreal
$ue to his hain' fully sere$ the penalty i)pose$ on hi), unless he is bein' hel$ for other la(ful causes" an$

@cA #he Court $irects the petitioners to pay 4ointly an$ soli$arily to the heirs of Ro'er %! %lona P7C,BBB!BB as
$eath in$e)nity, P7C,BBB!BB as )oral $a)a'es, PDB,BBB!BB as e5e)plary $a)a'es, an$ PDB,BBB!BB as actual
$a)a'es!

%et a copy of this $ecision be furnishe$ for i))e$iate i)ple)entation to the .irector of the Bureau of
Corrections in Muntinlupa City by personal serice! #he .irector of Bureau of Corrections shall report to this Court the
action he has ta0en on this $ecision (ithin fie $ays fro) serice!

SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
IG.R. No. 14B533 6 S#$&#7(#" 21, 2@1@J
52
REPRESENTATIVES GERARDO S. ESPINA, ORLANDO FUA, JR., PROSPERO AMATONG, ROBERT ACE S.
BARBERS, RAUL M. GON*ALES, PROSPERO PICHAY, JUAN MIGUEL *UBIRI AND FRANFLIN BAUTISTA,
PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RONALDO *AMORA, JR. DEHECUTIVE SECRETARYE, HON. MAR ROHAS
DSECRETARY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRYE, HON. FELIPE MEDALLA DSECRETARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC
AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYE, GOV. RAFAEL BUENAVENTURA DBANGFO SENTRAL NG PILIPINASE
AND HON. LILIA BAUTISTA DCHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EHCHANGE COMMISSIONE, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD, J.6
#his case calls upon the Court to e5ercise its po(er of 4u$icial reie( an$ $eter)ine the constitutionality of the Retail
#ra$e %iberali+ation Act of 2BBB, (hich has been assaile$ as in breach of the constitutional )an$ate for the
$eelop)ent of a self*reliant an$ in$epen$ent national econo)y effectiely controlle$ by Filipinos!
T,# F-&! %' &,# C!#
?n March 7, 2BBB Presi$ent -oseph E! Estra$a si'ne$ into la( Republic Act @R!A!A <7;2, also 0no(n as the Retail
#ra$e %iberali+ation Act of 2BBB! &t e5pressly repeale$ R!A! 11<B, (hich absolutely prohibite$ forei'n nationals fro)
en'a'in' in the retail tra$e business! R!A! <7;2 no( allo(s the) to $o so un$er four cate'ories7
Cate'ory A %ess than >2\2,CBB,BBB!BB E5clusiely for Filipino citi+ens an$ corporations
(holly o(ne$ by Filipino citi+ens!
Cate'ory B >2\2,CBB,BBB!BB up but less
than >2\7,CBB,BBB!BB
For the first t(o years of R!A! <7;2Ts effectiity,
forei'n o(nership is allo(e$ up to ;BE! After the
t(o*year perio$, 1BBE forei'n e,uity shall be
allo(e$!
Cate'ory C >2\7,CBB,BBB!BB or )ore May be (holly o(ne$ by forei'ners! Forei'n
inest)ents for establishin' a store in Cate'ories
B an$ C shall not be less than the e,uialent in
Philippine Pesos of >2\<DB,BBB!BB!
Cate'ory . >2\2CB,BBB!BB per store of
forei'n enterprises
speciali+in' in hi'h*en$ or
lu5ury pro$ucts
May be (holly o(ne$ by forei'ners!
R!A! <7;2 also allo(s natural*born Filipino citi+ens, (ho ha$ lost their citi+enship an$ no( resi$e in the Philippines,
to en'a'e in the retail tra$e business (ith the sa)e ri'hts as Filipino citi+ens!
?n ?ctober 11, 2BBB petitioners Ma'tan''ol #! 3uni'un$o &,
Y
Michael #! .efensor,
Y
3erar$o 2! Espina, Ben4a)in 2!
%i),
Y
?rlan$o Fua, -r!, Prospero A)aton', 2er'io Apostol,
Y
Robert Ace 2! Barbers, Enri,ue 3arcia, -r!,
Y
Raul M!
3on+ales, -ai)e -acob,
Y
Apolinario %o+a$a, -r!,
Y
%eonar$o Monte)ayor,
Y
Ma! Elena Pal)a*3il,
Y
Prospero Pichay,
-uan Mi'uel Mubiri an$ Fran0lin Bautista, all )e)bers of the 1ouse of Representaties, file$ the present petition,
assailin' the constitutionality of R!A! <7;2 on the follo(in' 'roun$s7
First, the la( runs afoul of 2ections 9, 19, an$ 2B of Article && of the Constitution (hich en4oins the 2tate to place the
national econo)y un$er the control of Filipinos to achiee e,ual $istribution of opportunities, pro)ote
in$ustriali+ation an$ full e)ploy)ent, an$ protect Filipino enterprise a'ainst unfair co)petition an$ tra$e policies!
6econd, the i)ple)entation of R!A! <7;2 (oul$ lea$ to alien control of the retail tra$e, (hich ta0en to'ether (ith
alien $o)inance of other areas of business, (oul$ result in the loss of effectie Filipino control of the econo)y!
Third, forei'n retailers li0e /al)art an$ L*Mart (oul$ crush Filipino retailers an$ sari/sari store en$ors, $estroy
self*e)ploy)ent, an$ brin' about )ore une)ploy)ent!
Fourth, the /orl$ Ban0*&nternational Monetary Fun$ ha$ i)properly i)pose$ the passa'e of R!A! <7;2 on the
'oern)ent as a con$ition for the release of certain loans!
Fifth, there is a clear an$ present $an'er that the la( (oul$ pro)ote )onopolies or co)binations in restraint of
tra$e!
Respon$ents E5ecutie 2ecretary Ronal$o Ma)ora, -r!, #ra$e an$ &n$ustry 2ecretary Mar Ro5as, National
Econo)ic an$ .eelop)ent Authority @NE.AA 2ecretary Felipe Me$alla, Ban'0o 2entral n' Pilipinas 3o! Rafael
Buenaentura, an$ 2ecurities an$ E5chan'e Co))ission Chair)an %ilia Bautista countere$ that7
First, petitioners hae no le'al stan$in' to file the petition! #hey cannot ino0e the fact that they are ta5payers since
R!A! <7;2 $oes not inole the $isburse)ent of public fun$s! Nor can they ino0e the fact that they are )e)bers of
Con'ress since they )a$e no clai) that the la( infrin'es on their ri'ht as le'islators!
6econd, the petition $oes not inole any 4usticiable controersy! Petitioners of course clai) that, as )e)bers of
Con'ress, they represent the s)all retail en$ors in their respectie $istricts but the petition $oes not alle'e that the
sub4ect la( iolates the ri'hts of those en$ors!
Third, petitioners hae faile$ to oerco)e the presu)ption of constitutionality of R!A! <7;2! &n$ee$, they coul$ not
specify ho( the ne( la( iolates the constitutional proisions they cite! 2ections 9, 19, an$ 2B of Article && of the
Constitution are not self*e5ecutin' proisions that are 4u$icially $e)an$able!
53
Fourth, the Constitution )an$ates the re'ulation but not the prohibition of forei'n inest)ents! &t $irects Con'ress to
resere to Filipino citi+ens certain areas of inest)ents upon the reco))en$ation of the NE.A an$ (hen the
national interest so $ictates! But the Constitution leaes to the $iscretion of the Con'ress (hether or not to )a0e
such reseration! &t $oes not prohibit Con'ress fro) enactin' la(s allo(in' the entry of forei'ners into certain
in$ustries not resere$ by the Constitution to Filipino citi+ens!
T,# I!!/#! P"#!#%&#'
2i)plifie$, the case presents t(o issues7
1! /hether or not petitioner la()a0ers hae the le'al stan$in' to challen'e the constitutionality of R!A! <7;2" an$
2! /hether or not R!A! <7;2 is unconstitutional!
T,# Co/"&P! R/8+%2
O%#! #he lon' settle$ rule is that he (ho challen'es the ali$ity of a la( )ust hae a stan$in' to $o so!
91:
%e'al
stan$in' or locus standi refers to the ri'ht of a party to co)e to a court of 4ustice an$ )a0e such a challen'e! More
particularly, stan$in' refers to his personal an$ substantial interest in that he has suffere$ or (ill suffer $irect in4ury
as a result of the passa'e of that la(!
92:
#o put it another (ay, he )ust sho( that he has been or is about to be
$enie$ so)e ri'ht or priile'e to (hich he is la(fully entitle$ or that he is about to be sub4ecte$ to so)e bur$ens or
penalties by reason of the la( he co)plains of!
9D:
1ere, there is no clear sho(in' that the i)ple)entation of the Retail #ra$e %iberali+ation Act pre4u$ices petitioners
or inflicts $a)a'es on the), either as ta5payers
96:
or as le'islators!
9C:
2till the Court (ill resole the ,uestion they
raise since the rule on stan$in' can be rela5e$ for nontra$itional plaintiffs li0e or$inary citi+ens, ta5payers, an$
le'islators (hen as in this case the public interest so re,uires or the )atter is of transcen$ental i)portance, of
oerarchin' si'nificance to society, or of para)ount public interest!
9;:
T;o. Petitioners )ainly ar'ue that R!A! <7;2 iolates the )an$ate of the 19<7 Constitution for the 2tate to $eelop
a self*reliant an$ in$epen$ent national econo)y effectiely controlle$ by Filipinos! #hey ino0e the proisions of the
.eclaration of Principles an$ 2tate Policies un$er Article && of the 19<7 Constitution, (hich rea$ as follo(s7
S#-&+o% 9. T,# S&&# !,88 $"o7o&# </!& %' ')%7+- !o-+8 o"'#" &,& ;+88 #%!/"# &,# $"o!$#"+&) %'
+%'#$#%'#%-# o1 &,# %&+o% %' 1"## &,# $#o$8# 1"o7 $o0#"&) &,"o/2, $o8+-+#! &,& $"o0+'# '#:/&# !o-+8
!#"0+-#!, $"o7o&# 1/88 #7$8o)7#%&, "+!+%2 !&%'"' o1 8+0+%2, %' % +7$"o0#' :/8+&) o1 8+1# 1o" 88.
. . . .
S#-&+o% 19. T,# S&&# !,88 '#0#8o$ !#81-"#8+%& %' +%'#$#%'#%& %&+o%8 #-o%o7) #11#-&+0#8) -o%&"o88#'
() F+8+$+%o!.
S#-&+o% 2@. T,# S&&# "#-o2%+L#! &,# +%'+!$#%!(8# "o8# o1 &,# $"+0&# !#-&o", #%-o/"2#! $"+0&#
#%&#"$"+!#, %' $"o0+'#! +%-#%&+0#! &o %##'#' +%0#!&7#%&!.
Petitioners also ino0e the proisions of the National Econo)y an$ Patri)ony un$er Article I&& of the 19<7
Constitution, (hich rea$s7
S#-&+o% 1@. T,# Co%2"#!! !,88, /$o% "#-o77#%'&+o% o1 &,# #-o%o7+- %' $8%%+%2 2#%-), ;,#% &,#
%&+o%8 +%&#"#!& '+-&&#!, "#!#"0# &o -+&+L#%! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! o" &o -o"$o"&+o%! o" !!o-+&+o%! & 8#!&
!+.&) per centum o1 ;,o!# -$+&8 +! o;%#' () !/-, -+&+L#%!, o" !/-, ,+2,#" $#"-#%&2# ! Co%2"#!! 7)
$"#!-"+(#, -#"&+% "#! o1 +%0#!&7#%&!. T,# Co%2"#!! !,88 #%-& 7#!/"#! &,& ;+88 #%-o/"2# &,#
1o"7&+o% %' o$#"&+o% o1 #%&#"$"+!#! ;,o!# -$+&8 +! ;,o88) o;%#' () F+8+$+%o!.
I% &,# 2"%& o1 "+2,&!, $"+0+8#2#!, %' -o%-#!!+o%! -o0#"+%2 &,# %&+o%8 #-o%o7) %' $&"+7o%), &,# S&&#
!,88 2+0# $"#1#"#%-# &o :/8+1+#' F+8+$+%o!.
T,# S&&# !,88 "#2/8&# %' #.#"-+!# /&,o"+&) o0#" 1o"#+2% +%0#!&7#%&! ;+&,+% +&! %&+o%8 </"+!'+-&+o% %'
+% --o"'%-# ;+&, +&! %&+o%8 2o8! %' $"+o"+&+#!.
. . . .
S#-&+o% 12. T,# S&&# !,88 $"o7o&# &,# $"#1#"#%&+8 /!# o1 F+8+$+%o 8(o", 'o7#!&+- 7&#"+8! %' 8o-88)
$"o'/-#' 2oo'!, %' 'o$& 7#!/"#! &,& ,#8$ 7A# &,#7 -o7$#&+&+0#.
S#-&+o% 1B. T,# S&&# !,88 $/"!/# &"'# $o8+-) &,& !#"0#! &,# 2#%#"8 ;#81"# %' /&+8+L#! 88 1o"7! %'
""%2#7#%&! o1 #.-,%2# o% &,# (!+! o1 #:/8+&) %' "#-+$"o-+&).
But, as the Court e5plaine$ in TaEFada )% !n*ara,
97:
the proisions of Article && of the 19<7 Constitution, the
$eclarations of principles an$ state policies, are not self*e5ecutin'! %e'islatie failure to pursue such policies cannot
'ie rise to a cause of action in the courts!
#he Court further e5plaine$ in TaEFada that Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution lays $o(n the i$eals of econo)ic
nationalis)7 @1A by e5pressin' preference in faor of ,ualifie$ Filipinos in the 'rant of ri'hts, priile'es an$
concessions coerin' the national econo)y an$ patri)ony an$ in the use of Filipino labor, $o)estic )aterials an$
locally*pro$uce$ 'oo$s" @2A by )an$atin' the 2tate to a$opt )easures that help )a0e the) co)petitie" an$ @DA by
re,uirin' the 2tate to $eelop a self*reliant an$ in$epen$ent national econo)y effectiely controlle$ by Filipinos!
9<:
&n other (or$s, (hile 2ection 19, Article && of the 19<7 Constitution re,uires the $eelop)ent of a self*reliant an$
in$epen$ent national econo)y effectiely controlle$ by Filipino entrepreneurs, it $oes not i)pose a policy of Filipino
54
)onopoly of the econo)ic eniron)ent! #he ob4ectie is si)ply to prohibit forei'n po(ers or interests fro)
)aneuerin' our econo)ic policies an$ ensure that Filipinos are 'ien preference in all areas of $eelop)ent!
&n$ee$, the 19<7 Constitution ta0es into account the realities of the outsi$e (orl$ as it re,uires the pursuit of a tra$e
policy that seres the 'eneral (elfare an$ utili+es all for)s an$ arran'e)ents of e5chan'e on the basis of e,uality
an$ reciprocity" an$ spea0s of in$ustries (hich are co)petitie in both $o)estic an$ forei'n )ar0ets as (ell as of
the protection of Filipino enterprises a'ainst unfair forei'n co)petition an$ tra$e practices! #hus, (hile the
Constitution )an$ates a bias in faor of Filipino 'oo$s, serices, labor an$ enterprises, it also reco'ni+es the nee$
for business e5chan'e (ith the rest of the (orl$ on the bases of e,uality an$ reciprocity an$ li)its protection of
Filipino enterprises only a'ainst forei'n co)petition an$ tra$e practices that are unfair!
99:
&n other (or$s, the 19<7 Constitution $oes not rule out the entry of forei'n inest)ents, 'oo$s, an$ serices! /hile
it $oes not encoura'e their unli)ite$ entry into the country, it $oes not prohibit the) either! &n fact, it allo(s an
e5chan'e on the basis of e,uality an$ reciprocity, fro(nin' only on forei'n co)petition that is unfair!
91B:
#he 0ey, as in
all econo)ies in the (orl$, is to stri0e a balance bet(een protectin' local businesses an$ allo(in' the entry of
forei'n inest)ents an$ serices!
More i)portantly, 2ection 1B, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution 'ies Con'ress the $iscretion to resere to Filipinos
certain areas of inest)ents upon the reco))en$ation of the NE.A an$ (hen the national interest re,uires! #hus,
Con'ress can $eter)ine (hat policy to pass an$ (hen to pass it $epen$in' on the econo)ic e5i'encies! &t can
enact la(s allo(in' the entry of forei'ners into certain in$ustries not resere$ by the Constitution to Filipino citi+ens!
&n this case, Con'ress has $eci$e$ to open certain areas of the retail tra$e business to forei'n inest)ents instea$
of reserin' the) e5clusiely to Filipino citi+ens! #he NE.A has not oppose$ such policy!
#he control an$ re'ulation of tra$e in the interest of the public (elfare is of course an e5ercise of the police po(er of
the 2tate! A personTs ri'ht to property, (hether he is a Filipino citi+en or forei'n national, cannot be ta0en fro) hi)
(ithout $ue process of la(! &n 19C6, Con'ress enacte$ the Retail #ra$e Nationali+ation Act or R!A! 11<B that
restricts the retail business to Filipino citi+ens! &n $enyin' the petition assailin' the ali$ity of such Act for iolation of
the forei'nerTs ri'ht to substantie $ue process of la(, the 2upre)e Court hel$ that the la( constitute$ a ali$
e5ercise of police po(er!
911:
#he 2tate ha$ an interest in preentin' alien control of the retail tra$e an$ R!A! 11<B
(as reasonably relate$ to that purpose! #hat la( is not arbitrary!
1ere, to the e5tent that R!A! <7;2, the Retail #ra$e %iberali+ation Act, lessens the restraint on the forei'nersT ri'ht to
property or to en'a'e in an or$inarily la(ful business, it cannot be sai$ that the la( a)ounts to a $enial of the
FilipinosT ri'ht to property an$ to $ue process of la(! Filipinos continue to hae the ri'ht to en'a'e in the 0in$s of
retail business to (hich the la( in ,uestion has per)itte$ the entry of forei'n inestors!
Certainly, it is not (ithin the proince of the Court to in,uire into the (is$o) of R!A! <7;2 sae (hen it blatantly
iolates the Constitution! But as the Court has sai$, there is no sho(in' that the la( has contraene$ any
constitutional )an$ate! #he Court is not conince$ that the i)ple)entation of R!A! <7;2 (oul$ eentually lea$ to
alien control of the retail tra$e business! Petitioners hae not )ustere$ any concrete an$ stron' ar'u)ent to support
its thesis! #he la( itself has proi$e$ strict safe'uar$s on forei'n participation in that business! #hus *
First, aliens can only en'a'e in retail tra$e business sub4ect to the cate'ories aboe*enu)erate$" 6econd, only
nationals fro), or 4uri$ical entities for)e$ or incorporate$ in countries (hich allo( the entry of Filipino retailers shall
be allo(e$ to en'a'e in retail tra$e business" an$ Third, ,ualifie$ forei'n retailers shall not be allo(e$ to en'a'e in
certain retailin' actiities outsi$e their accre$ite$ stores throu'h the use of )obile or rollin' stores or carts, the use
of sales representaties, $oor*to*$oor sellin', restaurants an$ sari/sari stores an$ such other si)ilar retailin'
actiities!
&n su), petitioners hae not sho(n ho( the retail tra$e liberali+ation has pre4u$ice$ an$ can pre4u$ice the local
s)all an$ )e$iu) enterprises since its i)ple)entation about a $eca$e a'o!
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for lac0 of )erit! No costs!
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
55
G.R. No. 1>43>9 O-&o(#" 9, 2@12
HEIRS OF WILSON P. GAMBOA,
S
Petitioners, s!FINANCE SECRETARYMARGARITO B. TEVES, FINANCE
UNDERSECRETARYJOHN P. SEVILLA, AND COMMISSIONER RICARDO ABCEDE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENTDPCGGE IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
RESPECTIVELY, OF THE PRIVATI*ATION COUNCIL, CHAIRMAN ANTHONI SALIM OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD. IN
HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF METRO PACIFIC ASSET HOLDINGS INC., CHAIRMAN MANUEL V. PANGILINAN
OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY DPLDTE IN HIS CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR
OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD., PRESIDENT NAPOLEON L. NA*ARENO OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE
TELEPHONE COMPANY, CHAIR FE BARIN OF THE SECURITIES AND EHCHANGE COMMISSION, %'
PRESIDENT FRANCIS LIM OF THE PHILIPPINE STOCF EHCHANGE, Respon$ents!
PABLITO V. SANIDAD %' ARNO V. SANIDAD, Petitioner*in*&nterention!
R E 2 ? % > # & ? N
CARPIO, J.&
#his resoles the )otions for reconsi$eration of the 2< -une 2B11 .ecision file$ by @1A the Philippine 2toc0 E5chan'eTs
@P2EA Presi$ent,
1
@2A Manuel =! Pan'ilinan @Pan'ilinanA,
2
@DA Napoleon %! Na+areno @Na+areno A,
D
an$ @ 6A the 2ecurities
an$ E5chan'e Co))ission @2ECA
6
@collectiely, )oants A!
#he ?ffice of the 2olicitor 3eneral @?23A initially file$ a )otion for reconsi$eration on behalfofthe 2EC,
C
assailin' the 2<
-une 2B11 .ecision! 1o(eer, it subse,uently file$ a Consoli$ate$ Co))ent on behalf of the 2tate,
;
$eclarin' e5pressly
that it a'rees (ith the CourtTs $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution! .urin' the ?ral
Ar'u)ents on 2; -une 2B12, the ?23 reiterate$ its position consistent (ith the CourtTs 2< -une 2B11 .ecision!
/e $eny the )otions for reconsi$eration!
'.$arreaching implications of the legal issue justifytreatment of petition for declaratory relief as one for
mandamus.
As (e e)phatically state$ in the 2< -une 2B11 .ecision, the interpretation of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of
the Constitution has far*reachin' i)plications to the national econo)y! &n fact, a resolution of this issue (ill $eter)ine
(hether Filipinos are )asters, or secon$*class citi+ens, in their o(n country! /hat is at sta0e here is (hether Filipinos or
forei'ners (ill hae effective control of the Philippine national econo)y! &n$ee$, if eer there is a le'al issue that has
far*reachin' i)plications to the entire nation, an$ to future 'enerations of Filipinos, it is the threshol$ le'al issue
presente$ in this case!
Contrary to Pan'ilinanGs narro( ie(, the serious econo)ic conse,uences resultin' in the interpretation of the ter)
ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution un$oubte$ly $e)an$ an i))e$iate a$4u$ication of this issue! S+7$8)
$/&, &,# 1"-"#-,+%2 +7$8+-&+o%! o1 &,+! +!!/# </!&+1) &,# &"#&7#%& o1 &,# $#&+&+o% ! o%# 1o" 7%'7/!.
7
&n Lu;on 6te)edorin* Corp% )% !nti/Dummy .oard,
<
the Court $ee)e$ it (ise an$ e5pe$ient to resole the case althou'h
the petition for $eclaratory relief coul$ be outri'htly $is)isse$ for bein' proce$urally $efectie! #here, appellant
a$)itte$ly ha$ alrea$y co))itte$ a breach of the Public 2erice Act in relation to the Anti*.u))y %a( since it ha$ been
e)ployin' non* A)erican aliens lon' before the $ecision in a prior si)ilar case! 1o(eer, the )ain issue in Lu;on
6te)edorin* (as of transcen$ental i)portance, inolin' the e5ercise or en4oy)ent of ri'hts, franchises, priile'es,
properties an$ businesses (hich only Filipinos an$ ,ualifie$ corporations coul$ e5ercise or en4oy un$er the Constitution
an$ the statutes! Moreoer, the sa)e issue coul$ be raise$ by appellant in an appropriate action! #hus, in Lu;on
6te)edorin* the Court $ee)e$ it necessary to finally $ispose of the case for the 'ui$ance of all concerne$, $espite the
apparent proce$ural fla( in the petition!
#he circu)stances surroun$in' the present case, such as the suppose$ proce$ural $efect of the petition an$ the piotal
le'al issue inole$, rese)ble those in Lu;on 6te)edorin*% Conse,uently, in the interest of substantial 4ustice an$ faithful
a$herence to the Constitution, (e opte$ to resole this case for the 'ui$ance of the public an$ all concerne$ parties!
''.(o change of any longstanding rule)thus, no redefinition of the term *capital.*
Moants conten$ that the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution has lon' been settle$ an$ $efine$ to
refer to the total outstan$in' shares of stoc0, (hether otin' or non*otin'! &n fact, )oants clai) that the 2EC, (hich is
the a$)inistratie a'ency tas0e$ to enforce the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens in the
Constitution an$ arious statutes, has consistently a$opte$ this particular $efinition in its nu)erous opinions! Moants
point out that (ith the 2< -une 2B11 .ecision, the Court in effect intro$uce$ a Sne(S $efinition or S)i$strea) re$efinitionS
9
of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution!
#his is e're'ious error!
For )ore than 7C years since the 19DC Constitution, the Court has not interprete$ or $efine$ the ter) ScapitalS foun$ in
arious econo)ic proisions of the 19DC, 197D an$ 19<7 Constitutions! #here has neer been a 4u$icial prece$ent
interpretin' the ter) ScapitalS in the 19DC, 197D an$ 19<7 Constitutions, until no(! 1ence, it is patently (ron' an$ utterly
baseless to clai) that the Court in $efinin' the ter) ScapitalS in its 2< -une 2B11 .ecision )o$ifie$, reerse$, or set asi$e
the purporte$ lon'*stan$in' $efinition of the ter) Scapital,S (hich suppose$ly refers to the total outstan$in' shares of
stoc0, (hether otin' or non*otin'! #o repeat, until the present case there has neer been a Court rulin' cate'orically
56
$efinin' the ter) ScapitalS foun$ in the arious econo)ic proisions of the 19DC, 197D an$ 19<7 Philippine Constitutions!
#he opinions of the 2EC, as (ell as of the .epart)ent of -ustice @.?-A, on the $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS as referrin'
to both otin' an$ non*otin' shares @co)bine$ total of co))on an$ preferre$ sharesA are, in the first place, conflictin'
an$ inconsistent! #here is no basis (hatsoeer to the clai) that the 2EC an$ the .?- hae consistently an$ unifor)ly
a$opte$ a $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS contrary to the $efinition that this Court a$opte$ in its 2< -une 2B11 .ecision!
&n .?- ?pinion No! 1DB, s! 19<C,
1B
$ate$ 7 ?ctober 19<C, the scope of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 9, Article I&= of the
197D Constitution (as raise$, that is, (hether the ter) ScapitalS inclu$es Sboth preferre$ an$ co))on stoc0s!S #he issue
(as raise$ in relation to a stoc0*s(ap transaction bet(een a Filipino an$ a -apanese corporation, both stoc0hol$ers of a
$o)estic corporation that o(ne$ lan$s in the Philippines! #hen Minister of -ustice Estelito P! Men$o+a rule$ that the
resultin' o(nership structure of the corporation (oul$ be /%-o%!&+&/&+o%8 because ;BE of the otin' stoc0 (oul$ be
o(ne$ by -apanese (hile Filipinos (oul$ o(n only 6BE of the otin' stoc0, althou'h (hen the non*otin' stoc0 is
a$$e$, Filipinos (oul$ o(n ;BE of the co)bine$ otin' an$ non*otin' stoc0! T,+! o;%#"!,+$ !&"/-&/"# +! "#7"A(8)
!+7+8" &o &,# -/""#%& o;%#"!,+$ !&"/-&/"# o1 PLDT! Minister Men$o+a rule$7
5 5 5 5
#hus, the Filipino 'roup still o(ns si5ty @;BEA of the entire subscribe$ capital stoc0 @co))on an$ preferre$A (hile the
-apanese inestors control si5ty percent @;BEA of the co))on @otin'A shares!
I& +! )o/" $o!+&+o% &,& . . . !+%-# S#-&+o% 9, A"&+-8# HIV o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% /!#! &,# ;o"' N-$+&8,N ;,+-, +!
-o%!&"/#' N&o +%-8/'# (o&, $"#1#""#' %' -o77o% !,"#!N %' N&,& ;,#"# &,# 8; 'o#! %o& '+!&+%2/+!,, &,#
-o/"&! !,88 %o& '+!&+%2/+!,.N
5 5 5 5
&n li'ht of the fore'oin' 4urispru$ence, +& +! 7) o$+%+o% &,& &,# !&o-A-!;$ &"%!-&+o% +% :/#!&+o% 7) %o& (#
-o%!&+&/&+o%88) /$,#8'! /hile it )ay be or$inary corporate practice to classify corporate shares into co))on otin'
shares an$ preferre$ non*otin' shares, any arran'e)ent (hich atte)pts to $efeat the constitutional purpose shoul$ be
esche(e$! T,/!, &,# "#!/8&%& #:/+&) ""%2#7#%& ;,+-, ;o/8' $8-# o;%#"!,+$ o1 4@T
11
o1 &,# -o77o% D0o&+%2E
!,"#! +% &,# J$%#!# 2"o/$, ;,+8# "#&+%+%2 4@T o1 &,# &o&8 $#"-#%&2# o1 -o77o% %' $"#1#""#' !,"#! +%
F+8+$+%o ,%'! ;o/8' 7o/%& &o -+"-/70#%&+o% o1 &,# $"+%-+$8# o1 -o%&"o8 () P,+8+$$+%# !&o-A,o8'#"! &,& +!
+7$8+-+& +% &,# 4@T P,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8+&) "#:/+"#7#%& +% &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%. @E)phasis supplie$A
&n short, Minister Men$o+a -&#2o"+-88) "#<#-&#' the theory that the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 9, Article I&= of the 197D
Constitution inclu$es Sboth preferre$ an$ co))on stoc0sS treate$ as the sa)e class of shares re'ar$less of $ifferences
in otin' ri'hts an$ priile'es! Minister Men$o+a stresse$ that the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino
citi+ens in the Constitution is not co)plie$ (ith unless the corporation S!&+!1+#! &,# -"+&#"+o% o1 (#%#1+-+8 o;%#"!,+$S
an$ that in applyin' the sa)e S&,# $"+7o"'+8 -o%!+'#"&+o% +! !+&/! o1 -o%&"o8!S
?n the other han$, in ?pinion No! 2D*1B $ate$ 1< Au'ust 2B1B, a$$resse$ to Castillo %a)an #an Pantaleon V 2an -ose,
then 2EC 3eneral Counsel =ernette 3! >)ali*Paco applie$ the Vo&+%2 Co%&"o8 T#!&, that is, usin' only the otin' stoc0
to $eter)ine (hether a corporation is a Philippine national! #he ?pinion states7
Applyin' the fore'oin', $"&+-/8"8) &,# Co%&"o8 T#!&, M%RC is $ee)e$ as a Philippine national because7 @1A si5ty
percent @;BEA of its o/&!&%'+%2 -$+&8 !&o-A entitled to vote is o(ne$ by a Philippine national, the #rustee" an$ @2A at
least si5ty percent @;BEA of the ERF (ill accrue to the benefit of Philippine nationals! S&+88 $/"!/%& &o &,# Co%&"o8 T#!&,
MLRC9! +%0#!&7#%& +% 4@T o1 BFDC9! o/&!&%'+%2 -$+&8 !&o-A entitled to vote !,88 (# '##7#' ! o1 P,+8+$$+%#
%&+o%8+&), &,#"#() :/8+1)+%2 BFDC &o o;% $"+0&# 8%'!
Further, un$er, an$ for purposes of, the F&A, M%RC an$ BF.C are both Philippine nationals, consi$erin' that7 @1A si5ty
percent @;BEA of their respectie o/&!&%'+%2 -$+&8 !&o-A entitled to vote is o(ne$ by a Philippine national @i!e!, by
the #rustee, in the case of M%RC" an$ by M%RC, in the case of BF.CA" an$ @2A at least ;BE of their respectie boar$ of
$irectors are Filipino citi+ens! @Bol$facin' an$ italici+ation supplie$A
Clearly, these .?- an$ 2EC opinions are co)patible (ith the CourtGs interpretation of the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent
in faor of Filipino citi+ens )an$ate$ by the Constitution for certain econo)ic actiities! At the sa)e ti)e, these opinions
hi'hli'ht the conflictin', contra$ictory, an$ inconsistent positions ta0en by the .?- an$ the 2EC on the $efinition of the
ter) ScapitalS foun$ in the econo)ic proisions of the Constitution!
#he opinions issue$ by 2EC le'al officers $o not hae the force an$ effect of 2EC rules an$ re'ulations because only the
2EC en banc can a$opt rules an$ re'ulations! As e5pressly proi$e$ in 2ection 6!; of the 2ecurities Re'ulation Co$e,
12
the 2EC cannot $ele'ate to any of its in$ii$ual Co))issioner or staff the po(er to a$opt any rule or re'ulation! Further,
/%'#" S#-&+o% 3.1 o1 &,# !7# Co'#, +& +! the S#+ as a collegial body, %' %o& %) o1 +&! 8#28 o11+-#"!, &,& +!
#7$o;#"#' &o +!!/# opinions %' $$"o0# "/8#! %' "#2/8&+o%!. #hus7
6!;! #he Co))ission )ay, for purposes of efficiency, $ele'ate any of its functions to any $epart)ent or office of the
Co))ission, an in$ii$ual Co))issioner or staff )e)ber of the Co))ission #.-#$& its reie( or appellate authority an$
+&! $o;#" &o 'o$&, 8&#" %' !/$$8#7#%& %) "/8# o" "#2/8&+o%.
#he Co))ission )ay reie( upon its o(n initiatie or upon the petition of any intereste$ party any action of any
$epart)ent or office, in$ii$ual Co))issioner, or staff )e)ber of the Co))ission!
57
2EC! C! Po&ers and Functions of the Commission%/ C!1! #he Co))ission shall act (ith transparency an$ shall hae the
po(ers an$ functions proi$e$ by this Co$e, Presi$ential .ecree No! 9B2*A, the Corporation Co$e, the &nest)ent
1ouses %a(, the Financin' Co)pany Act an$ other e5istin' la(s! Pursuant thereto the Co))ission shall hae, a)on'
others, the follo(in' po(ers an$ functions7
5 5 5 5
D2E P"#$"#, $$"o0#, 7#%' o" "#$#8 "/8#!, "#2/8&+o%! %' o"'#"!, %' +!!/# opinions %' $"o0+'# 2/+'%-#
o% %' !/$#"0+!# -o7$8+%-# ;+&, !/-, "/8#!, "#2/8&+o%! %' o"'#"!G
5 5 5 5 @E)phasis supplie$A
#hus, the act of the in$ii$ual Co))issioners or le'al officers of the 2EC in issuin' opinions that hae the effect of 2EC
rules or re'ulations is ultra )ires! >n$er 2ections 6!; an$ C!1@'A of the Co$e, only the 2EC en banc can Sissue opinionsS
that hae the force an$ effect of rules or re'ulations! 2ection 6!; of the Co$e bars the 2EC en banc fro) $ele'atin' to
any in$ii$ual Co))issioner or staff the po(er to a$opt rules or re'ulations! I% !,o"&, %) o$+%+o% o1 +%'+0+'/8
Co77+!!+o%#"! o" SEC 8#28 o11+-#"! 'o#! %o& -o%!&+&/&# "/8# o" "#2/8&+o% o1 &,# SEC!
#he 2EC a$)its $urin' the ?ral Ar'u)ents that only the 2EC en banc, an$ not any of its in$ii$ual co))issioners or
le'al staff, is e)po(ere$ to issue opinions (hich hae the sa)e bin$in' effect as 2EC rules an$ re'ulations, thus7
->2#&CE CARP&?7
2o, un$er the la(, it is the Co))ission En Banc that can issue an
2EC ?pinion, correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
1D
#hatGs correct, Nour 1onor!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
Can the Co))ission En Banc $ele'ate this function to an 2EC officerK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Nes, Nour 1onor, (e hae $ele'ate$ it to the 3eneral Counsel!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
&t can be $ele'ate$! /hat cannot be $ele'ate$ by the Co))ission En Banc to a co))issioner or an in$ii$ual e)ployee
of the Co))issionK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Noel opinions that 9hae: to be $eci$e$ by the En Banc!!!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
/hat cannot be $ele'ate$, a)on' others, is the po(er to a$opt or a)en$ rules an$ re'ulations, correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
#hatGs correct, Nour 1onor!
JUSTICE CARPIO6
So, )o/ -o7(+%# &,# &;o D2E, &,# SEC o11+-#", +1 '#8#2&#' &,& $o;#", -% +!!/# % o$+%+o% (/& &,& o$+%+o% 'o#!
%o& -o%!&+&/&# "/8# o" "#2/8&+o%, -o""#-&O
COMMISSIONER GAITE6
Co""#-&, Yo/" Ho%o".
JUSTICE CARPIO6
So, 88 o1 &,#!# o$+%+o%! &,& )o/ 7#%&+o%#' &,#) "# %o& "/8#! %' "#2/8&+o%!, -o""#-&O
58
COMMISSIONER GAITE6
T,#) "# %o& "/8#! %' "#2/8&+o%!.
->2#&CE CARP&?7
&f they are not rules an$ re'ulations, they apply only to that particular situation an$ (ill not constitute a prece$ent,
correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Nes, Nour 1onor!
16
@E)phasis supplie$A
2i'nificantly, the 2EC en banc, (hich is the colle'ial bo$y statutorily e)po(ere$ to issue rules an$ opinions on behalf of
the 2EC, has a$opte$ een the 3ran$father Rule in $eter)inin' co)pliance (ith the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in
faor of Filipino citi+ens )an$ate$ by the Constitution for certain econo)ic actiities! #his preailin' 2EC rulin', (hich
the 2EC correctly a$opte$ to th(art any circu)ention of the re,uire$ Filipino So;%#"!,+$ %' -o%&"o8,S is lai$ $o(n in
the 2C March 2B1B 2EC en banc rulin' in edmont Consolidated Mines, Corp% )% Mc!rthur Minin*, ,nc%, et al%,
1C
to (it7
#he ao(e$ purpose of the Constitution is to place in the han$s of Filipinos the e5ploitation of our natural resources!
N#-#!!"+8), &,#"#1o"#, &,# R/8# +%&#"$"#&+%2 &,# -o%!&+&/&+o%8 $"o0+!+o% !,o/8' %o& '+7+%+!, &,& "+2,& &,"o/2,
&,# 8#28 1+-&+o% o1 -o"$o"&# o;%#"!,+$ %' -o%&"o8! But the constitutional proision, as interprete$ an$ practice$ ia
the 19;7 2EC Rules, has faore$ forei'ners contrary to the co))an$ of the Constitution! ,ence, the -randfather %ule
must be applied to accurately determine the actual participation, both direct and indirect, of foreigners in a
corporation engaged in a nationali.ed activity or business%
Co)pliance (ith the constitutional li)itation@sA on en'a'in' in nationali+e$ actiities )ust be $eter)ine$ by ascertainin'
if ;BE of the inestin' corporationGs outstan$in' capital stoc0 is o(ne$ by SFilipino citi+ensS, or as interprete$, by natural
or in$ii$ual Filipino citi+ens! &f such inestin' corporation is in turn o(ne$ to so)e e5tent by another inestin'
corporation, the sa)e process )ust be obsere$! ?ne )ust not stop until the citi+enships of the in$ii$ual or natural
stoc0hol$ers of layer after layer of inestin' corporations hae been establishe$, the ery essence of the 3ran$father
Rule!
L!&8), +& ;! &,# +%&#%& o1 &,# 1"7#"! o1 &,# 195> Co%!&+&/&+o% &o 'o$& &,# G"%'1&,#" R/8#. &n one of the
$iscussions on (hat is no( Article I&& of the present Constitution, the fra)ers )a$e the follo(in' e5chan'e7
MR! N?%%E.?! &n 2ections D, 9 an$ 1C, the Co))ittee state$ local or Filipino e,uity an$ forei'n e,uity" na)ely, ;B*6B
in 2ection D, ;B*6B in 2ection 9, an$ 2HD*1HD in 2ection 1C!
MR! =&%%E3A2! #hat is ri'ht!
MR! N?%%E.?! &n teachin' la(, (e are al(ays face$ (ith the ,uestion7 J/here $o (e base the e,uity re,uire)ent, is it
on the authori+e$ capital stoc0, on the subscribe$ capital stoc0, or on the pai$*up capital stoc0 of a corporationGK /ill the
Co))ittee please enli'hten )e on thisK
MR! =&%%E3A2! /e hae 4ust ha$ a lon' $iscussion (ith the )e)bers of the tea) fro) the >P %a( Center (ho
proi$e$ us a $raft! #he phrase that is containe$ here (hich (e a$opte$ fro) the >P $raft is J;B percent of otin' stoc0!G
MR! N?%%E.?! #hat )ust be base$ on the subscribe$ capital stoc0, because unless $eclare$ $elin,uent, unpai$ capital
stoc0 shall be entitle$ to ote!
MR! =&%%E3A2! #hat is ri'ht!
MR! N?%%E.?! #han0 you! /ith respect to an inest)ent by one corporation in another corporation, say, a corporation
(ith ;B*6B percent e,uity inests in another corporation (hich is per)itte$ by the Corporation Co$e, $oes the Co))ittee
a$opt the 'ran$father ruleK
MR! =&%%E3A2! Nes, that is the un$erstan$in' of the Co))ittee!
MR! N?%%E.?! #herefore, (e nee$ a$$itional Filipino capitalK
MR! =&%%E3A2! Nes! @Bol$facin' an$ un$erscorin' supplie$" italici+ation in the ori'inalA
#his 2EC en banc rulin' confor)s to our 2< -une 2B11 .ecision that the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino
citi+ens in the Constitution to en'a'e in certain econo)ic actiities applies not only to otin' control of the corporation,
but 8!o &o &,# (#%#1+-+8 o;%#"!,+$ o1 &,# -o"$o"&+o%! #hus, in our 2< -une 2B11 .ecision (e state$7
Mere le'al title is insufficient to )eet the ;B percent Filipinoo(ne$ ScapitalS re,uire$ in the Constitution! F/88 (#%#1+-+8
o;%#"!,+$ o1 4@ $#"-#%& o1 &,# o/&!&%'+%2 -$+&8 !&o-A, -o/$8#' ;+&, 4@ $#"-#%& o1 &,# 0o&+%2 "+2,&!, +!
"#:/+"#'! #he le'al an$ beneficial o(nership of ;B percent of the outstan$in' capital stoc0 )ust rest in the han$s of
Filipino nationals in accor$ance (ith the constitutional )an$ate! ?ther(ise, the corporation is Sconsi$ere$ as non*
Philippine national9s:!S @E)phasis supplie$A
59
Both the =otin' Control #est an$ the Beneficial ?(nership #est )ust be applie$ to $eter)ine (hether a corporation is a
SPhilippine national!S
#he interpretation by le'al officers of the 2EC of the ter) Scapital,S e)bo$ie$ in arious opinions (hich respon$ents
relie$ upon, is )erely preli)inary an$ an opinion only of such officers! #o repeat, any such opinion $oes not constitute an
2EC rule or re'ulation! &n fact, )any of these opinions contain a $isclai)er (hich e5pressly states7 S5 5 5 &,# 1o"#2o+%2
o$+%+o% is base$ solely on facts $isclose$ in your ,uery an$ releant only to the particular issue raise$ therein an$ !,88
%o& (# /!#' +% &,# %&/"# o1 !&%'+%2 "/8# (+%'+%2 /$o% &,# Co77+!!+o% +% o&,#" -!#! ;,#&,#" o1 !+7+8" o"
'+!!+7+8" -+"-/7!&%-#!!S
1;
#hus, the opinions clearly )a0e a ca)eat that they $o not constitute bin$in' prece$ents on
any one, not een on the 2EC itself!
%i0e(ise, the opinions of the 2EC en banc, as (ell as of the .?-, interpretin' the la( are neither conclusie nor
controllin' an$ thus, $o not bin$ the Court! &t is hornboo0 $octrine that any interpretation of the la( that a$)inistratie or
,uasi*4u$icial a'encies )a0e is only preli)inary, neer conclusie on the Court! #he po(er to )a0e a final interpretation
of the la(, in this case the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution, lies (ith this Court, not (ith
any other 'oern)ent entity!
&n his )otion for reconsi$eration, the P2E Presi$ent cites the cases of National Telecommunications Commission )%
Court of !ppeals
17
an$ Philippine Lon* Distance Telephone Company )% National Telecommunications Commission
1<
in
ar'uin' that the Court has alrea$y $efine$ the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution!
19
#he P2E Presi$ent is 'rossly )ista0en! &n both cases of National Telecommunications )% Court of !ppeals
2B
an$
Philippine Lon* Distance Telephone Company )% National Telecommunications Commission,
21
the Court $i$ not $efine
the ter) ScapitalS as foun$ in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution! I% 1-&, &,#!# &;o -!#! %#0#" 7#%&+o%#',
'+!-/!!#' o" -+&#' S#-&+o% 11, A"&+-8# HII o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% o" %) o1 +&! #-o%o7+- $"o0+!+o%!, %' &,/! -%%o&
!#"0# ! $"#-#'#%& +% &,# +%&#"$"#&&+o% o1 S#-&+o% 11, A"&+-8# HII o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%! #hese t(o cases $ealt solely
(ith the $eter)ination of the correct re'ulatory fees un$er 2ection 6B@eA an$ @fA of the Public 2erice Act, to (it7
@eA For annual rei)burse)ent of the e5penses incurre$ by the Co))ission in the superision of other public serices
an$Hor in the re'ulation or fi5in' of their rates, t(enty centaos for each one hun$re$ pesos or fraction thereof, of the
-$+&8 !&o-A !/(!-"+(#' o" $+', or if no shares hae been issue$, of the capital ineste$, or of the property an$
e,uip)ent (hicheer is hi'her!
@fA For the issue or increase of -$+&8 !&o-A, t(enty centaos for each one hun$re$ pesos or fraction thereof, of the
increase$ capital! @E)phasis supplie$A
#he CourtGs interpretation in these t(o cases of the ter)s Scapital stoc0 subscribe$ or pai$,S Scapital stoc0S an$ ScapitalS
$oes not pertain to, an$ cannot control, the $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS as use$ in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the
Constitution, or any of the econo)ic proisions of the Constitution (here the ter) ScapitalS is foun$! #he $efinition of the
ter) ScapitalS foun$ in the Constitution )ust not be ta0en out of conte5t! A careful rea$in' of these t(o cases reeals that
the ter)s Scapital stoc0 subscribe$ or pai$,S Scapital stoc0S an$ ScapitalS (ere $efine$ solely to $eter)ine the basis for
co)putin' the superision an$ re'ulation fees un$er 2ection 6B@eA an$ @fA of the Public 2erice Act!
'''.$ilipini.ation of /ublic 0tilities
#he Prea)ble of the 19<7 Constitution, as the prolo'ue of the supre)e la( of the lan$, e)bo$ies the i$eals that the
Constitution inten$s to achiee!
22
#he Prea)ble rea$s7
/e, the soerei'n Filipino people, i)plorin' the ai$ of Al)i'hty 3o$, in or$er to buil$ a 4ust an$ hu)ane society, an$
establish a 3oern)ent that shall e)bo$y our i$eals an$ aspirations, pro)ote the co))on 'oo$, -o%!#"0# %'
'#0#8o$ o/" $&"+7o%), an$ secure to ourseles an$ our posterity, the blessin's of in$epen$ence an$ $e)ocracy un$er
the rule of la( an$ a re'i)e of truth, 4ustice, free$o), loe, e,uality, an$ peace, $o or$ain an$ pro)ul'ate this
Constitution! @E)phasis supplie$A
Consistent (ith these i$eals, 2ection 19, Article && of the 19<7 Constitution $eclares as 2tate policy the $eelop)ent of a
national econo)y Seffectively controlledS by Filipinos7
2ection 19! #he 2tate shall $eelop a self*reliant an$ in$epen$ent national econo)y effectively controlled by $ilipinos!
Fortifyin' the 2tate policy of a Filipino*controlle$ econo)y, the Constitution $ecrees7
2ection 1B! #he Con'ress shall, upon reco))en$ation of the econo)ic an$ plannin' a'ency, (hen the national interest
$ictates, resere to citi+ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least si5ty per centum of (hose capital
is o(ne$ by such citi+ens, or such hi'her percenta'e as Con'ress )ay prescribe, certain areas of inest)ents! #he
Con'ress shall enact )easures that (ill encoura'e the for)ation an$ operation of enterprises (hose capital is (holly
o(ne$ by Filipinos!
&n the 'rant of ri'hts, priile'es, an$ concessions coerin' the national econo)y an$ patri)ony, the 2tate shall 'ie
preference to ,ualifie$ Filipinos!
#he 2tate shall re'ulate an$ e5ercise authority oer forei'n inest)ents (ithin its national 4uris$iction an$ in accor$ance
(ith its national 'oals an$ priorities!
2D
60
>n$er 2ection 1B, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution, Con'ress )ay Sresere to citi+ens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least si5ty per centum of (hose capital is o(ne$ by such citi+ens, or such hi'her
percenta'e as Con'ress )ay prescribe, certain areas of inest)ents!S #hus, in nu)erous la(s Con'ress has resere$
certain areas of inest)ents to Filipino citi+ens or to corporations at least si5ty percent of the S-$+&8S of (hich is o(ne$
by Filipino citi+ens! 2o)e of these la(s are7 @1A Re'ulation of A(ar$ of 3oern)ent Contracts or R!A! No! C1<D" @2A
Philippine &nentors &ncenties Act or R!A! No! D<CB" @DA Ma'na Carta for Micro, 2)all an$ Me$iu) Enterprises or R!A!
No! ;977" @6A Philippine ?erseas 2hippin' .eelop)ent Act or R!A! No! 7671" @CA .o)estic 2hippin' .eelop)ent Act
of 2BB6 or R!A! No! 929C" @;A Philippine #echnolo'y #ransfer Act of 2BB9 or R!A! No! 1BBCC" an$ @7A 2hip Mort'a'e
.ecree or P!.! No! 1C21!
/ith respect to public utilities, the 19<7 Constitution specifically or$ains7
2ection 11! No 1"%-,+!#, -#"&+1+-&#, o" %) o&,#" 1o"7 o1 /&,o"+L&+o% 1o" &,# o$#"&+o% o1 $/(8+- /&+8+&) !,88 (#
2"%&#' #.-#$& &o -+&+L#%! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! o" &o -o"$o"&+o%! o" !!o-+&+o%! o"2%+L#' /%'#" &,# 8;! o1 &,#
P,+8+$$+%#!, & 8#!& !+.&) per centum o1 ;,o!# -$+&8 +! o;%#' () !/-, -+&+L#%!G nor shall such franchise,
certificate, or authori+ation be e5clusie in character or for a lon'er perio$ than fifty years! Neither shall any such
franchise or ri'ht be 'rante$ e5cept un$er the con$ition that it shall be sub4ect to a)en$)ent, alteration, or repeal by the
Con'ress (hen the co))on 'oo$ so re,uires! #he 2tate shall encoura'e e,uity participation in public utilities by the
'eneral public! #he participation of forei'n inestors in the 'oernin' bo$y of any public utility enterprise shall be li)ite$
to their proportionate share in its capital, an$ all the e5ecutie an$ )ana'in' officers of such corporation or association
)ust be citi+ens of the Philippines! @E)phasis supplie$A
#his proision, (hich )an$ates the Filipini+ation of public utilities, re,uires that any for) of authori+ation for the
operation of public utilities shall be 'rante$ only to Sciti+ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations or'ani+e$
un$er the la(s of the Philippines at least si5ty per centu) of (hose capital is o(ne$ by such citi+ens!S ST,# $"o0+!+o% +!
I% #.$"#!!J "#-o2%+&+o% o1 &,# !#%!+&+0# %' 0+&8 $o!+&+o% o1 $/(8+- /&+8+&+#! (o&, +% &,# %&+o%8 #-o%o7) %'
1o" %&+o%8 !#-/"+&).N
26
#he 19<7 Constitution reseres the o(nership an$ operation of public utilities e5clusiely to @1A Filipino citi+ens, or @2A
corporations or associations at least ;B percent of (hose ScapitalS is o(ne$ by Filipino citi+ens! 1ence, in the case of
in$ii$uals, only Filipino citi+ens can ali$ly o(n an$ operate a public utility! &n the case of corporations or associations, at
least ;B percent of their ScapitalS )ust be o(ne$ by Filipino citi+ens! I% o&,#" ;o"'!, /%'#" S#-&+o% 11, A"&+-8# HII o1
&,# 195> Co%!&+&/&+o%, &o o;% %' o$#"&# $/(8+- /&+8+&) -o"$o"&+o%9! -$+&8 7/!& & 8#!& (# 4@ $#"-#%&
o;%#' () /hilippine nationals.
'1.!efinition of */hilippine (ational*
Pursuant to the e5press )an$ate of 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution, Con'ress enacte$ Republic Act No!
7B62 or the Forei*n ,n)estments !ct of 4GG4 @F&AA, as a)en$e$, (hich $efine$ a SP,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8S as follo(s7
2EC! D! .efinitions! * As use$ in this Act7
a! #he ter) SPhilippine nationalD shall )ean a citi+en of the Philippines" or a $o)estic partnership or association (holly
o(ne$ by citi+ens of the Philippines" or -o"$o"&+o% o"2%+L#' /%'#" &,# 8;! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! o1 ;,+-, & 8#!&
!+.&) $#"-#%& D4@TE o1 &,# -$+&8 !&o-A o/&!&%'+%2 and entitled to vote +! o;%#' %' ,#8' () -+&+L#%! o1 &,#
P,+8+$$+%#!" or a corporation or'ani+e$ abroa$ an$ re'istere$ as $oin' business in the Philippines un$er the
Corporation Co$e of (hich one hun$re$ percent @1BBEA of the capital stoc0 outstan$in' an$ entitle$ to ote is (holly
o(ne$ by Filipinos or a trustee of fun$s for pension or other e)ployee retire)ent or separation benefits, (here the
trustee is a Philippine national an$ at least si5ty percent @;BEA of the fun$ (ill accrue to the benefit of Philippine
nationals7 Pro)ided, #hat (here a corporation an$ its non*Filipino stoc0hol$ers o(n stoc0s in a 2ecurities an$ E5chan'e
Co))ission @2ECA re'istere$ enterprise, at least si5ty percent @;BEA of the capital stoc0 outstan$in' an$ entitle$ to ote
of each of both corporations )ust be o(ne$ an$ hel$ by citi+ens of the Philippines an$ at least si5ty percent @;BEA of the
)e)bers of the Boar$ of .irectors of each of both corporations )ust be citi+ens of the Philippines, in or$er that the
corporation, shall be consi$ere$ a SPhilippine national!S @Bol$facin', italici+ation an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
#hus, the F&A clearly an$ une,uiocally $efines a SP,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8S as a Philippine citi+en, or a $o)estic corporation
at least S4@T o1 &,# -$+&8 !&o-A o/&!&%'+%2 %' entitled to voteS is o(ne$ by Philippine citi+ens!
#he $efinition of a SPhilippine nationalS in the F&A reiterate$ the )eanin' of such ter) as proi$e$ in its pre$ecessor
statute, E5ecutie ?r$er No! 22; or the "mnibus ,n)estments Code of 4G2H,
2C
(hich (as issue$ by then Presi$ent
Cora+on C! A,uino! Article 1C of this Co$e states7
Article 1C! SPhilippine nationalS shall )ean a citi+en of the Philippines or a $iplo)atic partnership or association (holly*
o(ne$ by citi+ens of the Philippines" or -o"$o"&+o% o"2%+L#' /%'#" &,# 8;! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! o1 ;,+-, & 8#!&
!+.&) $#" -#%& D4@TE o1 &,# -$+&8 !&o-A o/&!&%'+%2 and entitled to vote +! o;%#' %' ,#8' () -+&+L#%! o1 &,#
P,+8+$$+%#!" or a trustee of fun$s for pension or other e)ployee retire)ent or separation benefits, (here the trustee is a
Philippine national an$ at least si5ty per cent @;BEA of the fun$ (ill accrue to the benefit of Philippine nationals7 Proi$e$,
#hat (here a corporation an$ its non*Filipino stoc0hol$ers o(n stoc0 in a re'istere$ enterprise, at least si5ty per cent
@;BEA of the capital stoc0 outstan$in' an$ entitle$ to ote of both corporations )ust be o(ne$ an$ hel$ by the citi+ens of
the Philippines an$ at least si5ty per cent @;BEA of the )e)bers of the Boar$ of .irectors of both corporations )ust be
citi+ens of the Philippines in or$er that the corporation shall be consi$ere$ a Philippine national! @Bol$facin', italici+ation
an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
>n$er Article 6<@DA
2;
of the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<7, Sno corporation 5 5 5 (hich is not a JPhilippine nationalG 5
5 5 shall $o business
61
5 5 5 in the Philippines 5 5 5 (ithout first securin' fro) the Boar$ of &nest)ents a (ritten certificate to the effect that
such business or econo)ic actiity 5 5 5 (oul$ %o& conflict (ith the Constitution or la(s of the Philippines!S
27
#hus, a
Snon*Philippine nationalS cannot o(n an$ operate a resere$ econo)ic actiity li0e a public utility! #his )eans, of course,
that only a SPhilippine nationalS can o(n an$ operate a public utility!
&n turn, the $efinition of a SPhilippine nationalS un$er Article 1C of the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<7 (as a
reiteration of the )eanin' of such ter) as proi$e$ in Article 16 of the "mnibus ,n)estments Code of 4G24,
2<
to (it7
Article 16! SPhilippine nationalS shall )ean a citi+en of the Philippines" or a $o)estic partnership or association (holly
o(ne$ by citi+ens of the Philippines" or -o"$o"&+o% o"2%+L#' /%'#" &,# 8;! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! o1 ;,+-, & 8#!&
!+.&) $#" -#%& D4@TE o1 &,# -$+&8 !&o-A o/&!&%'+%2 and entitled to vote +! o;%#' %' ,#8' () -+&+L#%! o1 &,#
P,+8+$$+%#!G or a trustee of fun$s for pension or other e)ployee retire)ent or separation benefits, (here the trustee is a
Philippine national an$ at least si5ty per cent @;BEA of the fun$ (ill accrue to the benefit of Philippine nationals7 Proi$e$,
#hat (here a corporation an$ its non*Filipino stoc0hol$ers o(n stoc0 in a re'istere$ enterprise, at least si5ty per cent
@;BEA of the capital stoc0 outstan$in' an$ entitle$ to ote of both corporations )ust be o(ne$ an$ hel$ by the citi+ens of
the Philippines an$ at least si5ty per cent @;BEA of the )e)bers of the Boar$ of .irectors of both corporations )ust be
citi+ens of the Philippines in or$er that the corporation shall be consi$ere$ a Philippine national! @Bol$facin', italici+ation
an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
>n$er Article ;9@DA of the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<1, Sno corporation 5 5 5 (hich is not a JPhilippine nationalG 5 5
5 shall $o business 5 5 5 in the Philippines 5 5 5 (ithout first securin' a (ritten certificate fro) the Boar$ of &nest)ents
to the effect that such business or econo)ic actiity 5 5 5 (oul$ %o& conflict (ith the Constitution or la(s of the
Philippines!S
29
#hus, a Snon*Philippine nationalS cannot o(n an$ operate a resere$ econo)ic actiity li0e a public utility!
A'ain, this )eans that only a SPhilippine nationalS can o(n an$ operate a public utility!
Prior to the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<1, Republic Act No! C1<;
DB
or the ,n)estment ,ncenti)es !ct, (hich too0
effect on 1; 2epte)ber 19;7, containe$ a si)ilar $efinition of a SPhilippine national,S to (it7
@fA SPhilippine NationalS shall )ean a citi+en of the Philippines" or a partnership or association (holly o(ne$ by citi+ens of
the Philippines" or -o"$o"&+o% o"2%+L#' /%'#" &,# 8;! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! o1 ;,+-, & 8#!& !+.&) $#" -#%& o1 &,#
-$+&8 !&o-A o/&!&%'+%2 and entitled to vote +! o;%#' %' ,#8' () -+&+L#%! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#!" or a trustee of
fun$s for pension or other e)ployee retire)ent or separation benefits, (here the trustee is a Philippine National an$ at
least si5ty per cent of the fun$ (ill accrue to the benefit of Philippine Nationals7 Proi$e$, #hat (here a corporation an$
its non*Filipino stoc0hol$ers o(n stoc0 in a re'istere$ enterprise, at least si5ty per cent of the capital stoc0 outstan$in'
an$ entitle$ to ote of both corporations )ust be o(ne$ an$ hel$ by the citi+ens of the Philippines an$ at least si5ty per
cent of the )e)bers of the Boar$ of .irectors of both corporations )ust be citi+ens of the Philippines in or$er that the
corporation shall be consi$ere$ a Philippine National! @Bol$facin', italici+ation an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
>n$er 2ection D of Republic Act No! C6CC or the Forei*n .usiness e*ulations !ct, (hich too0 effect on DB 2epte)ber
19;<, if the inest)ent in a $o)estic enterprise by non*Philippine nationals e5cee$s DBE of its outstan$in' capital stoc0,
such enterprise )ust obtain prior approal fro) the Boar$ of &nest)ents before acceptin' such inest)ent! 2uch
approal shall %o& be 'rante$ if the inest)ent S(oul$ conflict (ith e5istin' constitutional proisions an$ la(s re'ulatin'
the $e'ree of re,uire$ o(nership by Philippine nationals in the enterprise!S
D1
A Snon*Philippine nationalS cannot o(n an$
operate a resere$ econo)ic actiity li0e a public utility! A'ain, this )eans that only a SPhilippine nationalS can o(n an$
operate a public utility!
#he F&A, li2e all its predecessor statutes, clearly $efines a SP,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8S as a Filipino citi+en, or a 'o7#!&+-
-o"$o"&+o% N& 8#!& !+.&) $#"-#%& D4@TE o1 &,# -$+&8 !&o-A o/&!&%'+%2 and entitled to voteN is o(ne$ by Filipino
citi+ens! A $o)estic corporation is a SPhilippine nationalS only if at least ;BE of its voting stoc2 is o(ne$ by Filipino
citi+ens! #his $efinition of a SPhilippine nationalS is crucial in the present case because the F&A reiterates an$ clarifies
2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution, (hich li)its the o(nership an$ operation of public utilities to Filipino
citi+ens or to corporations or associations at least ;BE Filipino*o(ne$!
#he F&A is the basic la( 'oernin' forei'n inest)ents in the Philippines, irrespectie of the nature of business an$ area
of inest)ent! #he F&A spells out the proce$ures by (hich non*Philippine nationals can inest in the Philippines! A)on'
the 0ey features of this la( is the concept of a ne'atie list or the Forei'n &nest)ents Ne'atie %ist!
D2
2ection < of the
la( states7
2EC! <! List of 'nvestment Areas %eserved to /hilippine (ationals 9Forei*n ,n)estment Ne*ati)e List:% * #he Forei'n
&nest)ent Ne'atie %ist shall hae t(o
2
co)ponent lists7 ! an$ .7
a! List A !,88 #%/7#"&# &,# areas of activities reserved to /hilippine nationals by mandate of the +onstitution
%' !$#-+1+- 8;!.
b! List . shall contain the areas of actiities an$ enterprises re'ulate$ pursuant to la(7
1! (hich are $efense*relate$ actiities, re,uirin' prior clearance an$ authori+ation fro) the .epart)ent of National
.efense 9.N.: to en'a'e in such actiity, such as the )anufacture, repair, stora'e an$Hor $istribution of firear)s,
a))unition, lethal (eapons, )ilitary or$inance, e5plosies, pyrotechnics an$ si)ilar )aterials" unless such
)anufacturin' or repair actiity is specifically authori+e$, (ith a substantial e5port co)ponent, to a non*Philippine
national by the 2ecretary of National .efense" or
2! (hich hae i)plications on public health an$ )orals, such as the )anufacture an$ $istribution of $an'erous $ru's" all
for)s of 'a)blin'" ni'htclubs, bars, beer houses, $ance halls, sauna an$ stea) bathhouses an$ )assa'e clinics!
62
@Bol$facin', un$erscorin' an$ italici+ation supplie$A
2ection < of the F&A enu)erates the inest)ent areas Sresere$ to Philippine nationals!S Fo"#+2% I%0#!&7#%& N#2&+0#
L+!& A -o%!+!&! o1 Nareas of activities reserved to /hilippine nationals by mandate of the +onstitution and
specific laws,N ;,#"# 1o"#+2% #:/+&) $"&+-+$&+o% +% %) #%&#"$"+!# !,88 (# 8+7+&#' &o &,# 7.+7/7 $#"-#%&2#
#.$"#!!8) $"#!-"+(#' () &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% %' o&,#" !$#-+1+- 8;!. I% !,o"&, &o o;% %' o$#"&# $/(8+- /&+8+&) +%
&,# P,+8+$$+%#! o%# 7/!& (# NP,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8N ! '#1+%#' +% &,# FIA. T,# FIA +! (/%'%& %o&+-# &o 1o"#+2%
+%0#!&o"! &o ;,& #.&#%& &,#) -% +%0#!& +% $/(8+- /&+8+&+#! +% &,# P,+8+$$+%#!!
#o repeat, a)on' the areas of inest)ent coere$ by the Forei'n &nest)ent Ne'atie %ist A is the o(nership an$
operation of public utilities, (hich the Constitution e5pressly reseres to Filipino citi+ens an$ to corporations at least ;BE
o(ne$ by Filipino citi+ens! I% o&,#" ;o"'!, N#2&+0# L+!& A o1 &,# FIA "#!#"0#! &,# o;%#"!,+$ %' o$#"&+o% o1
$/(8+- /&+8+&+#! o%8) &o NP,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8!,N '#1+%#' +% S#-&+o% BDE o1 &,# FIA ! S@1A a citi+en of the Philippines" 5
5 5 or @DA -o"$o"&+o% o"2%+L#' /%'#" &,# 8;! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! o1 ;,+-, & 8#!& !+.&) $#"-#%& D4@TE o1 &,#
-$+&8 !&o-A o/&!&%'+%2 and entitled to vote +! o;%#' %' ,#8' () -+&+L#%! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#!" or @6A a corporation
or'ani+e$ abroa$ an$ re'istere$ as $oin' business in the Philippines un$er the Corporation Co$e of (hich one hun$re$
percent @1BBEA of the capital stoc0 outstan$in' an$ entitle$ to ote is (holly o(ne$ by Filipinos or a trustee of fun$s for
pension or other e)ployee retire)ent or separation benefits, (here the trustee is a Philippine national an$ at least si5ty
percent @;BEA of the fun$ (ill accrue to the benefit of Philippine nationals!S
Clearly, fro) the effectiity of the &nest)ent &ncenties Act of 19;7 to the a$option of the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of
19<1, to the enact)ent of the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<7, an$ to the passa'e of the present Forei'n
&nest)ents Act of 1991, or 1o" 7o"# &,% 1o/" '#-'#!, &,# !&&/&o") '#1+%+&+o% o1 &,# &#"7 NP,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8N
,! (##% /%+1o"7 %' -o%!+!&#%&6 +& 7#%! F+8+$+%o -+&+L#%, o" 'o7#!&+- -o"$o"&+o% & 8#!& 4@T o1 &,# voting
stoc2 +! o;%#' () F+8+$+%o!. L+A#;+!#, &,#!# !7# !&&/&#! ,0# /%+1o"78) %' -o%!+!&#%&8) "#:/+"#' &,& o%8)
NP,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8!N -o/8' o;% %' o$#"&# $/(8+- /&+8+&+#! +% &,# P,+8+$$+%#!. #he follo(in' e5chan'e $urin' the
?ral Ar'u)ents is reealin'7
->2#&CE CARP&?7
Counsel, & hae so)e ,uestions! Nou are a(are of the Forei'n &nest)ents Act of 1991, 5 5 5K An$ the F&A of 1991 too0
effect in 1991, correctK #hatGs oer t(enty @2BA years a'o, correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Correct, Nour 1onor!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
An$ 2ection < of the Forei'n &nest)ents Act of 1991 states that 9:only Philippine nationals can o(n an$ operate public
utilities9:, correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Nes, Nour 1onor!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
An$ the sa)e Forei'n &nest)ents Act of 1991 $efines a SPhilippine nationalS either as a citi+en of the Philippines, or if it
is a corporation at least si5ty percent @;BEA of the otin' stoc0 is o(ne$ by citi+ens of the Philippines, correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Correct, Nour 1onor!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
An$, you are also a(are that un$er the pre$ecessor la( of the Forei'n &nest)ents Act of 1991, the ?)nibus
&nest)ents Act of 19<7, the sa)e proisions apply7 5 5 5 only Philippine nationals can o(n an$ operate a public utility
an$ the Philippine national, if it is a corporation, 5 5 5 si5ty percent @;BEA of the capital stoc0 of that corporation )ust be
o(ne$ by citi+ens of the Philippines, correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Correct, Nour 1onor!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
An$ een prior to the ?)nibus &nest)ents Act of 19<7, un$er the ?)nibus &nest)ents Act of 19<1, the sa)e rules
apply7 5 5 5 only a Philippine national can o(n an$ operate a public utility an$ a Philippine national, if it is a corporation,
si5ty percent @;BEA of its 5 5 5 otin' stoc0, )ust be o(ne$ by citi+ens of the Philippines, correctK
63
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Correct, Nour 1onor!
->2#&CE CARP&?7
An$ een prior to that, un$er 9the:19;7 &nest)ents &ncenties Act an$ the Forei'n Co)pany Act of 19;<, the sa)e rules
applie$, correctK
C?MM&22&?NER 3A&#E7
Correct, Nour 1onor!
JUSTICE CARPIO6
So, 1o" &,# 8!& 1o/" D4E '#-'#!, . . ., &,# 8; ,! (##% 0#") -o%!+!&#%& U o%8) P,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8 -% o;% %'
o$#"&# $/(8+- /&+8+&), %' P,+8+$$+%# %&+o%8, +1 +& +! -o"$o"&+o%, . . . & 8#!& !+.&) $#"-#%& D4@TE o1 &,#
0o&+%2 !&o-A 7/!& (# o;%#' () -+&+L#%! o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#!, -o""#-&O
COMMISSIONER GAITE6
Co""#-&, Yo/" Ho%o".
DD
@E)phasis supplie$A
3oern)ent a'encies li0e the 2EC cannot si)ply i'nore 2ections D@aA an$ < of the F&A (hich cate'orically prescribe that
certain econo)ic actiities, li0e the o(nership an$ operation of public utilities, are resere$ to corporations Sat least si5ty
percent @;BEA of the capital stoc0 outstan$in' and entitled to vote is o(ne$ an$ hel$ by citi+ens of the Philippines!S
Forei'n &nest)ent Ne'atie %ist A refers to Sactiities resere$ to Philippine nationals by )an$ate of the Constitution
an$ specific la(s!S T,# FIA +! &,# (!+- !&&/&# "#2/8&+%2 1o"#+2% +%0#!&7#%&! +% &,# P,+8+$$+%#!! 3oern)ent
a'encies tas0e$ (ith re'ulatin' or )onitorin' forei'n inest)ents, as (ell as counsels of forei'n inestors, shoul$ start
(ith the F&A in $eter)inin' to (hat e5tent a particular forei'n inest)ent is allo(e$ in the Philippines! Forei'n inestors
an$ their counsels (ho i'nore the F&A $o so at their o(n peril! Forei'n inestors an$ their counsels (ho rely on opinions
of 2EC le'al officers that obiously contra$ict the F&A $o so also at their o(n peril!
?ccasional opinions of 2EC le'al officers that obiously contra$ict the F&A shoul$ i))e$iately raise a re$ fla'! #here are
alrea$y nu)erous opinions of 2EC le'al officers that cite the $efinition of a SPhilippine nationalS in 2ection D@aA of the F&A
in $eter)inin' (hether a particular corporation is ,ualifie$ to o(n an$ operate a nationali+e$ or partially nationali+e$
business in the Philippines! #his sho(s that 2EC le'al officers are not only a(are of, but also rely on an$ ino0e, the
proisions of the F&A in ascertainin' the eli'ibility of a corporation to en'a'e in partially nationali+e$ in$ustries! #he
follo(in' are so)e of such opinions7
1! ?pinion of 2D March 199D, a$$resse$ to Mr! Francis F! 1o("
2! ?pinion of 16 April 199D, a$$resse$ to .irector An'eles #! /on' of the Philippine ?erseas E)ploy)ent
A$)inistration"
D! ?pinion of 2D Noe)ber 199D, a$$resse$ to Messrs! .o)ina$or Al)e$a an$ Renato 2! Cal)a"
6! ?pinion of 7 .ece)ber 199D, a$$resse$ to Roco Buna' Lapunan Mi'allos V -ar$ele+a"
C! 2EC ?pinion No! 69*B6, a$$resse$ to Ro)ulo Mabanta Buenaentura 2ayoc V .e %os An'eles"
;! 2EC*?3C ?pinion No! 17*B7, a$$resse$ to Mr! Reynal$o 3! .ai$" an$
7! 2EC*?3C ?pinion No! BD*B<, a$$resse$ to Attys! Ruby Rose -! Nusi an$ Ru$yar$ 2! Arbola$o!
#he 2EC le'al officersG occasional but blatant $isre'ar$ of the $efinition of the ter) SPhilippine nationalS in the F&A
si'nifies their lac0 of inte'rity an$ co)petence in resolin' issues on the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino
citi+ens in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution!
#he P2E Presi$ent ar'ues that the ter) SPhilippine nationalS $efine$ in the F&A shoul$ be li)ite$ an$ interprete$ to refer
to corporations see0in' to aail of ta5 an$ fiscal incenties un$er inest)ent incenties la(s an$ cannot be e,uate$ (ith
the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution! Pan'ilinan si)ilarly conten$s that the F&A an$ its
pre$ecessor statutes $o not apply to Sco)panies (hich hae not re'istere$ an$ obtaine$ special incenties un$er the
sche)es establishe$ by those la(s!S
Both are $esperately 'raspin' at stra(s! #he F&A $oes not 'rant ta5 or fiscal incenties to any enterprise! #a5 an$ fiscal
incenties to inest)ents are 'rante$ separately un$er the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<7, not un$er the F&A! &n
fact, the F&A e5pressly repeale$ Articles 66 to C; of Boo0 && of the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<7, (hich articles
preiously re'ulate$ forei'n inest)ents in nationali+e$ or partially nationali+e$ in$ustries!
#he F&A is the applicable la( re'ulatin' forei'n inest)ents in nationali+e$ or partially nationali+e$ in$ustries! #here is
64
nothin' in the F&A, or een in the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<7 or its pre$ecessor statutes, that states, e5pressly
or i)plie$ly, that the F&A or its pre$ecessor statutes $o not apply to enterprises not aailin' of ta5 an$ fiscal incenties
un$er the Co$e! #he F&A an$ its pre$ecessor statutes apply to inest)ents in all $o)estic enterprises, (hether or not
such enterprises en4oy ta5 an$ fiscal incenties un$er the ?)nibus &nest)ents Co$e of 19<7 or its pre$ecessor
statutes! T,# "#!o% +! :/+&# o(0+o/! U 7#"# %o%-0+87#%& o1 &. %' 1+!-8 +%-#%&+0#! () %o%-P,+8+$$+%#
%&+o%8 -%%o& #.#7$& +& 1"o7 S#-&+o% 11, A"&+-8# HII o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o% "#2/8&+%2 1o"#+2% +%0#!&7#%&! +% $/(8+-
/&+8+&+#!! &n fact, the Boar$ of &nest)entsG P"+7#" o% I%0#!&7#%& Po8+-+#! +% &,# P,+8+$$+%#!,
D6
(hich is 'ien out to
forei'n inestors, proi$es7
PART III. FOREIGN INVESTMENTS WITHOUT INCENTIVES
&nestors (ho $o not see0 incenties an$Hor (hose chosen actiities $o not ,ualify for incenties, @i!e!, the actiity is not
liste$ in the &PP, an$ they are not e5portin' at least 7BE of their pro$uctionA )ay 'o ahea$ an$ )a0e the inest)ents
(ithout see0in' incenties! T,#) o%8) ,0# &o (# 2/+'#' () &,# Fo"#+2% I%0#!&7#%&! N#2&+0# L+!& DFINLE.
#he F&N% clearly $efines inest)ent areas re,uirin' at least ;BE Filipino o(nership! All other areas outsi$e of this list are
fully open to forei'n inestors! @E)phasis supplie$A
1.%ight to elect directors, coupled with beneficial ownership,translates to effective control.
#he 2< -une 2B11 .ecision $eclares that the ;B percent Filipino o(nership re,uire$ by the Constitution to en'a'e in
certain econo)ic actiities applies not only to otin' control of the corporation, but 8!o &o &,# (#%#1+-+8 o;%#"!,+$ o1
&,# -o"$o"&+o%! #o repeat, (e hel$7
Mere le'al title is insufficient to )eet the ;B percent Filipino*o(ne$ ScapitalS re,uire$ in the Constitution! F/88 (#%#1+-+8
o;%#"!,+$ o1 4@ $#"-#%& o1 &,# o/&!&%'+%2 -$+&8 !&o-A, -o/$8#' ;+&, 4@ $#"-#%& o1 &,# 0o&+%2 "+2,&!, +!
"#:/+"#'! #he le'al an$ beneficial o(nership of ;B percent of the outstan$in' capital stoc0 )ust rest in the han$s of
Filipino nationals in accor$ance (ith the constitutional )an$ate! ?ther(ise, the corporation is Sconsi$ere$ as non*
Philippine national9s:!S @E)phasis supplie$A
#his is consistent (ith 2ection D of the F&A (hich proi$es that (here 1BBE of the capital stoc0 is hel$ by Sa trustee of
fun$s for pension or other e)ployee retire)ent or separation benefits,S the trustee is a Philippine national if Sat least si5ty
percent @;BEA of the fun$ (ill accrue to the benefit of Philippine nationals!S %i0e(ise, 2ection 1@bA of the &)ple)entin'
Rules of the F&A proi$es that Sfor stoc0s to be $ee)e$ o(ne$ an$ hel$ by Philippine citi+ens or Philippine nationals,
)ere le'al title is not enou'h to )eet the re,uire$ Filipino e,uity! F/88 (#%#1+-+8 o;%#"!,+$ o1 &,# !&o-A!, -o/$8#'
;+&, $$"o$"+&# 0o&+%2 "+2,&!, +! #!!#%&+8.N
2ince the constitutional re,uire)ent of at least ;B percent Filipino o(nership applies not only to otin' control of the
corporation but also to the beneficial o(nership of the corporation, it is therefore i)peratie that such re,uire)ent apply
unifor)ly an$ across the boar$ to all classes of shares, re'ar$less of no)enclature an$ cate'ory, co)prisin' the capital
of a corporation! >n$er the Corporation Co$e, capital stoc0
DC
consists of all classes of shares issue$ to stoc0hol$ers, that
is, co))on shares as (ell as preferre$ shares, (hich )ay hae $ifferent ri'hts, priile'es or restrictions as state$ in the
articles of incorporation!
D;
#he Corporation Co$e allo(s $enial of the ri'ht to ote to preferre$ an$ re$ee)able shares, but $isallo(s $enial of the
ri'ht to ote in specific corporate )atters! #hus, co))on shares hae the ri'ht to ote in the election of $irectors, (hile
preferre$ shares )ay be $enie$ such ri'ht! Nonetheless, preferre$ shares, een if $enie$ the ri'ht to ote in the election
of $irectors, are entitle$ to ote on the follo(in' corporate )atters7 @1A a)en$)ent of articles of incorporation" @2A
increase an$ $ecrease of capital stoc0" @DA incurrin', creatin' or increasin' bon$e$ in$ebte$ness" @6A sale, lease,
)ort'a'e or other $isposition of substantially all corporate assets" @CA inest)ent of fun$s in another business or
corporation or for a purpose other than the pri)ary purpose for (hich the corporation (as or'ani+e$" @;A a$option,
a)en$)ent an$ repeal of by*la(s" @7A )er'er an$ consoli$ation" an$ @<A $issolution of corporation!
D7
2ince a specific class of shares )ay hae ri'hts an$ priile'es or restrictions $ifferent fro) the rest of the shares in a
corporation, the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution )ust
apply not only to shares (ith otin' ri'hts but also to shares (ithout otin' ri'hts! Preferre$ shares, $enie$ the ri'ht to
ote in the election of $irectors, are any(ay still entitle$ to ote on the ei'ht specific corporate )atters )entione$ aboe!
T,/!, +1 -o"$o"&+o%, #%22#' +% $"&+88) %&+o%8+L#' +%'/!&"), +!!/#! 7+.&/"# o1 -o77o% %' $"#1#""#'
%o%-0o&+%2 !,"#!, & 8#!& 4@ $#"-#%& o1 &,# -o77o% !,"#! %' & 8#!& 4@ $#"-#%& o1 &,# $"#1#""#' %o%-0o&+%2
!,"#! 7/!& (# o;%#' () F+8+$+%o!. ?f course, if a corporation issues only a sin'le class of shares, at least ;B percent
of such shares )ust necessarily be o(ne$ by Filipinos! I% !,o"&, &,# 4@-4@ o;%#"!,+$ "#:/+"#7#%& +% 10o" o1 F+8+$+%o
-+&+L#%! 7/!& $$8) !#$"&#8) &o #-, -8!! o1 !,"#!, ;,#&,#" -o77o%, $"#1#""#' %o%-0o&+%2, $"#1#""#' 0o&+%2
o" %) o&,#" -8!! o1 !,"#!. #his unifor) application of the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens
clearly breathes life to the constitutional co))an$ that the o(nership an$ operation of public utilities shall be resere$
e5clusiely to corporations at least ;B percent of (hose capital is Filipino*o(ne$! Applyin' unifor)ly the ;B*6B o(nership
re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens to each class of shares, re'ar$less of $ifferences in otin' ri'hts, priile'es an$
restrictions, 'uarantees effectie Filipino control of public utilities, as )an$ate$ by the Constitution!
Moreoer, such unifor) application to each class of shares insures that the Scontrollin' interestS in public utilities al(ays
lies in the han$s of Filipino citi+ens! #his a$$resses an$ e5tin'uishes Pan'ilinanGs (orry that forei'ners, o(nin' )ost of
the non*otin' shares, (ill e5ercise 'reater control oer fun$a)ental corporate )atters re,uirin' t(o*thir$s or )a4ority
ote of all sharehol$ers!
1'.'ntent of the framers of the +onstitution
65
/hile -ustice =elasco ,uote$ in his .issentin' ?pinion
D<
a portion of the $eliberations of the Constitutional Co))ission
to support his clai) that the ter) ScapitalS refers to the total outstan$in' shares of stoc0, (hether otin' or non*otin',
the follo(in' e5cerpts of the $eliberations reeal other(ise! &t is clear fro) the follo(in' e5chan'e that the ter) ScapitalS
refers to -o%&"o88+%2 +%&#"#!& of a corporation, thus7
MR! N?%%E.?! &n 2ections D, 9 an$ 1C, the Co))ittee state$ local or Filipino e,uity an$ forei'n e,uity" na)ely, ;B*6B
in 2ection D, ;B*6B in 2ection 9 an$ 2HD*1HD in 2ection 1C!
MR! =&%%E3A2! #hat is ri'ht!
MR! N?%%E.?! &n teachin' la(, (e are al(ays face$ (ith this ,uestion7 S/here $o (e base the e,uity re,uire)ent, is it
on the authori+e$ capital stoc0, on the subscribe$ capital stoc0, or on the pai$*up capital stoc0 of a corporationSK /ill the
Co))ittee please enli'hten )e on thisK
MR! =&%%E3A2! /e hae 4ust ha$ a lon' $iscussion (ith the )e)bers of the tea) fro) the >P %a( Center (ho
proi$e$ us a $raft! T,# $,"!# &,& +! -o%&+%#' ,#"# ;,+-, ;# 'o$&#' 1"o7 &,# UP '"1& +! N4@ $#"-#%& o1 0o&+%2
!&o-A.N
MR! N?%%E.?! #hat )ust be base$ on the subscribe$ capital stoc0, because unless $eclare$ $elin,uent, unpai$ capital
stoc0 shall be entitle$ to ote!
MR! =&%%E3A2! #hat is ri'ht!
MR! N?%%E.?! #han0 you!
/ith respect to an inest)ent by one corporation in another corporation, say, a corporation (ith ;B*6B percent e,uity
inests in another corporation (hich is per)itte$ by the Corporation Co$e, $oes the Co))ittee a$opt the 'ran$father
ruleK
MR! =&%%E3A2! Nes, that is the un$erstan$in' of the Co))ittee!
MR! N?%%E.?! #herefore, (e nee$ a$$itional Filipino capitalK
MR! =&%%E3A2! Nes!
D9
5 5 5 5
MR! AMC>NA! May & be clarifie$ as to that portion that (as accepte$ by the Co))ittee!
MR! =&%%E3A2! #he portion accepte$ by the Co))ittee is the $eletion of the phrase Sotin' stoc0 or controllin' interest!S
MR! AMC>NA! 1ence, (ithout the .ai$e a)en$)ent, the co))ittee report (oul$ rea$7 Scorporations or associations at
least si5ty percent of (hose CAP&#A% is o(ne$ by such citi+ens!S
MR! =&%%E3A2! Nes!
MR! AMC>NA! 2o if the .ai$e a)en$)ent is lost, (e are stuc0 (ith ;B percent of the capital to be o(ne$ by citi+ens!
MR! =&%%E3A2! #hat is ri'ht!
MR. A*CUNA. B/& &,# -o%&"o8 -% (# ;+&, &,# 1o"#+2%#"! #0#% +1 &,#) "# &,# 7+%o"+&). L#& /! !) 4@ $#"-#%& o1
&,# -$+&8 +! o;%#' () &,#7, (/& +& +! &,# 0o&+%2 -$+&8, ;,#"#!, &,# F+8+$+%o! o;% &,# %o%0o&+%2 !,"#!. So ;#
-% ,0# !+&/&+o% ;,#"# &,# -o"$o"&+o% +! -o%&"o88#' () 1o"#+2%#"! '#!$+&# (#+%2 &,# 7+%o"+&) (#-/!# &,#)
,0# &,# 0o&+%2 -$+&8. T,& +! &,# %o78) &,& ;o/8' "#!/8& ,#"#.
MR. BENG*ON. No, &,# "#!o% ;# #8+7+%&#' &,# ;o"' N!&o-AN ! !&&#' +% &,# 19>B %' 19B3 Co%!&+&/&+o%! +!
&,& --o"'+%2 &o Co77+!!+o%#" Ro'"+2o, &,#"# "# !!o-+&+o%! &,& 'o %o& ,0# !&o-A!. T,& +! ;,) ;# !)
NCAPITAL.N
MR. A*CUNA. W# !,o/8' %o& #8+7+%&# &,# $,"!# N-o%&"o88+%2 +%&#"#!&.N
MR. BENG*ON. I% &,# -!# o1 !&o-A -o"$o"&+o%!, +& +! !!/7#'.
6B
@Bol$facin' an$ un$erscorin' supplie$A
#hus, ;B percent of the ScapitalS !!/7#!, or shoul$ result in, a S-o%&"o88+%2 +%&#"#!&S in the corporation!
#he use of the ter) ScapitalS (as inten$e$ to replace the (or$ Sstoc0S because associations (ithout stoc0s can operate
public utilities as lon' as they )eet the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens prescribe$ in 2ection 11,
Article I&& of the Constitution! 1o(eer, this $i$ not chan'e the intent of the fra)ers of the Constitution to resere
e5clusiely to Philippine nationals the S-o%&"o88+%2 +%&#"#!&S in public utilities!
66
.urin' the $raftin' of the 19DC Constitution, econo)ic protectionis) (as Sthe battle*cry of the nationalists in the
Conention!S
61
#he sa)e battle*cry resulte$ in the nationali+ation of the public utilities!
62
#his is also the sa)e intent of
the fra)ers of the 19<7 Constitution (ho a$opte$ the e5act for)ulation e)bo$ie$ in the 19DC an$ 197D Constitutions on
forei'n e,uity li)itations in partially nationali+e$ in$ustries!
#he ?23, in its o(n behalf an$ as counsel for the 2tate,
6D
a'rees fully (ith the CourtGs interpretation of the ter) Scapital!S
&n its Consoli$ate$ Co))ent, the ?23 e5plains that the $eletion of the phrase Scontrollin' interestS an$ replace)ent of
the (or$ Sstoc0S (ith the ter) ScapitalS (ere inten$e$ specifically to e5ten$ the scope of the entities ,ualifie$ to operate
public utilities to inclu$e associations (ithout stoc0s! #he fra)ersG o)ission of the phrase Scontrollin' interestS $i$ not
)ean the inclusion of all shares of stoc0, (hether otin' or non*otin'! #he ?23 reiterate$ essentially the CourtGs
$eclaration that the Constitution resere$ e5clusiely to Philippine nationals the o(nership an$ operation of public utilities
consistent (ith the 2tateGs policy to S$eelop a self*reliant an$ in$epen$ent national econo)y effectively controlled by
$ilipinos!S
As (e hel$ in our 2< -une 2B11 .ecision, to construe broa$ly the ter) ScapitalS as the total outstan$in' capital stoc0,
treate$ as a single class re'ar$less of the actual classification of shares, 'rossly contraenes the intent an$ letter of the
Constitution that the S2tate shall $eelop a self*reliant an$ in$epen$ent national econo)y effectively controlled by
Filipinos!S /e illustrate$ the 'larin' ano)aly (hich (oul$ result in $efinin' the ter) ScapitalS as the total outstan$in'
capital stoc0 of a corporation, treate$ as a single class of shares re'ar$less of the actual classification of shares, to (it7
%et us assu)e that a corporation has 1BB co))on shares o(ne$ by forei'ners an$ 1,BBB,BBB non*otin' preferre$
shares o(ne$ by Filipinos, (ith both classes of share hain' a par alue of one peso @P 1!BBA per share! >n$er the broa$
$efinition of the ter) Scapital,S such corporation (oul$ be consi$ere$ co)pliant (ith the 6B percent constitutional li)it on
forei'n e,uity of public utilities since the oer(hel)in' )a4ority, or )ore than 99!999 percent, of the total outstan$in'
capital stoc0 is Filipino o(ne$! #his is obiously absur$!
&n the e5a)ple 'ien, only the forei'ners hol$in' the co))on shares hae otin' ri'hts in the election of $irectors, een
if they hol$ only 1BB shares! #he forei'ners, (ith a )inuscule e,uity of less than B!BB1 percent, e5ercise control oer the
public utility! ?n the other han$, the Filipinos, hol$in' )ore than 99!999 percent of the e,uity, cannot ote in the election
of $irectors an$ hence, hae no control oer the public utility! #his star0ly circu)ents the intent of the fra)ers of the
Constitution, as (ell as the clear lan'ua'e of the Constitution, to place the control of public utilities in the han$s of
Filipinos! 5 5 5
Further, een if forei'ners (ho o(n )ore than forty percent of the otin' shares elect an all*Filipino boar$ of $irectors,
this situation $oes not 'uarantee Filipino control an$ $oes not in any (ay cure the iolation of the Constitution! #he
in$epen$ence of the Filipino boar$ )e)bers so electe$ by such forei'n sharehol$ers is hi'hly $oubtful! As the ?23
pointe$ out, ,uotin' -ustice 3eor'e 2utherlan$Gs (or$s in 8umphrey+s E'ecutor )% 76,
66
S5 5 5 it is ,uite ei$ent that one
(ho hol$s his office only $urin' the pleasure of another cannot be $epen$e$ upon to )aintain an attitu$e of
in$epen$ence a'ainst the latterGs (ill!S Allo(in' forei'n sharehol$ers to elect a controllin' )a4ority of the boar$, een if
all the $irectors are Filipinos, 'rossly circu)ents the letter an$ intent of the Constitution an$ $efeats the ery purpose of
our nationali+ation la(s!
1''.Last sentence of Section 33, Article 4'' of the +onstitution
#he last sentence of 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution rea$s7
#he participation of forei'n inestors in the 'oernin' bo$y of any public utility enterprise shall be li)ite$ to their
proportionate share in its capital, an$ all the e5ecutie an$ )ana'in' officers of such corporation or association )ust be
citi+ens of the Philippines!
.urin' the ?ral Ar'u)ents, the ?23 e)phasi+e$ that there (as neer a ,uestion on the intent of the fra)ers of the
Constitution to li)it forei'n o(nership, an$ assure )a4ority Filipino o(nership an$ control of public utilities! #he ?23
ar'ue$, S(hile the $ele'ates $isa'ree$ as to the percenta'e threshol$ to a$opt, 5 5 5 the recor$s sho( they clearly
un$erstoo$ that Filipino control of the public utility corporation can only be an$ is obtaine$ only throu'h the election of a
)a4ority of the )e)bers of the boar$!S
&n$ee$, the only point of contention $urin' the $eliberations of the Constitutional Co))ission on 2D Au'ust 19<; (as the
e5tent of )a4ority Filipino control of public utilities! #his is ei$ent fro) the follo(in' e5chan'e7
#1E PRE2&.EN#! Co))issioner -a)ir is reco'ni+e$!
MR! -AM&R! Ma$a) Presi$ent, )y propose$ a)en$)ent on lines 2B an$ 21 is to $elete the phrase St(o thir$s of (hose
otin' stoc0 or controllin' interest,S an$ instea$ substitute the (or$s S2&I#N PERCEN# ?F /1?2E CAP&#A%S so that
the sentence (ill rea$7 SNo franchise, certificate, or any other for) of authori+ation for the operation of a public utility shall
be 'rante$ e5cept to citi+ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations or'ani+e$ un$er the la(s of the
Philippines at least 2&I#N PERCEN# ?F /1?2E CAP&#A% is o(ne$ by such citi+ens!S
5 5 5 5
#1E PRE2&.EN#7 /ill Co))issioner -a)ir first e5plainK
MR! -AM&R! Nes, in this Article on National Econo)y an$ Patri)ony, there (ere t(o preious sections in (hich (e fi5e$
the Filipino e,uity to ;B percent as a'ainst 6B percent for forei'ners! &t is only in this 2ection 1C (ith respect to public
utilities that the co))ittee proposal (as increase$ to t(o*thir$s! & thin0 it (oul$ be better to har)oni+e this proision by
67
proi$in' that een in the case of public utilities, the )ini)u) e,uity for Filipino citi+ens shoul$ be ;B percent!
MR! R?M>%?! Ma$a) Presi$ent!
#1E PRE2&.EN#! Co))issioner Ro)ulo is reco'ni+e$!
MR! R?M>%?! My reason for supportin' the a)en$)ent is base$ on the $iscussions & hae ha$ (ith representaties of
the Filipino )a4ority o(ners of the international recor$ carriers, an$ the subse,uent )e)oran$a they sub)itte$ to )e! 5
5 5
#heir secon$ point is that un$er the Corporation Co$e, the )ana'e)ent an$ control of a corporation is este$ in the
boar$ of $irectors, not in the officers but in the boar$ of $irectors! #he officers are only a'ents of the boar$! An$ they
beliee that (ith ;B percent of the e,uity, the Filipino )a4ority stoc0hol$ers un$eniably control the boar$! ?nly on
i)portant corporate acts can the 6B*percent forei'n e,uity e5ercise a eto, 5 5 5!
5 5 5 5
6C
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Ma$a) Presi$ent!
#1E PRE2&.EN#! Co))issioner Rosario Brai$ is reco'ni+e$!
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Nes, in the interest of e,ual ti)e, )ay & also rea$ fro) a )e)oran$u) by the spo0es)an of the
Philippine Cha)ber of Co))unications on (hy they (oul$ li0e to )aintain the present e,uity, & a) referrin' to the ;;
2HD! #hey (oul$ prefer to hae a 7C*2C ratio but (oul$ settle for ;; 2HD! 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
#1E PRE2&.EN#! -ust to clarify, (oul$ Co))issioner Rosario Brai$ support the proposal of t(o*thir$s rather than the ;B
percentK
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! & hae a$$e$ a clause that (ill put )ana'e)ent in the han$s of Filipino citi+ens!
5 5 5 5
6;
/hile they ha$ $ifferin' ie(s on the percenta'e of Filipino o(nership of capital, it is clear that the fra)ers of the
Constitution inten$e$ public utilities to be majority Filipino*o(ne$ an$ controlle$! #o ensure that Filipinos control public
utilities, the fra)ers of the Constitution approe$, as a$$itional safe'uar$, the inclusion of the last sentence of 2ection
11, Article I&& of the Constitution co))an$in' that S9t:he participation of forei'n inestors in the 'oernin' bo$y of any
public utility enterprise shall be li)ite$ to their proportionate share in its capital, an$ all the e5ecutie an$ )ana'in'
officers of such corporation or association )ust be citi+ens of the Philippines!S &n other (or$s, the last sentence of
2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution )an$ates that @1A the participation of forei'n inestors in the 'oernin' bo$y of
the corporation or association shall be li)ite$ to their proportionate share in the capital of such entity" an$ @2A all officers
of the corporation or association )ust be Filipino citi+ens!
Co))issioner Rosario Brai$ propose$ the inclusion of the phrase re,uirin' the )ana'in' officers of the corporation or
association to be Filipino citi+ens specifically to preent )ana'e)ent contracts, (hich (ere $esi'ne$ pri)arily to
circu)ent the Filipini+ation of public utilities, an$ to assure Filipino control of public utilities, thus7
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! 5 5 5 #hey also li0e to su''est that (e a)en$ this proision by a$$in' a phrase (hich states7
S#1E MANA3EMEN# B?.N ?F E=ERN C?RP?RA#&?N ?R A22?C&A#&?N 21A%% &N A%% CA2E2 BE C?N#R?%%E.
BN C&#&MEN2 ?F #1E P1&%&PP&NE2!S & hae (ith )e their position paper!
#1E PRE2&.EN#! #he Co))issioner )ay procee$!
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! #he three )a4or international recor$ carriers in the Philippines, (hich Co))issioner Ro)ulo
)entione$ O Philippine 3lobal Co))unications, Eastern #eleco))unications, 3lobe Mac0ay Cable O are 6B*percent
o(ne$ by forei'n )ultinational co)panies an$ ;B*percent o(ne$ by their respectie Filipino partners! All three, ho(eer,
also hae )ana'e)ent contracts (ith these forei'n co)panies O Philco) (ith RCA, E#P& (ith Cable an$ /ireless P%C,
an$ 3MCR (ith &##! >p to the present ti)e, the 'eneral )ana'ers of these carriers are forei'ners! /hile the forei'ners
in these co))on carriers are only )inority o(ners, the forei'n )ultinationals are the ones )ana'in' an$ controllin' their
operations by irtue of their )ana'e)ent contracts an$ by irtue of their stren'th in the 'oernin' bo$ies of these
carriers!
67
5 5 5 5
MR! ?P%E! & thin0 a nu)ber of us hae a'ree$ to as0 Co))issioner Rosario Brai$ to propose an a)en$)ent (ith
respect to the operatin' )ana'e)ent of public utilities, an$ in this a)en$)ent, (e are associate$ (ith Fr! Bernas,
Co))issioners Niea an$ Ro$ri'o! Co))issioner Rosario Brai$ (ill state this a)en$)ent no(!
#han0 you!
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Ma$a) Presi$ent!
68
#1E PRE2&.EN#! #his is still on 2ection 1C!
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Nes!
MR! =&%%E3A2! Nes, Ma$a) Presi$ent!
5 5 5 5
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Ma$a) Presi$ent, & propose a ne( section to rea$7 J#1E MANA3EMEN# B?.N ?F E=ERN
C?RP?RA#&?N ?R A22?C&A#&?N 21A%% &N A%% CA2E2 BE C?N#R?%%E. BN C&#&MEN2 ?F #1E P1&%&PP&NE2!S
T,+! ;+88 $"#0#%& 7%2#7#%& -o%&"-&! %' !!/"# -o%&"o8 () F+8+$+%o -+&+L#%!. /ill the co))ittee assure us that
this a)en$)ent (ill insure that past actiities such as )ana'e)ent contracts (ill no lon'er be possible un$er this
a)en$)entK
5 5 5 5
FR! BERNA2! Ma$a) Presi$ent!
#1E PRE2&.EN#! Co))issioner Bernas is reco'ni+e$!
FR! BERNA2! /ill the co))ittee accept a refor)ulation of the first partK
MR! BEN3M?N! %et us hear it!
FR! BERNA2! #he refor)ulation (ill be essentially the for)ula of the 197D Constitution (hich rea$s7 S#1E
PAR#&C&PA#&?N ?F F?RE&3N &N=E2#?R2 &N #1E 3?=ERN&N3 B?.N ?F ANN P>B%&C >#&%&#N EN#ERPR&2E
21A%% BE %&M&#E. #? #1E&R PR?P?R#&?NA#E 21ARE &N #1E CAP&#A% #1ERE?F AN.!!!S
MR! =&%%E3A2! SA%% #1E EIEC>#&=E AN. MANA3&N3 ?FF&CER2 ?F 2>C1 C?RP?RA#&?N2 AN.
A22?C&A#&?N2 M>2# BE C&#&MEN2 ?F #1E P1&%&PP&NE2!S
MR! BEN3M?N! /ill Co))issioner Bernas rea$ the (hole thin' a'ainK
FR! BERNA2! S#1E PAR#&C&PA#&?N ?F F?RE&3N &N=E2#?R2 &N #1E 3?=ERN&N3 B?.N ?F ANN P>B%&C
>#&%&#N EN#ERPR&2E 21A%% BE %&M&#E. #? #1E&R PR?P?R#&?NA#E 21ARE &N #1E CAP&#A% #1ERE?F!!!S & $o
not hae the rest of the copy!
MR! BEN3M?N! SAN. A%% #1E EIEC>#&=E AN. MANA3&N3 ?FF&CER2 ?F 2>C1 C?RP?RA#&?N2 ?R
A22?C&A#&?N2 M>2# BE C&#&MEN2 ?F #1E P1&%&PP&NE2!S &s that correctK
MR! =&%%E3A2! Nes!
MR! BEN3M?N! Ma$a) Presi$ent, & thin0 that (as sai$ in a )ore ele'ant lan'ua'e! /e accept the a)en$)ent! &s that
all ri'ht (ith Co))issioner Rosario Brai$K
M2! R?2AR&? BRA&.! Nes!
5 5 5 5
MR! .E %?2 RENE2! #he 'oernin' bo$y refers to the boar$ of $irectors an$ trustees!
MR! =&%%E3A2! #hat is ri'ht!
MR! BEN3M?N! Nes, the 'oernin' bo$y refers to the boar$ of $irectors!
MR! RE3A%A.?! &t is accepte$!
MR! RAMA! #he bo$y is no( rea$y to ote, Ma$a) Presi$ent!
=?#&N3
5 5 5 5
#he results sho( 29 otes in faor an$ none a'ainst" so the propose$ a)en$)ent is approe$!
5 5 5 5
#1E PRE2&.EN#! All ri'ht! Can (e procee$ no( to ote on 2ection 1CK
69
MR! RAMA! Nes, Ma$a) Presi$ent!
#1E PRE2&.EN#! /ill the chair)an of the co))ittee please rea$ 2ection 1CK
MR! =&%%E3A2! #he entire 2ection 1C, as a)en$e$, rea$s7 SNo franchise, certificate, or any other for) of authori+ation
for the operation of a public utility shall be 'rante$ e5cept to citi+ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
or'ani+e$ un$er the la(s of the Philippines at least ;B PERCEN# ?F /1?2E CAP&#A% is o(ne$ by such citi+ens!S May
& re,uest Co))issioner Ben'+on to please continue rea$in'!
MR! BEN3M?N! S#1E PAR#&C&PA#&?N ?F F?RE&3N &N=E2#?R2 &N #1E 3?=ERN&N3 B?.N ?F ANN P>B%&C
>#&%&#N EN#ERPR&2E 21A%% BE %&M&#E. #? #1E&R PR?P?R#&?NA#E 21ARE &N #1E CAP&#A% #1ERE?F AN.
A%% #1E EIEC>#&=E AN. MANA3&N3 ?FF&CER2 ?F 2>C1 C?RP?RA#&?N2 ?R A22?C&A#&?N2 M>2# BE
C&#&MEN2 ?F #1E P1&%&PP&NE2!S
MR! =&%%E3A2! SN?R 21A%% 2>C1 FRANC1&2E, CER#&F&CA#E ?R A>#1?R&MA#&?N BE EIC%>2&=E &N
C1ARAC#ER ?R F?R A PER&?. %?N3ER #1AN #/EN#N*F&=E NEAR2 RENE/AB%E F?R N?# M?RE #1AN
#/EN#N*F&=E NEAR2! Neither shall any such franchise or ri'ht be 'rante$ e5cept un$er the con$ition that it shall be
sub4ect to a)en$)ent, alteration, or repeal by Con'ress (hen the co))on 'oo$ so re,uires! #he 2tate shall encoura'e
e,uity participation in public utilities by the 'eneral public!S
=?#&N3
5 5 5 5
#he results sho( 29 otes in faor an$ 6 a'ainst" 2ection 1C, as a)en$e$, is approe$!
6<
@E)phasis supplie$A
#he last sentence of 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution, particularly the proision on the li)ite$ participation
of forei'n inestors in the 'oernin' bo$y of public utilities, is a reiteration of the last sentence of 2ection C, Article I&= of
the 197D Constitution,
69
si'nifyin' its i)portance in reserin' o(nership an$ control of public utilities to Filipino citi+ens!
1'''.5he undisputed facts
#here is no $ispute, an$ respon$ents $o not clai) the contrary, that @1A forei'ners o(n ;6!27E of the co))on shares of
P%.#, (hich class of shares e5ercises the !o8# ri'ht to ote in the election of $irectors, an$ thus forei'ners control P%.#"
@2A Filipinos o(n only DC!7DE of P%.#Gs co))on shares, constitutin' a )inority of the otin' stoc0, an$ thus Filipinos $o
not control P%.#" @DA preferre$ shares, 99!66E o(ne$ by Filipinos, hae no otin' ri'hts" @6A preferre$ shares earn only
1H7B of the $ii$en$s that co))on shares earn"
CB
@CA preferre$ shares hae t(ice the par alue of co))on shares" an$
@;A preferre$ shares constitute 77!<CE of the authori+e$ capital stoc0 of P%.# an$ co))on shares only 22!1CE!
.espite the fore'oin' facts, the Court $i$ not $eci$e, an$ in fact refraine$ fro) rulin' on the ,uestion of (hether P%.#
iolate$ the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution!
2uch ,uestion in$isputably calls for a presentation an$ $eter)ination of ei$ence throu'h a hearin', (hich is 'enerally
outsi$e the proince of the CourtGs 4uris$iction, but (ell (ithin the 2ECGs statutory po(ers! #hus, for obious reasons, the
Court li)ite$ its $ecision on the purely le'al an$ threshol$ issue on the $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11,
Article I&& of the Constitution an$ $irecte$ the 2EC to apply such $efinition in $eter)inin' the e5act percenta'e of forei'n
o(nership in P%.#!
'4./L!5 is not an indispensable party)S#+ is impleaded in this case.
&n his petition, 3a)boa prays, a)on' others7
5 5 5 5
C! For the 1onorable Court to issue a $eclaratory relief that o(nership of co))on or otin' shares is the sole basis in
$eter)inin' forei'n e,uity in a public utility an$ that any other 'oern)ent rulin's, opinions, an$ re'ulations inconsistent
(ith this $eclaratory relief be $eclare$ unconstitutional an$ a iolation of the intent an$ spirit of the 19<7 Constitution"
;! For the 1onorable Court to $eclare null an$ oi$ all sales of co))on stoc0s to forei'ners in e5cess of 6B percent of
the total subscribe$ co))on sharehol$in's" an$
7! For the 1onorable Court &o '+"#-& &,# S#-/"+&+#! %' E.-,%2# Co77+!!+o% an$ Philippine 2toc0 E5chan'e &o
"#:/+"# PLDT &o 7A# $/(8+- '+!-8o!/"# o1 88 o1 +&! 1o"#+2% !,"#,o8'+%2! %' &,#+" -&/8 %' "#8 (#%#1+-+8
o;%#"!!
?ther relief@sA 4ust an$ e,uitable are li0e(ise praye$ for! @E)phasis supplie$A
As can be 'leane$ fro) his prayer, 3a)boa clearly as0s this Court to co)pel the 2EC to perfor) its statutory $uty to
inesti'ate (hether Sthe re,uire$ percenta'e of o(nership of the capital stoc0 to be o(ne$ by citi+ens of the Philippines
has been co)plie$ (ith 9by P%.#: as re,uire$ by 5 5 5 the Constitution!S
C1
2uch plea clearly ne'ates 2ECGs ar'u)ent
that it (as not i)plea$e$!
3rantin' that only the 2EC Chair)an (as i)plea$e$ in this case, the Court has a)ple po(ers to or$er the 2ECGs
70
co)pliance (ith its $irectie containe$ in the 2< -une 2B11 .ecision in ie( of the far*reachin' i)plications of this case!
&n Domin*o )% 6cheer,
C2
the Court $ispense$ (ith the a)en$)ent of the plea$in's to i)plea$ the Bureau of Custo)s
consi$erin' @1A the uni,ue bac0$rop of the case" @2A the ut)ost nee$ to aoi$ further $elays" an$ @DA the issue of public
interest inole$! #he Court hel$7
#he Court )ay be curin' the $efect in this case by a$$in' the B?C as party*petitioner! #he petition shoul$ not be
$is)isse$ because the secon$ action (oul$ only be a repetition of the first! &n 6al)ador, et al%, )% Court of !ppeals, et al%,
(e hel$ that this Court has full po(ers, apart fro) that po(er an$ authority (hich is inherent, to a)en$ the processes,
plea$in's, procee$in's an$ $ecisions by substitutin' as party*plaintiff the real party*in*interest! T,# Co/"& ,! &,#
$o;#" &o 0o+' '#8) +% &,# '+!$o!+&+o% o1 &,+! -!#, &o o"'#" +&! 7#%'7#%& ! &o +7$8#' &,# BOC ! $"&)-
"#!$o%'#%&. I%'##', +& 7) %o 8o%2#" (# %#-#!!") &o 'o !o &A+%2 +%&o --o/%& &,# /%+:/# (-A'"o$ +% &,+!
-!#, +%0o80+%2 ! +& 'o#! % +!!/# o1 $/(8+- +%&#"#!&. After all, the ?ffice of the 2olicitor 3eneral has represente$ the
petitioner in the instant procee$in's, as (ell as in the appellate court, an$ )aintaine$ the ali$ity of the $eportation or$er
an$ of the B?CGs ?)nibus Resolution! &t cannot, thus, be clai)e$ by the 2tate that the B?C (as not affor$e$ its $ay in
court, si)ply because only the petitioner, the Chairperson of the B?C, (as the respon$ent in the CA, an$ the petitioner
in the instant recourse! &n !lonso )% Iillamor, (e ha$ the occasion to state7
T,#"# +! %o&,+%2 !-"#' (o/& $"o-#!!#! o" $8#'+%2!, &,#+" 1o"7! o" -o%&#%&!. T,#+" !o8# $/"$o!# +! &o 1-+8+&&#
&,# $$8+-&+o% o1 </!&+-# &o &,# "+08 -8+7! o1 -o%&#%'+%2 $"&+#!. #hey (ere create$, not to hin$er an$ $elay, but to
facilitate an$ pro)ote, the a$)inistration of 4ustice! #hey $o not constitute the thin' itself, (hich courts are al(ays striin'
to secure to liti'ants! #hey are $esi'ne$ as the )eans best a$apte$ to obtain that thin'! &n other (or$s, they are a
)eans to an en$! /hen they lose the character of the one an$ beco)e the other, the a$)inistration of 4ustice is at fault
an$ courts are correspon$in'ly re)iss in the perfor)ance of their obious $uty!
CD
@E)phasis supplie$A
I% %) #0#%&, &,# SEC ,! #.$"#!!8) 7%+1#!&#'
C6
&,& +& ;+88 (+'# () &,# Co/"&9! '#-+!+o% %' '#1#" &o &,#
Co/"&9! '#1+%+&+o% o1 &,# &#"7 N-$+&8N +% S#-&+o% 11, A"&+-8# HII o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%. F/"&,#", &,# SEC #%&#"#' +&!
!$#-+8 $$#"%-# +% &,+! -!# %' "2/#' '/"+%2 &,# O"8 A"2/7#%&!, +%'+-&+%2 +&! !/(7+!!+o% &o &,# Co/"&9!
</"+!'+-&+o%. I& +! -8#", &,#"#1o"#, &,& &,#"# #.+!&! %o 8#28 +7$#'+7#%& 2+%!& &,# $"o$#" %' +77#'+&#
+7$8#7#%&&+o% o1 &,# Co/"&9! '+"#-&+0# &o &,# SEC!
P%.# is an in$ispensable party only insofar as the other issues, particularly the factual ,uestions, are concerne$! &n other
(or$s, P%.# )ust be i)plea$e$ in or$er to fully resole the issues on @1A (hether the sale of 111,61C P#&C shares to
First Pacific iolates the constitutional li)it on forei'n o(nership of P%.#" @2A (hether the sale of co))on shares to
forei'ners e5cee$e$ the 6B percent li)it on forei'n e,uity in P%.#" an$ @DA (hether the total percenta'e of the P%.#
co))on shares (ith otin' ri'hts co)plies (ith the ;B*6B o(nership re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens un$er the
Constitution for the o(nership an$ operation of P%.#! #hese issues in$isputably call for an e5a)ination of the partiesG
respectie ei$ence, an$ thus are clearly (ithin the 4uris$iction of the 2EC! &n short, P%.# )ust be i)plea$e$, an$ )ust
necessarily be hear$, in the procee$in's before the 2EC (here the factual issues (ill be thorou'hly threshe$ out an$
resole$!
No&(8), &,# 1o"#2o+%2 +!!/#! ;#"# 8#1& /%&o/-,#' () &,# Co/"&! #he Court $i$ not rule on the factual issues raise$
by 3a)boa, e5cept the sin'le an$ purely le'al issue on the $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the
Constitution! #he Court confine$ the resolution of the instant case to this threshol$ le'al issue in $eference to the fact*
fin$in' po(er of the 2EC!
Nee$less to state, the Court can ali$ly, properly, an$ fully $ispose of the fun$a)ental le'al issue in this case een
(ithout the participation of P%.# since $efinin' the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution $oes not, in
any (ay, $epen$ on (hether P%.# (as i)plea$e$! 2i)ply put, P%.# is not in$ispensable for a co)plete resolution of
the purely le'al ,uestion in this case!
CC
&n fact, the Court, by treatin' the petition as one for )an$a)us,
C;
)erely $irecte$
the 2EC to apply the CourtGs $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution in $eter)inin'
(hether P%.# co))itte$ any iolation of the sai$ constitutional proision! T,# '+!$o!+&+0# $o"&+o% o1 &,# Co/"&9!
"/8+%2 +! ''"#!!#' %o& &o PLDT (/& !o8#8) &o &,# SEC, ;,+-, +! &,# '7+%+!&"&+0# 2#%-) &!A#' &o #%1o"-# &,#
4@-4@ o;%#"!,+$ "#:/+"#7#%& +% 10o" o1 F+8+$+%o -+&+L#%! +% S#-&+o% 11, A"&+-8# HII o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%!
2ince the Court li)ite$ its resolution on the purely le'al issue on the $efinition of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article
I&& of the 19<7 Constitution, an$ $irecte$ the 2EC to inesti'ate any iolation by P%.# of the ;B*6B o(nership
re,uire)ent in faor of Filipino citi+ens un$er the Constitution,
C7
there is no $epriation of P%.#Gs property or $enial of
P%.#Gs ri'ht to $ue process, contrary to Pan'ilinan an$ Na+arenoGs )isi)pression! .ue process (ill be affor$e$ to P%.#
(hen it presents proof to the 2EC that it co)plies, as it clai)s here, (ith 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution!
4.$oreign 'nvestments in the /hilippines
Moants fear that the 2< -une 2B11 .ecision (oul$ spell $isaster to our econo)y, as it )ay result in a su$$en fli'ht of
e5istin' forei'n inestors to Sfrien$lierS countries an$ si)ultaneously $eterrin' ne( forei'n inestors to our country! &n
particular, the P2E clai)s that the 2< -une 2B11 .ecision )ay result in the follo(in'7 @1A loss of )ore than P ;DB billion in
forei'n inest)ents in P2E*liste$ shares" @2A )assie $ecrease in forei'n tra$in' transactions" @DA lo(er P2E Co)posite
&n$e5" an$ @6A local inestors not inestin' in P2E*liste$ shares!
C<
.r! Bernar$o M! =ille'as, one of the amici curiae in the ?ral Ar'u)ents, share$ )oantsG apprehension! /ithout
proi$in' specific $etails, he pointe$ out the $epressin' state of the Philippine econo)y co)pare$ to our nei'hborin'
countries (hich boast of 'ro(in' econo)ies! Further, .r! =ille'as e5plaine$ that the solution to our econo)ic (oes is for
the 'oern)ent to Sta0e*oerS strate'ic in$ustries, such as the public utilities sector, thus7
->2#&CE CARP&?7
71
& (oul$ li0e also to 'et fro) you .r! =ille'as if you hae a$$itional infor)ation on (hether this hi'h F.&
C9
countries in East
Asia hae allo(e$ forei'ners 5 5 5 control 9of: their public utilities, so that (e can co)pare apples (ith apples!
.R! =&%%E3A27
Correct, but let )e 4ust )a0e a co))ent! /hen these nei'hbors of ours fin$ an in$ustry strate'ic, their solution is not to
SFilipini+eS or S=ietna)i+eS or S2in'apori+e!S T,#+" !o8/&+o% +! &o 7A# !/"# &,& &,o!# +%'/!&"+#! "# +% &,# ,%'! o1
!&&# #%&#"$"+!#!. So, +% &,#!# -o/%&"+#!, %&+o%8+L&+o% 7#%! &,# 2o0#"%7#%& &A#! o0#". A%' (#-/!# &,#+"
2o0#"%7#%&! "# -o7$#&#%& %' ,o%#!& #%o/2, &o &,# $/(8+-, &,& +! &,# !o8/&+o%. 5 5 5
;B
@E)phasis supplie$A
&f 'oern)ent o(nership of public utilities is the solution, then forei'n inest)ents in our public utilities sere no purpose!
?biously, there can neer be forei'n inest)ents in public utilities if, as .r! =ille'as clai)s, the Ssolution is to )a0e sure
that those in$ustries are in the han$s of state enterprises!S .r! =ille'asGs ar'u)ent that forei'n inest)ents in
teleco))unication co)panies li0e P%.# are ba$ly nee$e$ to sae our ailin' econo)y contra$icts his o(n theory that
the solution is for 'oern)ent to ta0e oer these co)panies! .r! =ille'as is bar0in' up the (ron' tree since 2tate
o(nership of public utilities an$ forei'n inest)ents in such in$ustries are $ia)etrically oppose$ concepts, (hich cannot
possibly be reconcile$!
&n any eent, the e5perience of our nei'hborin' countries cannot be use$ as ar'u)ent to $eci$e the present case
$ifferently for t(o reasons! First, the 'oern)ents of our nei'hborin' countries hae, as clai)e$ by .r! =ille'as, ta0en
oer o(nership an$ control of their strate'ic public utilities li0e the teleco))unications in$ustry! 2econ$, our Constitution
has specific proisions li)itin' forei'n o(nership in public utilities (hich the Court is s(orn to uphol$ re'ar$less of the
e5perience of our nei'hborin' countries!
&n our 4uris$iction, the Constitution e5pressly reseres the o(nership an$ operation of public utilities to Filipino citi+ens, or
corporations or associations at least ;B percent of (hose capital belon's to Filipinos! Follo(in' .r! =ille'asGs clai), the
Philippines appears to be )ore liberal in allo(in' forei'n inestors to o(n 6B percent of public utilities, unli0e in other
Asian countries (hose 'oern)ents o(n an$ operate such in$ustries!
4'./rospective Application of Sanctions
&n its Motion for Partial Reconsi$eration, the 2EC sou'ht to clarify the rec0onin' perio$ of the application an$ i)position
of appropriate sanctions a'ainst P%.# if foun$ iolatin' 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution!4a))phi4
As $iscusse$, the Court has $irecte$ the 2EC to inesti'ate an$ $eter)ine (hether P%.# iolate$ 2ection 11, Article I&&
of the Constitution! #hus, there is no $ispute that it is only after the 2EC has $eter)ine$ P%.#Gs iolation, if any e5ists at
the ti)e of the co))ence)ent of the a$)inistratie case or inesti'ation, that the 2EC )ay i)pose the statutory
sanctions a'ainst P%.#! &n other (or$s, once the 2< -une 2B11 .ecision beco)es final, the 2EC shall i)pose the
appropriate sanctions only if it fin$s after $ue hearin' that, at the start of the a$)inistratie case or inesti'ation, there is
an e5istin' iolation of 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution! >n$er preailin' 4urispru$ence, public utilities that fail to
co)ply (ith the nationality re,uire)ent un$er 2ection 11, Article I&& an$ the F&A can cure their $eficiencies prior to the
start of the a$)inistratie case or inesti'ation!
;1
4''.$inal 6ord
#he Constitution e5pressly $eclares as 2tate policy the $eelop)ent of an econo)y Seffectively controlledS by Filipinos!
Consistent (ith such 2tate policy, the Constitution e5plicitly reseres the o(nership an$ operation of public utilities to
Philippine nationals, (ho are $efine$ in the Forei'n &nest)ents Act of 1991 as Filipino citi+ens, or corporations or
associations at least ;B percent of (hose capital with voting rights belon's to Filipinos! #he F&AGs i)ple)entin' rules
e5plain that S9f:or stoc0s to be $ee)e$ o(ne$ an$ hel$ by Philippine citi+ens or Philippine nationals, )ere le'al title is not
enou'h to )eet the re,uire$ Filipino e,uity! F/88 (#%#1+-+8 o;%#"!,+$ o1 &,# !&o-A!, -o/$8#' ;+&, $$"o$"+&# 0o&+%2
"+2,&! +! #!!#%&+8!S &n effect, the F&A clarifies, reiterates an$ confir)s the interpretation that the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection
11, Article I&& of the 19<7 Constitution refers to shares with voting rights, as well as with full beneficial ownership!
#his is precisely because the ri'ht to ote in the election of $irectors, couple$ (ith full beneficial o(nership of stoc0s,
translates to effectie control of a corporation!
Any other construction of the ter) ScapitalS in 2ection 11, Article I&& of the Constitution contraenes the letter an$ intent of
the Constitution! Any other )eanin' of the ter) ScapitalS openly inites alien $o)ination of econo)ic actiities resere$
e5clusiely to Philippine nationals! #herefore, respon$entsG interpretation (ill ulti)ately result in han$in' oer effectie
control of our national econo)y to forei'ners in patent iolation of the Constitution, )a0in' Filipinos secon$*class citi+ens
in their o(n country!
Filipinos hae only to re)in$ the)seles of ho( this country (as e5ploite$ un$er the Parity A)en$)ent, (hich 'ae
A)ericans the sa)e ri'hts as Filipinos in the e5ploitation of natural resources, an$ in the o(nership an$ control of public
utilities, in the Philippines! #o $o this the 19DC Constitution, (hich containe$ the sa)e ;B percent Filipino o(nership an$
control re,uire)ent as the present 19<7 Constitution, ha$ to be a)en$e$ to 'ie A)ericans parity ri'hts (ith Filipinos!
#here (as bitter opposition to the Parity A)en$)ent
;2
an$ )any Filipinos ea'erly a(aite$ its e5piration! &n late 19;<,
P%.# (as one of the A)erican*controlle$ public utilities that beca)e Filipino*controlle$ (hen the controllin' A)erican
stoc0hol$ers $ieste$ in anticipation of the e5piration of the Parity A)en$)ent on D -uly 1976!
;D
No econo)ic suici$e
happene$ (hen control of public utilities an$ )inin' corporations passe$ to FilipinosG han$s upon e5piration of the Parity
A)en$)ent!
MoantsG interpretation of the ter) ScapitalS (oul$ brin' us bac0 to the sa)e eils spa(ne$ by the Parity A)en$)ent,
effectively giving foreigners parity rights with $ilipinos, but this time even without any amendment to the
72
present +onstitution! /orse, )oantsG interpretation opens up our national econo)y to effective control not only by
A)ericans but also by 88 1o"#+2%#"!, (# &,#) I%'o%#!+%!, M8)!+%! o" C,+%#!#, #0#% +% &,# (!#%-# o1
"#-+$"o-8 &"#&) ""%2#7#%&!! At least the Parity A)en$)ent, as i)ple)ente$ by the %aurel*%an'ley A'ree)ent,
'ae the capital*stare$ Filipinos theoretical parity O the sa)e ri'hts as A)ericans to e5ploit natural resources, an$ to
o(n an$ control public utilities, in the 7nited 6tates of !merica! 1ere, )oantsG interpretation (oul$ effectiely )ean a
unilateral openin' up of our national econo)y to all forei'ners, without any reciprocal arrangements! #hat (oul$
)ean that &n$onesians, Malaysians an$ Chinese nationals coul$ effectiely control our )inin' co)panies an$ public
utilities (hile Filipinos, een if they hae the capital, coul$ not control si)ilar corporations in these countries!
#he 19DC, 197D an$ 19<7 Constitutions hae the sa)e ;B percent Filipino o(nership an$ control re,uire)ent for public
utilities li0e P%?#! Any $eiation fro) this re,uire)ent necessitates an a)en$)ent to the Constitution as e5e)plifie$ by
the Parity A)en$)ent! #his Court has no po(er to a)en$ the Constitution for its po(er an$ $uty is only to faithfully apply
an$ interpret the Constitution!
WHEREFORE, ;# DENY the )otions for reconsi$eration WITH FINALITY. No further plea$in's shall be entertaine$!
2? ?R.ERE.!
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 1@1@5B J/8) B@, 199B
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO %' JOSE ALFONSO, 88 !/"%7#' OPOSA, 7+%o"!, %' "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+"
$"#%&! ANTONIO %' RI*ALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA, 7+%o", "#$"#!#%&#' () ,#" $"#%&! CALVIN
%' ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD %' PATRISHA, 88 !/"%7#' FLORES, 7+%o"! %'
"#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! ENRICO %' NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, 7+%o", "#$"#!#%&#' () ,#"
73
$"#%&! SIGRID %' DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II %' MA. CONCEPCION, 88 !/"%7#' MISA, 7+%o"! %'
"#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! GEORGE %' MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, 7+%o", "#$"#!#%&#' () ,+!
$"#%&! ANTONIO %' ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, 7+%o", "#$"#!#%&#' () ,#" $"#%&! JOSE %'
MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, 7+%o", "#$"#!#%&#' () ,#" $"#%&! FREDENIL %'
JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, 7+%o", "#$"#!#%&#' () ,#" $"#%&! JOSE %' ANGELA
DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAKUIN T. NARVASA, 7+%o", "#$"#!#%&#' () ,+! $"#%&! GREGORIO II %' CRISTINE
CHARITY NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA %' MARIE GABRIELLE, 88 !/"%7#'
SAEN*, 7+%o"!, "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! ROBERTO %' AURORA SAEN*, FRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY,
GOLDA MARTHE %' DAVID IAN, 88 !/"%7#' FING, 7+%o"!, "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! MARIO %' HAYDEE
FING, DAVID, FRANCISCO %' THERESE VICTORIA, 88 !/"%7#' ENDRIGA, 7+%o"!, "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+"
$"#%&! BALTA*AR %' TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. %' REGINA MA., 88 !/"%7#' ABAYA, 7+%o"!,
"#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! ANTONIO %' MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. %' MARIETTE, 88 !/"%7#'
CARDAMA, 7+%o"!, "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! MARIO %' LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL,
%' IMEE LYN, 88 !/"%7#' OPOSA, 7+%o"! %' "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! RICARDO %' MARISSA OPOSA,
PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN %' ISAIAH JAMES, 88 !/"%7#' KUIPIT, 7+%o"!, "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&!
JOSE MAH %' VILMI KUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL %' FRANCISCO, 88 !/"%7#'
BIBAL, 7+%o"!, "#$"#!#%&#' () &,#+" $"#%&! FRANCISCO, JR. %' MILAGROS BIBAL, %' THE PHILIPPINE
ECOLOGICAL NETWORF, INC., petitioners, s!THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., +% ,+! -$-+&)
! &,# S#-"#&") o1 &,# D#$"&7#%& o1 E%0+"o%7#%& %' N&/"8 R#!o/"-#!, %' THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U.
ROSARIO, P"#!+'+%2 J/'2# o1 &,# RTC, MA&+, B"%-, 44, respon$ents!
&n a broa$er sense, this petition bears upon the ri'ht of Filipinos to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y (hich the petitioners
$ra)atically associate (ith the t(in concepts of Sinter*'enerational responsibilityS an$ Sinter*'enerational 4ustice!S
2pecifically, it touches on the issue of (hether the sai$ petitioners hae a cause of action to Spreent the
)isappropriation or i)pair)entS of Philippine rainforests an$ Sarrest the unabate$ he)orrha'e of the countryTs ital life
support syste)s an$ continue$ rape of Mother Earth!S
#he controersy has its 'enesis in Ciil Case No! 9B*77 (hich (as file$ before Branch ;; @Ma0ati, Metro ManilaA of the
Re'ional #rial Court @R#CA, National Capital -u$icial Re'ion! #he principal plaintiffs therein, no( the principal petitioners,
are all )inors $uly represente$ an$ 4oine$ by their respectie parents! &)plea$e$ as an a$$itional plaintiff is the
Philippine Ecolo'ical Net(or0, &nc! @PEN&A, a $o)estic, non*stoc0 an$ non*profit corporation or'ani+e$ for the purpose of,
inter alia, en'a'in' in concerte$ action 'eare$ for the protection of our eniron)ent an$ natural resources! #he ori'inal
$efen$ant (as the 1onorable Ful'encio 2! Factoran, -r!, then 2ecretary of the .epart)ent of Eniron)ent an$ Natural
Resources @.ENRA! 1is substitution in this petition by the ne( 2ecretary, the 1onorable An'el C! Alcala, (as
subse,uently or$ere$ upon proper )otion by the petitioners!
1
#he co)plaint
2
(as institute$ as a ta5payersT class suit
B
an$ alle'es that the plaintiffs Sare all citi+ens of the Republic of the Philippines, ta5payers, an$ entitle$ to the full benefit,
use an$ en4oy)ent of the natural resource treasure that is the countryTs ir'in tropical forests!S #he sa)e (as file$ for
the)seles an$ others (ho are e,ually concerne$ about the preseration of sai$ resource but are Sso nu)erous that it is
i)practicable to brin' the) all before the Court!S #he )inors further asseerate that they Srepresent their 'eneration as
(ell as 'enerations yet unborn!S
4
Conse,uently, it is praye$ for that 4u$')ent be ren$ere$7
! ! ! or$erin' $efen$ant, his a'ents, representaties an$ other persons actin' in his behalf to P
@1A Cancel all e5istin' ti)ber license a'ree)ents in the country"
@2A Cease an$ $esist fro) receiin', acceptin', processin', rene(in' or approin' ne( ti)ber license a'ree)ents!
an$ 'rantin' the plaintiffs S! ! ! such other reliefs 4ust an$ e,uitable un$er the pre)ises!S
3
#he co)plaint starts off (ith the 'eneral aer)ents that the Philippine archipela'o of 7,1BB islan$s has a lan$ area of
thirty )illion @DB,BBB,BBBA hectares an$ is en$o(e$ (ith rich, lush an$ er$ant rainforests in (hich arie$, rare an$
uni,ue species of flora an$ fauna )ay be foun$" these rainforests contain a 'enetic, biolo'ical an$ che)ical pool (hich
is irreplaceable" they are also the habitat of in$i'enous Philippine cultures (hich hae e5iste$, en$ure$ an$ flourishe$
since ti)e i))e)orial" scientific ei$ence reeals that in or$er to )aintain a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y, the
countryTs lan$ area shoul$ be utili+e$ on the basis of a ratio of fifty*four per cent @C6EA for forest coer an$ forty*si5 per
cent @6;EA for a'ricultural, resi$ential, in$ustrial, co))ercial an$ other uses" the $istortion an$ $isturbance of this
balance as a conse,uence of $eforestation hae resulte$ in a host of eniron)ental tra'e$ies, such as @aA (ater
shorta'es resultin' fro) $ryin' up of the (ater table, other(ise 0no(n as the Sa,uifer,S as (ell as of riers, broo0s an$
strea)s, @bA salini+ation of the (ater table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt (ater, incontroertible e5a)ples of
(hich )ay be foun$ in the islan$ of Cebu an$ the Municipality of Bacoor, Caite, @cA )assie erosion an$ the
conse,uential loss of soil fertility an$ a'ricultural pro$uctiity, (ith the olu)e of soil ero$e$ esti)ate$ at one billion
@1,BBB,BBB,BBBA cubic )eters per annu) P appro5i)ately the si+e of the entire islan$ of Catan$uanes, @$A the
en$an'erin' an$ e5tinction of the countryTs uni,ue, rare an$ arie$ flora an$ fauna, @eA the $isturbance an$ $islocation of
cultural co))unities, inclu$in' the $isappearance of the FilipinoTs in$i'enous cultures, @fA the siltation of riers an$
seabe$s an$ conse,uential $estruction of corals an$ other a,uatic life lea$in' to a critical re$uction in )arine resource
pro$uctiity, @'A recurrent spells of $rou'ht as is presently e5perience$ by the entire country, @hA increasin' elocity of
typhoon (in$s (hich result fro) the absence of (in$brea0ers, @iA the floo$in's of lo(lan$s an$ a'ricultural plains arisin'
fro) the absence of the absorbent )echanis) of forests, @4A the siltation an$ shortenin' of the lifespan of )ulti*billion
peso $a)s constructe$ an$ operate$ for the purpose of supplyin' (ater for $o)estic uses, irri'ation an$ the 'eneration
of electric po(er, an$ @0A the re$uction of the earthTs capacity to process carbon $io5i$e 'ases (hich has le$ to
perple5in' an$ catastrophic cli)atic chan'es such as the pheno)enon of 'lobal (ar)in', other(ise 0no(n as the
S'reenhouse effect!S
Plaintiffs further assert that the a$erse an$ $etri)ental conse,uences of continue$ an$ $eforestation are so capable of
un,uestionable $e)onstration that the sa)e )ay be sub)itte$ as a )atter of 4u$icial notice! #his not(ithstan$in', they
e5presse$ their intention to present e5pert (itnesses as (ell as $ocu)entary, photo'raphic an$ fil) ei$ence in the
course of the trial!
74
As their cause of action, they specifically alle'e that7
C!76E "F !CT,"N
7! Plaintiffs replea$ by reference the fore'oin' alle'ations!
<! #(enty*fie @2CA years a'o, the Philippines ha$ so)e si5teen @1;A )illion hectares of rainforests constitutin' rou'hly
CDE of the countryTs lan$ )ass!
9! 2atellite i)a'es ta0en in 19<7 reeal that there re)aine$ no )ore than 1!2 )illion hectares of sai$ rainforests or four
per cent @6!BEA of the countryTs lan$ area!
1B! More recent sureys reeal that a )ere <CB,BBB hectares of ir'in ol$*'ro(th rainforests are left, barely 2!<E of the
entire lan$ )ass of the Philippine archipela'o an$ about D!B )illion hectares of i))ature an$ unecono)ical secon$ary
'ro(th forests!
11! Public recor$s reeal that the $efen$antTs, pre$ecessors hae 'rante$ ti)ber license a'ree)ents @T#%ATsTA to arious
corporations to cut the a''re'ate area of D!<9 )illion hectares for co))ercial lo''in' purposes!
A copy of the #%A hol$ers an$ the correspon$in' areas coere$ is hereto attache$ as Anne5 SAS!
12! At the present rate of $eforestation, i%e% about 2BB,BBB hectares per annu) or 2C hectares per hour P ni'htti)e,
2atur$ays, 2un$ays an$ holi$ays inclu$e$ P the Philippines (ill be bereft of forest resources after the en$ of this
ensuin' $eca$e, if not earlier!
1D! #he a$erse effects, $isastrous conse,uences, serious in4ury an$ irreparable $a)a'e of this continue$ tren$ of
$eforestation to the plaintiff )inorTs 'eneration an$ to 'enerations yet unborn are ei$ent an$ incontroertible! As a
)atter of fact, the eniron)ental $a)a'es enu)erate$ in para'raph ; hereof are alrea$y bein' felt, e5perience$ an$
suffere$ by the 'eneration of plaintiff a$ults!
16! #he continue$ allo(ance by $efen$ant of #%A hol$ers to cut an$ $eforest the re)ainin' forest stan$s (ill (or0 'reat
$a)a'e an$ irreparable in4ury to plaintiffs P especially plaintiff )inors an$ their successors P (ho )ay neer see, use,
benefit fro) an$ en4oy this rare an$ uni,ue natural resource treasure!
#his act of $efen$ant constitutes a )isappropriation an$Hor i)pair)ent of the natural resource property he hol$s in trust
for the benefit of plaintiff )inors an$ succee$in' 'enerations!
1C! Plaintiffs hae a clear an$ constitutional ri'ht to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y an$ are entitle$ to protection by the
2tate in its capacity as the parens patriae!
1;! Plaintiff hae e5hauste$ all a$)inistratie re)e$ies (ith the $efen$antTs office! ?n March 2, 199B, plaintiffs sere$
upon $efen$ant a final $e)an$ to cancel all lo''in' per)its in the country!
A copy of the plaintiffsT letter $ate$ March 1, 199B is hereto attache$ as Anne5 SBS!
17! .efen$ant, ho(eer, fails an$ refuses to cancel the e5istin' #%ATs to the continuin' serious $a)a'e an$ e5tre)e
pre4u$ice of plaintiffs!
1<! #he continue$ failure an$ refusal by $efen$ant to cancel the #%ATs is an act iolatie of the ri'hts of plaintiffs,
especially plaintiff )inors (ho )ay be left (ith a country that is $esertifie$ @sicA, bare, barren an$ $eoi$ of the (on$erful
flora, fauna an$ in$i'enous cultures (hich the Philippines ha$ been abun$antly blesse$ (ith!
19! .efen$antTs refusal to cancel the afore)entione$ #%ATs is )anifestly contrary to the public policy enunciate$ in the
Philippine Eniron)ental Policy (hich, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the 2tate P
@aA to create, $eelop, )aintain an$ i)proe con$itions un$er (hich )an an$ nature can thrie in pro$uctie an$
en4oyable har)ony (ith each other"
@bA to fulfill the social, econo)ic an$ other re,uire)ents of present an$ future 'enerations of Filipinos an$"
@cA to ensure the attain)ent of an eniron)ental ,uality that is con$uctie to a life of $i'nity an$ (ell*bein'! @P!.! 11C1, ;
-une 1977A
2B! Further)ore, $efen$antTs continue$ refusal to cancel the afore)entione$ #%ATs is contra$ictory to the Constitutional
policy of the 2tate to P
a! effect Sa )ore e,uitable $istribution of opportunities, inco)e an$ (ealthS an$ S)a0e full an$ efficient use of natural
resources @sicA!S @2ection 1, Article I&& of the ConstitutionA"
b! Sprotect the nationTs )arine (ealth!S @2ection 2, ibidA"
c! Sconsere an$ pro)ote the nationTs cultural herita'e an$ resources @sicAS @2ection 16, Article I&=, id!A"
$! Sprotect an$ a$ance the ri'ht of the people to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y in accor$ (ith the rhyth) an$
75
har)ony of nature!S @2ection 1;, Article &&, id!A
21! Finally, $efen$antTs act is contrary to the hi'hest la( of hu)an0in$ P the natural la( P an$ iolatie of plaintiffsT ri'ht
to self*preseration an$ perpetuation!
22! #here is no other plain, spee$y an$ a$e,uate re)e$y in la( other than the instant action to arrest the unabate$
he)orrha'e of the countryTs ital life support syste)s an$ continue$ rape of Mother Earth!
4
?n 22 -une 199B, the ori'inal $efen$ant, 2ecretary Factoran, -r!, file$ a Motion to .is)iss the co)plaint base$ on t(o
@2A 'roun$s, na)ely7 @1A the plaintiffs hae no cause of action a'ainst hi) an$ @2A the issue raise$ by the plaintiffs is a
political ,uestion (hich properly pertains to the le'islatie or e5ecutie branches of 3oern)ent! &n their 12 -uly 199B
?pposition to the Motion, the petitioners )aintain that @1A the co)plaint sho(s a clear an$ un)ista0able cause of action,
@2A the )otion is $ilatory an$ @DA the action presents a 4usticiable ,uestion as it inoles the $efen$antTs abuse of
$iscretion!
?n 1< -uly 1991, respon$ent -u$'e issue$ an or$er 'rantin' the afore)entione$ )otion to $is)iss!
>
&n the sai$ or$er,
not only (as the $efen$antTs clai) P that the co)plaint states no cause of action a'ainst hi) an$ that it raises a political
,uestion P sustaine$, the respon$ent -u$'e further rule$ that the 'rantin' of the relief praye$ for (oul$ result in the
i)pair)ent of contracts (hich is prohibite$ by the fun$a)ental la( of the lan$!
Plaintiffs thus file$ the instant special ciil action for certiorari un$er Rule ;C of the Reise$ Rules of Court an$ as0 this
Court to rescin$ an$ set asi$e the $is)issal or$er on the 'roun$ that the respon$ent -u$'e 'raely abuse$ his $iscretion
in $is)issin' the action! A'ain, the parents of the plaintiffs*)inors not only represent their chil$ren, but hae also 4oine$
the latter in this case!
5
?n 16 May 1992, /e resole$ to 'ie $ue course to the petition an$ re,uire$ the parties to sub)it their respectie
Me)oran$a after the ?ffice of the 2olicitor 3eneral @?23A file$ a Co))ent in behalf of the respon$ents an$ the
petitioners file$ a reply thereto!
Petitioners conten$ that the co)plaint clearly an$ un)ista0ably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient
alle'ations concernin' their ri'ht to a soun$ eniron)ent base$ on Articles 19, 2B an$ 21 of the Ciil Co$e @1u)an
RelationsA, 2ection 6 of E5ecutie ?r$er @E!?!A No! 192 creatin' the .ENR, 2ection D of Presi$ential .ecree @P!.!A No!
11C1 @Philippine Eniron)ental PolicyA, 2ection 1;, Article && of the 19<7 Constitution reco'ni+in' the ri'ht of the people
to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y, the concept of 'enerational 'enoci$e in Cri)inal %a( an$ the concept of )anTs
inalienable ri'ht to self*preseration an$ self*perpetuation e)bo$ie$ in natural la(! Petitioners li0e(ise rely on the
respon$entTs correlatie obli'ation per 2ection 6 of E!?! No! 192, to safe'uar$ the peopleTs ri'ht to a healthful
eniron)ent!
&t is further clai)e$ that the issue of the respon$ent 2ecretaryTs alle'e$ 'rae abuse of $iscretion in 'rantin' #i)ber
%icense A'ree)ents @#%AsA to coer )ore areas for lo''in' than (hat is aailable inoles a 4u$icial ,uestion!
Anent the inocation by the respon$ent -u$'e of the ConstitutionTs non*i)pair)ent clause, petitioners )aintain that the
sa)e $oes not apply in this case because #%As are not contracts! #hey li0e(ise sub)it that een if #%As )ay be
consi$ere$ protecte$ by the sai$ clause, it is (ell settle$ that they )ay still be reo0e$ by the 2tate (hen the public
interest so re,uires!
?n the other han$, the respon$ents aer that the petitioners faile$ to alle'e in their co)plaint a specific le'al ri'ht
iolate$ by the respon$ent 2ecretary for (hich any relief is proi$e$ by la(! #hey see nothin' in the co)plaint but a'ue
an$ nebulous alle'ations concernin' an Seniron)ental ri'htS (hich suppose$ly entitles the petitioners to the Sprotection
by the state in its capacity as parens patriae%S 2uch alle'ations, accor$in' to the), $o not reeal a ali$ cause of action!
#hey then reiterate the theory that the ,uestion of (hether lo''in' shoul$ be per)itte$ in the country is a political
,uestion (hich shoul$ be properly a$$resse$ to the e5ecutie or le'islatie branches of 3oern)ent! #hey therefore
assert that the petitionersT resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Con'ress for the passa'e of a bill
that (oul$ ban lo''in' totally!
As to the )atter of the cancellation of the #%As, respon$ents sub)it that the sa)e cannot be $one by the 2tate (ithout
$ue process of la(! ?nce issue$, a #%A re)ains effectie for a certain perio$ of ti)e P usually for t(enty*fie @2CA years!
.urin' its effectiity, the sa)e can neither be reise$ nor cancelle$ unless the hol$er has been foun$, after $ue notice
an$ hearin', to hae iolate$ the ter)s of the a'ree)ent or other forestry la(s an$ re'ulations! PetitionersT proposition to
hae all the #%As in$iscri)inately cancelle$ (ithout the re,uisite hearin' (oul$ be iolatie of the re,uire)ents of $ue
process!
Before 'oin' any further, /e )ust first focus on so)e proce$ural )atters! Petitioners institute$ Ciil Case No! 9B*777 as
a class suit! #he ori'inal $efen$ant an$ the present respon$ents $i$ not ta0e issue (ith this )atter! Neertheless, /e
hereby rule that the sai$ ciil case is in$ee$ a class suit! #he sub4ect )atter of the co)plaint is of co))on an$ 'eneral
interest not 4ust to seeral, but to all citi+ens of the Philippines! Conse,uently, since the parties are so nu)erous, it,
beco)es i)practicable, if not totally i)possible, to brin' all of the) before the court! /e li0e(ise $eclare that the
plaintiffs therein are nu)erous an$ representatie enou'h to ensure the full protection of all concerne$ interests! 1ence,
all the re,uisites for the filin' of a ali$ class suit un$er 2ection 12, Rule D of the Reise$ Rules of Court are present both
in the sai$ ciil case an$ in the instant petition, the latter bein' but an inci$ent to the for)er!
#his case, ho(eer, has a special an$ noel ele)ent! Petitioners )inors assert that they represent their 'eneration as
(ell as 'enerations yet unborn! /e fin$ no $ifficulty in rulin' that they can, for the)seles, for others of their 'eneration
an$ for the succee$in' 'enerations, file a class suit! #heir personality to sue in behalf of the succee$in' 'enerations can
76
only be base$ on the concept of inter'enerational responsibility insofar as the ri'ht to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y is
concerne$! 2uch a ri'ht, as hereinafter e5poun$e$, consi$ers the Srhyth) an$ har)ony of nature!S Nature )eans the
create$ (orl$ in its entirety!
9
2uch rhyth) an$ har)ony in$ispensably inclu$e, inter alia, the 4u$icious $isposition,
utili+ation, )ana'e)ent, rene(al an$ conseration of the countryTs forest, )ineral, lan$, (aters, fisheries, (il$life, off*
shore areas an$ other natural resources to the en$ that their e5ploration, $eelop)ent an$ utili+ation be e,uitably
accessible to the present as (ell as future 'enerations!
1@
Nee$less to say, eery 'eneration has a responsibility to the
ne5t to presere that rhyth) an$ har)ony for the full en4oy)ent of a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y! Put a little
$ifferently, the )inorsT assertion of their ri'ht to a soun$ eniron)ent constitutes, at the sa)e ti)e, the perfor)ance of
their obli'ation to ensure the protection of that ri'ht for the 'enerations to co)e!
#he locus standi of the petitioners hain' thus been a$$resse$, /e shall no( procee$ to the )erits of the petition!
After a careful perusal of the co)plaint in ,uestion an$ a )eticulous consi$eration an$ ealuation of the issues raise$
an$ ar'u)ents a$$uce$ by the parties, /e $o not hesitate to fin$ for the petitioners an$ rule a'ainst the respon$ent
-u$'eTs challen'e$ or$er for hain' been issue$ (ith 'rae abuse of $iscretion a)ountin' to lac0 of 4uris$iction! #he
pertinent portions of the sai$ or$er rea$s as follo(s7
555 555 555
After a careful an$ circu)spect ealuation of the Co)plaint, the Court cannot help but a'ree (ith the $efen$ant! For
althou'h (e beliee that plaintiffs hae but the noblest of all intentions, it @sicA fell short of alle'in', (ith sufficient
$efiniteness, a specific le'al ri'ht they are see0in' to enforce an$ protect, or a specific le'al (ron' they are see0in' to
preent an$ re$ress @2ec! 1, Rule 2, RRCA! Further)ore, the Court notes that the Co)plaint is replete (ith a'ue
assu)ptions an$ a'ue conclusions base$ on unerifie$ $ata! &n fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its
Co)plaint a'ainst the herein $efen$ant!
Further)ore, the Court fir)ly beliees that the )atter before it, bein' i)presse$ (ith political color an$ inolin' a )atter
of public policy, )ay not be ta0en co'ni+ance of by this Court (ithout $oin' iolence to the sacre$ principle of
S2eparation of Po(ersS of the three @DA co*e,ual branches of the 3oern)ent!
#he Court is li0e(ise of the i)pression that it cannot, no )atter ho( (e stretch our 4uris$iction, 'rant the reliefs praye$
for by the plaintiffs, i%e%, to cancel all e5istin' ti)ber license a'ree)ents in the country an$ to cease an$ $esist fro)
receiin', acceptin', processin', rene(in' or approin' ne( ti)ber license a'ree)ents! For to $o other(ise (oul$
a)ount to Si)pair)ent of contractsS abhore$ @sicA by the fun$a)ental la(!
11
/e $o not a'ree (ith the trial courtTs conclusions that the plaintiffs faile$ to alle'e (ith sufficient $efiniteness a specific
le'al ri'ht inole$ or a specific le'al (ron' co))itte$, an$ that the co)plaint is replete (ith a'ue assu)ptions an$
conclusions base$ on unerifie$ $ata! A rea$in' of the co)plaint itself belies these conclusions!
#he co)plaint focuses on one specific fun$a)ental le'al ri'ht P the ri'ht to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y (hich, for
the first ti)e in our nationTs constitutional history, is sole)nly incorporate$ in the fun$a)ental la(! 2ection 1;, Article && of
the 19<7 Constitution e5plicitly proi$es7
2ec! 1;! #he 2tate shall protect an$ a$ance the ri'ht of the people to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y in accor$ (ith
the rhyth) an$ har)ony of nature!
#his ri'ht unites (ith the ri'ht to health (hich is proi$e$ for in the prece$in' section of the sa)e article7
2ec! 1C! #he 2tate shall protect an$ pro)ote the ri'ht to health of the people an$ instill health consciousness a)on'
the)!
/hile the ri'ht to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y is to be foun$ un$er the .eclaration of Principles an$ 2tate Policies
an$ not un$er the Bill of Ri'hts, it $oes not follo( that it is less i)portant than any of the ciil an$ political ri'hts
enu)erate$ in the latter! 2uch a ri'ht belon's to a $ifferent cate'ory of ri'hts alto'ether for it concerns nothin' less than
self*preseration an$ self*perpetuation P aptly an$ fittin'ly stresse$ by the petitioners P the a$ance)ent of (hich )ay
een be sai$ to pre$ate all 'oern)ents an$ constitutions! As a )atter of fact, these basic ri'hts nee$ not een be
(ritten in the Constitution for they are assu)e$ to e5ist fro) the inception of hu)an0in$! &f they are no( e5plicitly
)entione$ in the fun$a)ental charter, it is because of the (ell*foun$e$ fear of its fra)ers that unless the ri'hts to a
balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y an$ to health are )an$ate$ as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
hi'hli'htin' their continuin' i)portance an$ i)posin' upon the state a sole)n obli'ation to presere the first an$ protect
an$ a$ance the secon$, the $ay (oul$ not be too far (hen all else (oul$ be lost not only for the present 'eneration, but
also for those to co)e P 'enerations (hich stan$ to inherit nothin' but parche$ earth incapable of sustainin' life!
#he ri'ht to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y carries (ith it the correlatie $uty to refrain fro) i)pairin' the eniron)ent!
.urin' the $ebates on this ri'ht in one of the plenary sessions of the 19<; Constitutional Co))ission, the follo(in'
e5chan'e transpire$ bet(een Co))issioner /ilfri$o =illacorta an$ Co))issioner A$olfo A+cuna (ho sponsore$ the
section in ,uestion7
MR! =&%%AC?R#A7
.oes this section )an$ate the 2tate to proi$e sanctions a'ainst all for)s of pollution P air, (ater an$ noise pollutionK
MR! AMC>NA7
77
Nes, Ma$a) Presi$ent! #he ri'ht to healthful @sicA eniron)ent necessarily carries (ith it the correlatie $uty of not
i)pairin' the sa)e an$, therefore, sanctions )ay be proi$e$ for i)pair)ent of eniron)ental balance!
12
#he sai$ ri'ht i)plies, a)on' )any other thin's, the 4u$icious )ana'e)ent an$ conseration of the countryTs forests!
/ithout such forests, the ecolo'ical or eniron)ental balance (oul$ be irreersiby $isrupte$!
Confor)ably (ith the enunciate$ ri'ht to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y an$ the ri'ht to health, as (ell as the other
relate$ proisions of the Constitution concernin' the conseration, $eelop)ent an$ utili+ation of the countryTs natural
resources,
1B
then Presi$ent Cora+on C! A,uino pro)ul'ate$ on 1B -une 19<7 E!?! No! 192,
14
2ection 6 of (hich
e5pressly )an$ates that the .epart)ent of Eniron)ent an$ Natural Resources Sshall be the pri)ary 'oern)ent
a'ency responsible for the conseration, )ana'e)ent, $eelop)ent an$ proper use of the countryTs eniron)ent an$
natural resources, specifically forest an$ 'ra+in' lan$s, )ineral, resources, inclu$in' those in reseration an$ (atershe$
areas, an$ lan$s of the public $o)ain, as (ell as the licensin' an$ re'ulation of all natural resources as )ay be proi$e$
for by la( in or$er to ensure e,uitable sharin' of the benefits $erie$ therefro) for the (elfare of the present an$ future
'enerations of Filipinos!S 2ection D thereof )a0es the follo(in' state)ent of policy7
2ec! D! Declaration of Policy! P &t is hereby $eclare$ the policy of the 2tate to ensure the sustainable use, $eelop)ent,
)ana'e)ent, rene(al, an$ conseration of the countryTs forest, )ineral, lan$, off*shore areas an$ other natural
resources, inclu$in' the protection an$ enhance)ent of the ,uality of the eniron)ent, an$ e,uitable access of the
$ifferent se')ents of the population to the $eelop)ent an$ the use of the countryTs natural resources, not only for the
present 'eneration but for future 'enerations as (ell! &t is also the policy of the state to reco'ni+e an$ apply a true alue
syste) inclu$in' social an$ eniron)ental cost i)plications relatie to their utili+ation, $eelop)ent an$ conseration of
our natural resources!
#his policy $eclaration is substantially re*state$ it #itle I&=, Boo0 &= of the A$)inistratie Co$e of 19<7,
13
specifically in
2ection 1 thereof (hich rea$s7
2ec! 1! Declaration of Policy! P @1A #he 2tate shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full e5ploration an$
$eelop)ent as (ell as the 4u$icious $isposition, utili+ation, )ana'e)ent, rene(al an$ conseration of the countryTs
forest, )ineral, lan$, (aters, fisheries, (il$life, off*shore areas an$ other natural resources, consistent (ith the necessity
of )aintainin' a soun$ ecolo'ical balance an$ protectin' an$ enhancin' the ,uality of the eniron)ent an$ the ob4ectie
of )a0in' the e5ploration, $eelop)ent an$ utili+ation of such natural resources e,uitably accessible to the $ifferent
se')ents of the present as (ell as future 'enerations!
@2A #he 2tate shall li0e(ise reco'ni+e an$ apply a true alue syste) that ta0es into account social an$ eniron)ental
cost i)plications relatie to the utili+ation, $eelop)ent an$ conseration of our natural resources!
#he aboe proision stresses Sthe necessity of )aintainin' a soun$ ecolo'ical balance an$ protectin' an$ enhancin' the
,uality of the eniron)ent!S 2ection 2 of the sa)e #itle, on the other han$, specifically spea0s of the )an$ate of the
.ENR" ho(eer, it )a0es particular reference to the fact of the a'encyTs bein' sub4ect to la( an$ hi'her authority! 2ai$
section proi$es7
2ec! 2! Mandate! P @1A #he .epart)ent of Eniron)ent an$ Natural Resources shall be pri)arily responsible for the
i)ple)entation of the fore'oin' policy!
@2A &t shall, sub4ect to la( an$ hi'her authority, be in char'e of carryin' out the 2tateTs constitutional )an$ate to control
an$ superise the e5ploration, $eelop)ent, utili+ation, an$ conseration of the countryTs natural resources!
Both E!?! N?! 192 an$ the A$)inistratie Co$e of 19<7 hae set the ob4ecties (hich (ill sere as the bases for policy
for)ulation, an$ hae $efine$ the po(ers an$ functions of the .ENR!
&t )ay, ho(eer, be recalle$ that een before the ratification of the 19<7 Constitution, specific statutes alrea$y pai$
special attention to the Seniron)ental ri'htS of the present an$ future 'enerations! ?n ; -une 1977, P!.! No! 11C1
@Philippine Eniron)ental PolicyA an$ P!.! No! 11C2 @Philippine Eniron)ent Co$eA (ere issue$! #he for)er S$eclare$ a
continuin' policy of the 2tate @aA to create, $eelop, )aintain an$ i)proe con$itions un$er (hich )an an$ nature can
thrie in pro$uctie an$ en4oyable har)ony (ith each other, @bA to fulfill the social, econo)ic an$ other re,uire)ents of
present an$ future 'enerations of Filipinos, an$ @cA to insure the attain)ent of an eniron)ental ,uality that is con$ucie
to a life of $i'nity an$ (ell*bein'!S
14
As its 'oal, it spea0s of the Sresponsibilities of each 'eneration as trustee an$
'uar$ian of the eniron)ent for succee$in' 'enerations!S
1>
#he latter statute, on the other han$, 'ae flesh to the sai$
policy!
#hus, the ri'ht of the petitioners @an$ all those they representA to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y is as clear as the
.ENRTs $uty P un$er its )an$ate an$ by irtue of its po(ers an$ functions un$er E!?! No! 192 an$ the A$)inistratie
Co$e of 19<7 P to protect an$ a$ance the sai$ ri'ht!
A $enial or iolation of that ri'ht by the other (ho has the corelatie $uty or obli'ation to respect or protect the sa)e
'ies rise to a cause of action! Petitioners )aintain that the 'rantin' of the #%As, (hich they clai) (as $one (ith 'rae
abuse of $iscretion, iolate$ their ri'ht to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y" hence, the full protection thereof re,uires that
no further #%As shoul$ be rene(e$ or 'rante$!
A cause of action is $efine$ as7
78
! ! ! an act or o)ission of one party in iolation of the le'al ri'ht or ri'hts of the other" an$ its essential ele)ents are le'al
ri'ht of the plaintiff, correlatie obli'ation of the $efen$ant, an$ act or o)ission of the $efen$ant in iolation of sai$ le'al
ri'ht!
15
&t is settle$ in this 4uris$iction that in a )otion to $is)iss base$ on the 'roun$ that the co)plaint fails to state a cause of
action,
19
the ,uestion sub)itte$ to the court for resolution inoles the sufficiency of the facts alle'e$ in the co)plaint
itself! No other )atter shoul$ be consi$ere$" further)ore, the truth of falsity of the sai$ alle'ations is besi$e the point for
the truth thereof is $ee)e$ hypothetically a$)itte$! #he only issue to be resole$ in such a case is7 a$)ittin' such
alle'e$ facts to be true, )ay the court ren$er a ali$ 4u$')ent in accor$ance (ith the prayer in the co)plaintK
2@
&n
Militante )s% Edrosolano,
21
this Court lai$ $o(n the rule that the 4u$iciary shoul$ Se5ercise the ut)ost care an$
circu)spection in passin' upon a )otion to $is)iss on the 'roun$ of the absence thereof 9cause of action: lest, by its
failure to )anifest a correct appreciation of the facts alle'e$ an$ $ee)e$ hypothetically a$)itte$, (hat the la( 'rants or
reco'ni+es is effectiely nullifie$! &f that happens, there is a blot on the le'al or$er! #he la( itself stan$s in $isrepute!S
After careful e5a)ination of the petitionersT co)plaint, /e fin$ the state)ents un$er the intro$uctory affir)atie
alle'ations, as (ell as the specific aer)ents un$er the sub*hea$in' CA>2E ?F AC#&?N, to be a$e,uate enou'h to
sho(, prima facie, the clai)e$ iolation of their ri'hts! ?n the basis thereof, they )ay thus be 'rante$, (holly or partly,
the reliefs praye$ for! &t bears stressin', ho(eer, that insofar as the cancellation of the #%As is concerne$, there is the
nee$ to i)plea$, as party $efen$ants, the 'rantees thereof for they are in$ispensable parties!
#he fore'oin' consi$ere$, Ciil Case No! 9B*777 be sai$ to raise a political ,uestion! Policy for)ulation or $eter)ination
by the e5ecutie or le'islatie branches of 3oern)ent is not s,uarely put in issue! /hat is principally inole$ is the
enforce)ent of a ri'ht )is/a/)is policies alrea$y for)ulate$ an$ e5presse$ in le'islation! &t )ust, nonetheless, be
e)phasi+e$ that the political ,uestion $octrine is no lon'er, the insur)ountable obstacle to the e5ercise of 4u$icial po(er
or the i)penetrable shiel$ that protects e5ecutie an$ le'islatie actions fro) 4u$icial in,uiry or reie(! #he secon$
para'raph of section 1, Article =&&& of the Constitution states that7
-u$icial po(er inclu$es the $uty of the courts of 4ustice to settle actual controersies inolin' ri'hts (hich are le'ally
$e)an$able an$ enforceable, an$ to $eter)ine (hether or not there has been a 'rae abuse of $iscretion a)ountin' to
lac0 or e5cess of 4uris$iction on the part of any branch or instru)entality of the 3oern)ent!
Co))entin' on this proision in his boo0, Philippine Political La&,
22
Mr! -ustice &sa'ani A! Cru+, a $istin'uishe$ )e)ber
of this Court, says7
#he first part of the authority represents the tra$itional concept of 4u$icial po(er, inolin' the settle)ent of conflictin'
ri'hts as conferre$ as la(! #he secon$ part of the authority represents a broa$enin' of 4u$icial po(er to enable the courts
of 4ustice to reie( (hat (as before forbi$$en territory, to (it, the $iscretion of the political $epart)ents of the
'oern)ent!
As (or$e$, the ne( proision ests in the 4u$iciary, an$ particularly the 2upre)e Court, the po(er to rule upon een the
(is$o) of the $ecisions of the e5ecutie an$ the le'islature an$ to $eclare their acts inali$ for lac0 or e5cess of
4uris$iction because tainte$ (ith 'rae abuse of $iscretion! #he catch, of course, is the )eanin' of S'rae abuse of
$iscretion,S (hich is a ery elastic phrase that can e5pan$ or contract accor$in' to the $isposition of the 4u$iciary!
&n Da;a )s% 6in*son,
2B
Mr! -ustice Cru+, no( spea0in' for this Court, note$7
&n the case no( before us, the 4uris$ictional ob4ection beco)es een less tenable an$ $ecisie! #he reason is that, een
if (e (ere to assu)e that the issue presente$ before us (as political in nature, (e (oul$ still not be preclu$e$ fro)
reolin' it un$er the e5pan$e$ 4uris$iction conferre$ upon us that no( coers, in proper cases, een the political
,uestion! Article =&&, 2ection 1, of the Constitution clearly proi$es7 ! ! !
#he last 'roun$ ino0e$ by the trial court in $is)issin' the co)plaint is the non*i)pair)ent of contracts clause foun$ in
the Constitution! #he court a Auo $eclare$ that7
#he Court is li0e(ise of the i)pression that it cannot, no )atter ho( (e stretch our 4uris$iction, 'rant the reliefs praye$
for by the plaintiffs, i!e!, to cancel all e5istin' ti)ber license a'ree)ents in the country an$ to cease an$ $esist fro)
receiin', acceptin', processin', rene(in' or approin' ne( ti)ber license a'ree)ents! For to $o other(ise (oul$
a)ount to Si)pair)ent of contractsS abhore$ @sicA by the fun$a)ental la(!
24
/e are not persua$e$ at all" on the contrary, /e are a)a+e$, if not shoc0e$, by such a s(eepin' pronounce)ent! &n the
first place, the respon$ent 2ecretary $i$ not, for obious reasons, een ino0e in his )otion to $is)iss the non*
i)pair)ent clause! &f he ha$ $one so, he (oul$ hae acte$ (ith ut)ost infi$elity to the 3oern)ent by proi$in' un$ue
an$ un(arrante$ benefits an$ a$anta'es to the ti)ber license hol$ers because he (oul$ hae foreer boun$ the
3oern)ent to strictly respect the sai$ licenses accor$in' to their ter)s an$ con$itions re'ar$less of chan'es in policy
an$ the $e)an$s of public interest an$ (elfare! 1e (as a(are that as correctly pointe$ out by the petitioners, into eery
ti)ber license )ust be rea$ 2ection 2B of the Forestry Refor) Co$e @P!.! No! 7BCA (hich proi$es7
! ! ! Pro)ided, #hat (hen the national interest so re,uires, the Presi$ent )ay a)en$, )o$ify, replace or rescin$ any
contract, concession, per)it, licenses or any other for) of priile'e 'rante$ herein ! ! !
Nee$less to say, all licenses )ay thus be reo0e$ or rescin$e$ by e5ecutie action! &t is not a contract, property or a
property ri'ht proteste$ by the $ue process clause of the Constitution! &n Tan )s% Director of Forestry,
23
this Court hel$7
! ! ! A ti)ber license is an instru)ent by (hich the 2tate re'ulates the utili+ation an$ $isposition of forest resources to the
79
en$ that public (elfare is pro)ote$! A ti)ber license is not a contract (ithin the purie( of the $ue process clause" it is
only a license or priile'e, (hich can be ali$ly (ith$ra(n (heneer $ictate$ by public interest or public (elfare as in this
case!
A license is )erely a per)it or priile'e to $o (hat other(ise (oul$ be unla(ful, an$ is not a contract bet(een the
authority, fe$eral, state, or )unicipal, 'rantin' it an$ the person to (ho) it is 'rante$" neither is it property or a property
ri'ht, nor $oes it create a este$ ri'ht" nor is it ta5ation @D7 C!-! 1;<A! #hus, this Court hel$ that the 'rantin' of license
$oes not create irreocable ri'hts, neither is it property or property ri'hts @People s! ?n' #in, C6 ?!3! 7C7;A!
/e reiterate$ this pronounce)ent in Felipe 5smael, #r% J Co%, ,nc% )s% Deputy E'ecuti)e 6ecretary7
24
! ! ! #i)ber licenses, per)its an$ license a'ree)ents are the principal instru)ents by (hich the 2tate re'ulates the
utili+ation an$ $isposition of forest resources to the en$ that public (elfare is pro)ote$! An$ it can har$ly be 'ainsai$ that
they )erely ei$ence a priile'e 'rante$ by the 2tate to ,ualifie$ entities, an$ $o not est in the latter a per)anent or
irreocable ri'ht to the particular concession area an$ the forest pro$ucts therein! #hey )ay be ali$ly a)en$e$,
)o$ifie$, replace$ or rescin$e$ by the Chief E5ecutie (hen national interests so re,uire! #hus, they are not $ee)e$
contracts (ithin the purie( of the $ue process of la( clause 96ee 2ections D@eeA an$ 2B of Pres! .ecree No! 7BC, as
a)en$e$! !lso, #an ! .irector of Forestry, 3!R! No! %*26C6<, ?ctober 27, 19<D, 12C 2CRA DB2:!
2ince ti)ber licenses are not contracts, the non*i)pair)ent clause, (hich rea$s7
2ec! 1B! No la( i)pairin', the obli'ation of contracts shall be passe$!
2>
cannot be ino0e$!
&n the secon$ place, een if it is to be assu)e$ that the sa)e are contracts, the instant case $oes not inole a la( or
een an e5ecutie issuance $eclarin' the cancellation or )o$ification of e5istin' ti)ber licenses! 1ence, the non*
i)pair)ent clause cannot as yet be ino0e$! Neertheless, 'rantin' further that a la( has actually been passe$
)an$atin' cancellations or )o$ifications, the sa)e cannot still be sti')ati+e$ as a iolation of the non*i)pair)ent
clause! #his is because by its ery nature an$ purpose, such as la( coul$ hae only been passe$ in the e5ercise of the
police po(er of the state for the purpose of a$ancin' the ri'ht of the people to a balance$ an$ healthful ecolo'y,
pro)otin' their health an$ enhancin' the 'eneral (elfare! &n !be )s% Foster Wheeler Corp!
25
this Court state$7
#he free$o) of contract, un$er our syste) of 'oern)ent, is not )eant to be absolute! #he sa)e is un$erstoo$ to be
sub4ect to reasonable le'islatie re'ulation ai)e$ at the pro)otion of public health, )oral, safety an$ (elfare! &n other
(or$s, the constitutional 'uaranty of non*i)pair)ent of obli'ations of contract is li)ite$ by the e5ercise of the police
po(er of the 2tate, in the interest of public health, safety, )oral an$ 'eneral (elfare!
#he reason for this is e)phatically set forth in Nebia )s% Ne& 5ork,
29
,uote$ in Philippine !merican Life ,nsurance Co%
)s% !uditor =eneral,
B@
to (it7
>n$er our for) of 'oern)ent the use of property an$ the )a0in' of contracts are nor)ally )atters of priate an$ not of
public concern! #he 'eneral rule is that both shall be free of 'oern)ental interference! But neither property ri'hts nor
contract ri'hts are absolute" for 'oern)ent cannot e5ist if the citi+en )ay at (ill use his property to the $etri)ent of his
fello(s, or e5ercise his free$o) of contract to (or0 the) har)! E,ually fun$a)ental (ith the priate ri'ht is that of the
public to re'ulate it in the co))on interest!
&n short, the non*i)pair)ent clause )ust yiel$ to the police po(er of the state!
B1
Finally, it is $ifficult to i)a'ine, as the trial court $i$, ho( the non*i)pair)ent clause coul$ apply (ith respect to the
prayer to en4oin the respon$ent 2ecretary fro) receiin', acceptin', processin', rene(in' or approin' ne( ti)ber
licenses for, sae in cases of rene&al, no contract (oul$ hae as of yet e5iste$ in the other instances! Moreoer, (ith
respect to rene(al, the hol$er is not entitle$ to it as a )atter of ri'ht!
/1EREF?RE, bein' i)presse$ (ith )erit, the instant Petition is hereby 3RAN#E., an$ the challen'e$ ?r$er of
respon$ent -u$'e of 1< -uly 1991 $is)issin' Ciil Case No! 9B*777 is hereby set asi$e! #he petitioners )ay therefore
a)en$ their co)plaint to i)plea$ as $efen$ants the hol$ers or 'rantees of the ,uestione$ ti)ber license a'ree)ents!
No pronounce)ent as to costs!
2? ?R.ERE.!
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
A.M. No. P-@2-1431 A/2/!& 4, 2@@B
ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, co)plainant, s!SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, respon$ent!
PUNO, J.6
80
#he case at bar ta0es us to a )ost $ifficult area of constitutional la( (here )an stan$s accountable to an authority
hi'her than the state! #o be hel$ on balance are the stateTs interest an$ the respon$entTs reli'ious free$o)! &n this hi'hly
sensitie area of la(, the tas0 of balancin' bet(een authority an$ liberty is )ost $elicate because to the person ino0in'
reli'ious free$o), the conse,uences of the case are not only te)poral! #he tas0 is not )a$e easier by the A)erican
ori'in of our reli'ion clauses an$ the (ealth of >!2! 4urispru$ence on these clauses for in the >nite$ 2tates, there is
probably no )ore intensely controerte$ area of constitutional interpretation than the reli'ion clauses!
1
#he >!2! 2upre)e
Court itself has ac0no(le$'e$ that in this constitutional area, there is Sconsi$erable internal inconsistency in the opinions
of the Court!S
2
As state$ by a professor of la(, S@iAt is by no( notorious that le'al $octrines an$ 4u$icial $ecisions in the
area of reli'ious free$o) are in serious $isarray! &n perhaps no other area of constitutional la( hae confusion an$
inconsistency achiee$ such un$ispute$ soerei'nty!S
D
Neertheless, this thic0et is the only path to ta0e to con,uer the
)ountain of a le'al proble) the case at bar presents! Both the penetratin' an$ panora)ic ie( this cli)b (oul$ proi$e
(ill lar'ely chart the course of reli'ious free$o) in Philippine 4uris$iction! #hat the reli'ious free$o) ,uestion arose in an
a$)inistratie case inolin' only one person $oes not alter the para)ount i)portance of the ,uestion for the
Sconstitution co))an$s the positie protection by 'oern)ent of reli'ious free$o) *not only for a )inority, ho(eer
s)all* not only for a )a4ority, ho(eer lar'e* but for each of us!S
6
I. F-&!
#he facts of the case (ill $eter)ine (hether respon$ent (ill preail in her plea of reli'ious free$o)! &t is necessary
therefore to lay $o(n the facts in $etail, careful not to o)it the essentials!
&n a s(orn letter*co)plaint $ate$ -uly 27, 2BBB, co)plainant Ale4an$ro Estra$a (rote to -u$'e -ose F! Caoibes, -r!,
presi$in' 4u$'e of Branch 2CD, Re'ional #rial Court of %as PiUas City, re,uestin' for an inesti'ation of ru)ors that
respon$ent 2ole$a$ Escritor, court interpreter in sai$ court, is liin' (ith a )an not her husban$! #hey alle'e$ly hae a
chil$ of ei'hteen to t(enty years ol$! Estra$a is not personally relate$ either to Escritor or her partner an$ is a resi$ent
not of %as PiUas City but of Bacoor, Caite! Neertheless, he file$ the char'e a'ainst Escritor as he beliees that she is
co))ittin' an i))oral act that tarnishes the i)a'e of the court, thus she shoul$ not be allo(e$ to re)ain e)ploye$
therein as it )i'ht appear that the court con$ones her act!
C
-u$'e Caoibes referre$ the letter to Escritor (ho state$ that Sthere is no truth as to the eracity of the alle'ationS an$
challen'e$ Estra$a to Sappear in the open an$ proe his alle'ation in the proper foru)!S
;
-u$'e Caoibes set a
preli)inary conference on ?ctober 12, 2BBB! Escritor )oe$ for the inhibition of -u$'e Caoibes fro) hearin' her case to
aoi$ suspicion an$ bias as she preiously file$ an a$)inistratie co)plaint a'ainst hi) an$ sai$ case (as still pen$in'
in the ?ffice of the Court A$)inistrator @?CAA! EscritorTs )otion (as $enie$! #he preli)inary conference procee$e$ (ith
both Estra$a an$ Escritor in atten$ance! Estra$a confir)e$ that he file$ the letter*co)plaint for i))orality a'ainst
Escritor because in his fre,uent isits to the 1all of -ustice of %as PiUas City, he learne$ fro) conersations therein that
Escritor (as liin' (ith a )an not her husban$ an$ that she ha$ an ei'hteen to t(enty*year ol$ son by this )an! #his
pro)pte$ hi) to (rite to -u$'e Caoibes as he beliee$ that e)ployees of the 4u$iciary shoul$ be respectable an$
EscritorTs lie*in arran'e)ent $i$ not co))an$ respect!
7
Respon$ent Escritor testifie$ that (hen she entere$ the 4u$iciary in 1999,
<
she (as alrea$y a (i$o(, her husban$ hain'
$ie$ in 199<!
9
2he a$)itte$ that she has been liin' (ith %uciano Wuilapio, -r! (ithout the benefit of )arria'e for t(enty
years an$ that they hae a son! But as a )e)ber of the reli'ious sect 0no(n as the -ehoahTs /itnesses an$ the /atch
#o(er an$ Bible #ract 2ociety, their con4u'al arran'e)ent is in confor)ity (ith their reli'ious beliefs! &n fact, after ten
years of liin' to'ether, she e5ecute$ on -uly 2<, 1991 a S.eclaration of Ple$'in' Faithfulness,S )i;7
.EC%ARA#&?N ?F P%E.3&N3 FA&#1F>%NE22
&, 2ole$a$ 2! Escritor, $o hereby $eclare that & hae accepte$ %uciano .! Wuilapio, -r!, as )y )ate in )arital relationship"
that & hae $one all (ithin )y ability to obtain le'al reco'nition of this relationship by the proper public authorities an$ that
it is because of hain' been unable to $o so that & therefore )a0e this public $eclaration ple$'in' faithfulness in this
)arital relationship!
& reco'ni+e this relationship as a bin$in' tie before T-ehoahT 3o$ an$ before all persons to be hel$ to an$ honore$ in full
accor$ (ith the principles of 3o$Ts /or$! & (ill continue to see0 the )eans to obtain le'al reco'nition of this relationship
by the ciil authorities an$ if at any future ti)e a chan'e in circu)stances )a0e this possible, & pro)ise to le'ali+e this
union!
2i'ne$ this 2<th $ay of -uly 1991!
1B
EscritorTs partner, Wuilapio, e5ecute$ a si)ilar ple$'e on the sa)e $ay!
11
Both ple$'es (ere e5ecute$ in Ati)onan,
Wue+on an$ si'ne$ by three (itnesses! At the ti)e Escritor e5ecute$ her ple$'e, her husban$ (as still alie but liin'
(ith another (o)an! Wuilapio (as li0e(ise )arrie$ at that ti)e, but ha$ been separate$ in fact fro) his (ife! .urin' her
testi)ony, Escritor olunteere$ to present )e)bers of her con're'ation to confir) the truthfulness of their S.eclarations
of Ple$'in' Faithfulness,S but -u$'e Caoibes $ee)e$ it unnecessary an$ consi$ere$ her i$entification of her si'nature
an$ the si'nature of Wuilapio sufficient authentication of the $ocu)ents!
12
-u$'e Caoibes en$orse$ the co)plaint to E5ecutie -u$'e Manuel B! Fernan$e+, -r!, (ho, in turn, en$orse$ the sa)e to
Court A$)inistrator Alfre$o %! Benipayo! ?n -uly 17, 2BB1, the Court, upon reco))en$ation of Actin' Court
A$)inistrator Menai$a N! ElepaUo, $irecte$ Escritor to co))ent on the char'e a'ainst her! &n her co))ent, Escritor
reiterate$ her reli'ious con're'ationTs approal of her con4u'al arran'e)ent (ith Wuilapio, i+7
1erein respon$ent $oes not i'nore alle'e$ accusation but she reiterates to state (ith can$or that there is no truth as to
the eracity of sa)e alle'ation! &nclu$e$ here(ith are $ocu)ents $eno)inate$ as .eclaration of Ple$'in' Faithfulness
@E5hibit 1 an$ E5hibit 2A $uly si'ne$ by both respon$ent an$ her )ate in )arital relationship (ith the (itnesses
81
concurrin' their acceptance to the arran'e)ent as approe$ by the /A#C1 #?/ER B&B%E an$ #RAC# 2?C&E#N,
Philippine Branch!
2a)e )arital arran'e)ent is reco'ni+e$ as a bin$in' tie before S-E1?=A1S 3o$ an$ before all persons to be hel$ to
an$ honore$ in full accor$ (ith the principles of 3o$Ts /or$!
555 555 555
>n$ersi'ne$ sub)its to the 4ust, hu)ane an$ fair $iscretion of the Court (ith erification fro) the /A#C1 #?/ER
B&B%E an$ #RAC# 2?C&E#N, Philippine Branch ! ! ! to (hich un$ersi'ne$ beliees to be a hi'h authority in relation to her
case!
1D
.eputy Court A$)inistrator Christopher ?! %oc0 reco))en$e$ that the case be referre$ to E5ecutie -u$'e Bonifacio
2an+ Mace$a, R#C Branch 2CC, %as PiUas City for inesti'ation, report an$ reco))en$ation! &n the course of -u$'e
Mace$aTs inesti'ation, Escritor a'ain testifie$ that her con're'ation allo(s her con4u'al arran'e)ent (ith Wuilapio an$ it
$oes not consi$er it i))oral! 2he offere$ to supply the inesti'atin' 4u$'e so)e clippin's (hich e5plain the basis of her
con're'ationTs belief an$ practice re'ar$in' her con4u'al arran'e)ent! Escritor starte$ liin' (ith Wuilapio t(enty years
a'o (hen her husban$ (as still alie but liin' (ith another (o)an! 2he )et this (o)an (ho confir)e$ to her that she
(as liin' (ith her @EscritorTsA husban$!
16
3re'orio 2ala+ar, a )e)ber of the -ehoahTs /itnesses since 19<C, also testifie$! 1e ha$ been a presi$in' )inister
since 1991 an$ in such capacity is a(are of the rules an$ re'ulations of their con're'ation! 1e e5plaine$ the i)port of
an$ proce$ure for e5ecutin' a S.eclaration of Ple$'in' FaithfulnessS, i+7
W7 No(, insofar as the pre*)arital relationship is concern @sicA, can you cite so)e particular rules an$ re'ulations in
your con're'ationK
A7 /ell, (e of course, tal0 to the persons (ith re'ar$s @sicA to all the parties inole$ an$ then (e re,uest the) to
e5ecute a Public .eclaration of Ple$'e of faithfulness!
W7 /hat is that $ocu)entK
A7 .eclaration of Ple$'e of faithfulness!
W7 /hat are the relations of the $ocu)ent .eclaration of Ple$'e of faithfulness, (ho are suppose @sicA to e5ecute
this $ocu)entK
A7 #his )ust be si'ne$, the $ocu)ent )ust be si'ne$ by the el$ers of the con're'ation" the couple, (ho is a
)e)ber @sicA of the con're'ation, bapti+e$ )e)ber an$ true )e)ber of the con're'ation!
W7 /hat stan$ar$ rules an$ re'ulations $o you hae in relation (ith this $ocu)entK
A7 Actually, sir, the si'nin' of that $ocu)ent, ah, (ith the couple has consent to )arital relationship @sicA 'ies the
Christian Con're'ation ie( that the couple has put the)seles on recor$ before 3o$ an$ )an that they are faithful to
each other! As if that relation is ali$ate$ by 3o$!
W7 Fro) your e5planation, Minister, $o you consi$er it a ple$'e or a $ocu)ent bet(een the parties, (ho are
)e)bers of the con're'ationK
A7 &t is a ple$'e an$ a $ocu)ent! &t is a $eclaration, ple$'e of a @sicA ple$'e of faithfulness!
W7 An$ (hat $oes ple$'e )ean to youK
A7 &t )eans to )e that they hae contracte$, let us say, & a) the one (ho contracte$ (ith the opposite )e)ber of
)y con're'ation, opposite se5, an$ that this $ocu)ent (ill 'ie us the ri'ht to a )arital relationship!
W7 2o, in short, (hen you e5ecute a $eclaration of ple$'e of faithfulness, it is a preparation for you to enter a
)arria'eK
A7 Nes, 2ir!
W7 But it $oes not necessarily )ean that the parties, cohabitin' or liin' un$er the sa)e roofK
A7 /ell, the Ple$'e of faithfulness $ocu)ent is @sicA alrea$y approe$ as to the )arital relationship!
W7 .o you )ean to say, Minister, by e5ecutin' this $ocu)ent the contractin' parties hae the ri'ht to cohabitK
A7 Can & sir, cite, (hat the Bible says, the basis of that Ple$'e of Faithfulness as (e Christians follo(! #he basis is
herein state$ in the Boo0 of Matthe(, Chapter Fie, =erse #(enty*t(o! 2o, in that erse of the Bible, -esus sai$ Sthat
eeryone $iorcin' his (ife, e5cept on account of fornication, )a0es her a sub4ect for a$ultery, an$ (hoeer )arries a
$iorce$ (o)an co))its a$ultery!
1C
82
Escritor an$ Wuilapio transferre$ to 2ala+arTs Con're'ation, the Al)an+a Con're'ation in %as PiUas, in May 2BB1! #he
$eclarations hain' been e5ecute$ in Ati)onan, Wue+on in 1991, 2ala+ar ha$ no personal 0no(le$'e of the personal
circu)stances of Escritor an$ Wuilapio (hen they e5ecute$ their $eclarations! 1o(eer, (hen the t(o transferre$ to
Al)an+a, 2ala+ar in,uire$ about their status fro) the Ati)onan Con're'ation, 'athere$ co))ents of the el$ers therein,
an$ re,ueste$ a copy of their $eclarations! #he Al)an+a Con're'ation assu)e$ that the personal circu)stances of the
couple ha$ been consi$ere$ by the Ati)onan Con're'ation (hen they e5ecute$ their $eclarations!
Escritor an$ WuilapioTs $eclarations are recor$e$ in the /atch #o(er Central office! #hey (ere e5ecute$ in the usual an$
approe$ for) prescribe$ by the /atch #o(er Bible an$ #ract 2ociety (hich (as lifte$ fro) the article, SMaintainin'
Marria'e in 1onor Before 3o$ an$ Men,S
1;
in the March 1C, 1977 issue of the /atch #o(er )a'a+ine, entitle$ #he
/atchto(er!
#he $eclaration re,uires the approal of the el$ers of the -ehoahTs /itnesses con're'ation an$ is bin$in' (ithin the
con're'ation all oer the (orl$ e5cept in countries (here $iorce is allo(e$! #he -ehoahTs con're'ation re,uires that at
the ti)e the $eclarations are e5ecute$, the couple cannot secure the ciil authoritiesT approal of the )arital relationship
because of le'al i)pe$i)ents! &t is thus stan$ar$ practice of the con're'ation to chec0 the coupleTs )arital status before
'iin' i)pri)atur to the con4u'al arran'e)ent! #he e5ecution of the $eclaration fin$s scriptural basis in Matthe( C7D2
that (hen the spouse co))its a$ultery, the offen$e$ spouse can re)arry! #he )arital status of the $eclarants an$ their
respectie spousesT co))ission of a$ultery are inesti'ate$ before the $eclarations are e5ecute$! #hus, in the case of
Escritor, it is presu)e$ that the Ati)onan Con're'ation con$ucte$ an inesti'ation on her )arital status before the
$eclaration (as approe$ an$ the $eclaration is ali$ eery(here, inclu$in' the Al)an+a Con're'ation! #hat EscritorTs
an$ WuilapioTs $eclarations (ere approe$ are sho(n by the si'natures of three (itnesses, the el$ers in the Ati)onan
Con're'ation! 2ala+ar confir)e$ fro) the con're'ationTs branch office that these three (itnesses are el$ers in the
Ati)onan Con're'ation! Althou'h in 199< Escritor (as (i$o(e$, thereby liftin' the le'al i)pe$i)ent to )arry on her
part, her )ate is still not capacitate$ to re)arry! #hus, their $eclarations re)ain ali$! ?nce all le'al i)pe$i)ents for both
are lifte$, the couple can alrea$y re'ister their )arria'e (ith the ciil authorities an$ the ali$ity of the $eclarations
ceases! #he el$ers in the con're'ations can then sole)ni+e their )arria'e as authori+e$ by Philippine la(! &n su),
therefore, insofar as the con're'ation is concerne$, there is nothin' i))oral about the con4u'al arran'e)ent bet(een
Escritor an$ Wuilapio an$ they re)ain )e)bers in 'oo$ stan$in' in the con're'ation!
17
2ala$or Reyes, a )inister at the 3eneral $e %eon, =alen+uela City Con're'ation of the -ehoahTs /itnesses since
1976 an$ )e)ber of the hea$,uarters of the /atch #o(er Bible an$ #ract 2ociety of the Philippines, &nc!, presente$ the
ori'inal copy of the )a'a+ine article entitle$, SMaintainin' Marria'e Before 3o$ an$ MenS to (hich Escritor an$ Minister
2ala+ar referre$ in their testi)onies! #he article appeare$ in the March 1C, 1977 issue of the /atchto(er )a'a+ine
publishe$ in Pennsylania, >!2!A! Feli5 2! Fa4ar$o, Presi$ent of the /atch #o(er Bible an$ #ract 2ociety of the
Philippines, &nc!, authori+e$ Reyes to represent hi) in authenticatin' the article! #he article is $istribute$ to the -ehoahTs
/itnesses con're'ations (hich also $istribute the) to the public!
1<
#he parties sub)itte$ their respectie )e)oran$a to the inesti'atin' 4u$'e! Both state$ that the issue for resolution is
(hether or not the relationship bet(een respon$ent Escritor an$ Wuilapio is ali$ an$ bin$in' in their o(n reli'ious
con're'ation, the -ehoahTs /itnesses! Co)plainant Estra$a a$$s ho(eer, that the effect of the relationship to
EscritorTs a$)inistratie liability )ust li0e(ise be $eter)ine$! Estra$a ar'ue$, throu'h counsel, that the .eclaration of
Ple$'in' Faithfulness reco'ni+es the supre)acy of the Sproper public authoritiesS such that she boun$ herself Sto see0
)eans to ! ! ! le'ali+e their union!S #hus, een assu)in' ar'uen$o that the $eclaration is ali$ an$ bin$in' in her
con're'ation, it is bin$in' only to her co*)e)bers in the con're'ation an$ seres only the internal purpose of $isplayin'
to the rest of the con're'ation that she an$ her )ate are a respectable an$ )orally upri'ht couple! #heir reli'ious belief
an$ practice, ho(eer, cannot oerri$e the nor)s of con$uct re,uire$ by la( for 'oern)ent e)ployees! #o rule
other(ise (oul$ create a $an'erous prece$ent as those (ho cannot le'ali+e their lie*in relationship can si)ply 4oin the
-ehoahTs /itnesses con're'ation an$ use their reli'ion as a $efense a'ainst le'al liability!
19
?n the other han$, respon$ent Escritor reiterates the ali$ity of her con4u'al arran'e)ent (ith Wuilapio base$ on the
belief an$ practice of her reli'ion, the -ehoahTs /itnesses! 2he ,uote$ portions of the )a'a+ine article entitle$,
SMaintainin' Marria'e Before 3o$ an$ Men,S in her )e)oran$u) si'ne$ by herself, )i;7
#he .eclaration of Ple$'in' of Faithfulness @E5hibits S1S an$ S2SA e5ecute$ by the respon$ent an$ her )ate 'reatly affect
the a$)inistratie liability of respon$ent! -ehoahTs /itnesses a$)it an$ reco'ni+e @sicA the supre)acy of the proper
public authorities in the )arria'e arran'e)ent! 1o(eer, it is helpful to un$erstan$ the relatie nature of CaesarTs
authority re'ar$in' )arria'e! Fro) country to country, )arria'e an$ $iorce le'islation presents a )ultitu$e of $ifferent
an'les an$ aspects! Rather than beco)in' entan'le$ in a confusion of technicalities, the Christian, or the one $esirin' to
beco)e a $isciple of 3o$Ts 2on, can be 'ui$e$ by basic 2criptural principles that hol$ true in all cases!
3o$Ts ie( is of first concern! 2o, first of all the person )ust consi$er (hether that oneTs present relationship, or the
relationship into (hich he or she conte)plates enterin', is one that coul$ )eet (ith 3o$Ts approal, or (hether in itself, it
iolates the stan$ar$s of 3o$Ts /or$! #a0e, for e5a)ple, the situation (here a )an lies (ith a (ife but also spen$s ti)e
liin' (ith another (o)an as a concubine! As lon' as such a state of concubina'e preails, the relationship of the
secon$ (o)an can neer be har)oni+e$ (ith Christian principles, nor coul$ any $eclaration on the part of the (o)an or
the )an )a0e it so! #he only ri'ht course is cessation of the relationship! 2i)ilarly (ith an incestuous relationship (ith a
)e)ber of oneTs i))e$iate fa)ily, or a ho)ose5ual relationship or other such situation con$e)ne$ by 3o$Ts /or$! &t is
not the lac0 of any le'al ali$ation that )a0es such relationships unacceptable" they are in the)seles unscriptural an$
hence, i))oral! 1ence, a person inole$ in such a situation coul$ not )a0e any 0in$ of S.eclaration of Faithfulness,S
since it (oul$ hae no )erit in 3o$Ts eyes!
&f the relationship is such that it can hae 3o$Ts approal, then, a secon$ principle to consi$er is that one shoul$ $o all
one can to establish the honorableness of oneTs )arital union in the eyes of all! @1eb! 1D76A! &f $iorce is possible, then
such step shoul$ no( be ta0en so that, hain' obtaine$ the $iorce @on (hateer le'al 'roun$s )ay be aailableA, the
present union can receie ciil ali$ation as a reco'ni+e$ )arria'e!
83
Finally, if the )arital relationship is not one out of har)ony (ith the principles of 3o$Ts /or$, an$ if one has $one all that
can reasonably be $one to hae it reco'ni+e$ by ciil authorities an$ has been bloc0e$ in $oin' so, then, a .eclaration
Ple$'in' Faithfulness can be si'ne$! &n so)e cases, as has been note$, the e5tre)e slo(ness of official action )ay
)a0e acco)plishin' of le'al steps a )atter of )any, )any years of effort! ?r it )ay be that the costs represent a
crushin'ly heay bur$en that the in$ii$ual (oul$ nee$ years to be able to )eet! &n such cases, the $eclaration ple$'in'
faithfulness (ill proi$e the con're'ation (ith the basis for ie(in' the e5istin' union as honorable (hile the in$ii$ual
continues conscientiously to (or0 out the le'al aspects to the best of his ability!
Leepin' in )in$ the basic principles presente$, the respon$ent as a Minister of -ehoah 3o$, shoul$ be able to
approach the )atter in a balance$ (ay, neither un$eresti)atin' nor oeresti)atin' the ali$ation offere$ by the political
state! 2he al(ays 'ies pri)ary concern to 3o$Ts ie( of the union! Alon' (ith this, eery effort shoul$ be )a$e to set a
fine e5a)ple of faithfulness an$ $eotion to oneTs )ate, thus, 0eepin' the )arria'e Shonorable a)on' all!S 2uch course
(ill brin' 3o$Ts blessin' an$ result to the honor an$ praise of the author of )arria'e, -ehoah 3o$! @1 Cor! 1B7D1*DDA
2B
Respon$ent also brou'ht to the attention of the inesti'atin' 4u$'e that co)plainantTs Me)oran$u) ca)e fro) -u$'e
CaoibesT cha)bers
21
(ho) she clai)s (as )erely usin' petitioner to )ali'n her!
&n his Report an$ Reco))en$ation, inesti'atin' 4u$'e Mace$a foun$ EscritorTs factual alle'ations cre$ible as they (ere
supporte$ by testi)onial an$ $ocu)entary ei$ence! 1e also note$ that S@bAy strict Catholic stan$ar$s, the lie*in
relationship of respon$ent (ith her )ate shoul$ fall (ithin the $efinition of i))oral con$uct, to (it7 Tthat (hich is (illful,
fla'rant, or sha)eless, an$ (hich sho(s a )oral in$ifference to the opinion of the 'oo$ an$ respectable )e)bers of the
co))unityT @7 C!-!2! 9C9AT @.elos Reyes s! A+nar, 179 2CRA, at p! ;;;A!S 1e pointe$ out, ho(eer, that Sthe )ore
releant ,uestion is (hether or not to e5act fro) respon$ent Escritor, a )e)ber of T-ehoahTs /itnesses,T the strict )oral
stan$ar$s of the Catholic faith in $eter)inin' her a$)inistratie responsibility in the case at bar!S
22
#he inesti'atin'
4u$'e ac0no(le$'e$ that Sreli'ious free$o) is a fun$a)ental ri'ht (hich is entitle$ to the hi'hest priority an$ the a)plest
protection a)on' hu)an ri'hts, for it inoles the relationship of )an to his Creator @at p! 27B, EBRA%&NA3 supra, citin'
Chief -ustice Enri,ue M! Fernan$oTs separate opinion in 3er)an s! Baran'an, 1DC 2CRA C16, CDB*CD1AS an$ thereby
reco))en$e$ the $is)issal of the co)plaint a'ainst Escritor!
2D
After consi$erin' the Report an$ Reco))en$ation of E5ecutie -u$'e Mace$a, the ?ffice of the Court A$)inistrator,
throu'h .eputy Court A$)inistrator @.CAA %oc0 an$ (ith the approal of Court A$)inistrator Presbitero =elasco,
concurre$ (ith the factual fin$in's of -u$'e Mace$a but $eparte$ fro) his reco))en$ation to $is)iss the co)plaint!
.CA %oc0 stresse$ that althou'h Escritor ha$ beco)e capacitate$ to )arry by the ti)e she 4oine$ the 4u$iciary as her
husban$ ha$ $ie$ a year before, Sit is $ue to her relationship (ith a )arrie$ )an, oluntarily carrie$ on, that respon$ent
)ay still be sub4ect to $isciplinary action!S
26
Consi$erin' the rulin' of the Court in .ic$ican ! Fernan, et al!
2C
that Scourt
personnel hae been en4oine$ to a$here to the e5actin' stan$ar$s of )orality an$ $ecency in their professional an$
priate con$uct in or$er to presere the 'oo$ na)e an$ inte'rity of the court of 4ustice,S .CA %oc0 foun$ EscritorTs
$efense of free$o) of reli'ion unaailin' to (arrant $is)issal of the char'e of i))orality! Accor$in'ly, he reco))en$e$
that respon$ent be foun$ 'uilty of i))orality an$ that she be penali+e$ (ith suspension of si5 )onths an$ one $ay
(ithout pay (ith a (arnin' that a repetition of a si)ilar act (ill be $ealt (ith )ore seerely in accor$ance (ith the Ciil
2erice Rules!
2;
II. I!!/#
/hether or not respon$ent shoul$ be foun$ 'uilty of the a$)inistratie char'e of S'ross an$ i))oral con$uct!S #o resole
this issue, it is necessary to $eter)ine the sub*issue of (hether or not respon$entTs ri'ht to reli'ious free$o) shoul$
care out an e5ception fro) the preailin' 4urispru$ence on illicit relations for (hich 'oern)ent e)ployees are hel$
a$)inistratiely liable!
III. A$$8+-(8# L;!
Respon$ent is char'e$ (ith co))ittin' S'ross an$ i))oral con$uctS un$er Boo0 =, #itle &, Chapter =&, 2ec! 6;@bA@CA of
the Reise$ A$)inistratie Co$e (hich proi$es, i+7
2ec! 6;! .iscipline7 3eneral Proisions! * @aA No officer or e)ployee in the Ciil 2erice shall be suspen$e$ or $is)isse$
e5cept for cause as proi$e$ by la( an$ after $ue process!
@bA #he follo(in' shall be 'roun$s for $isciplinary action7
555 555 555
@CA .is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uct" 555!
Not represente$ by counsel, respon$ent, in lay)anTs ter)s, ino0es the reli'ious beliefs an$ practices an$ )oral
stan$ar$s of her reli'ion, the -ehoahTs /itnesses, in assertin' that her con4u'al arran'e)ent (ith a )an not her le'al
husban$ $oes not constitute $is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uct for (hich she shoul$ be hel$ a$)inistratiely liable! /hile
not articulate$ by respon$ent, she ino0es reli'ious free$o) un$er Article &&&, 2ection C of the Constitution, (hich
proi$es, i+7
2ec! C! No la( shall be )a$e respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion, or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof! #he free
e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession an$ (orship, (ithout $iscri)ination or preference, shall foreer be
allo(e$! No reli'ious test shall be re,uire$ for the e5ercise of ciil or political ri'hts!
IV. O8' Wo"8' A%&#-#'#%&! o1 &,# A7#"+-% R#8+2+o% C8/!#!
84
#o un$erstan$ the life that the reli'ion clauses hae ta0en, it (oul$ be (ell to un$erstan$ not only its birth in the >nite$
2tates, but its conception in the ?l$ /orl$! ?ne cannot un$erstan$, )uch less intelli'ently critici+e the approaches of the
courts an$ the political branches to reli'ious free$o) in the recent past in the >nite$ 2tates (ithout a $eep appreciation
of the roots of these controersies in the ancient an$ )e$ieal (orl$ an$ in the A)erican e5perience!
27
#his fresh loo0 at
the reli'ion clauses is proper in $eci$in' this case of first i)pression!
&n pri)itie ti)es, all of life )ay be sai$ to hae been reli'ious! Eery si'nificant eent in the pri)itie )anTs life, fro)
birth to $eath, (as )ar0e$ by reli'ious cere)onies! #ribal society surie$ because reli'ious sanctions effectiely elicite$
a$herence to social custo)s! A person (ho bro0e a custo) iolate$ a taboo (hich (oul$ then brin' upon hi) Sthe
(rathful en'eance of a superhu)an )ysterious po(er!S
2<
.istinction bet(een the reli'ious an$ non*reli'ious (oul$ thus
hae been )eanin'less to hi)! 1e sou'ht protection fro) all 0in$s of eil * (hether a (il$ beast or tribe ene)y an$
li'htnin' or (in$ * fro) the sa)e person! #he hea$ of the clan or the ?l$ Man of the tribe or the 0in' protecte$ his (ar$s
a'ainst both hu)an an$ superhu)an ene)ies! &n ti)e, the 0in' not only interce$e$ for his people (ith the $iine po(ers,
but he hi)self (as loo0e$ upon as a $iine bein' an$ his la(s as $iine $ecrees!
29
#i)e ca)e, ho(eer, (hen the function of actin' as inter)e$iary bet(een hu)an an$ spiritual po(ers beca)e
sufficiently $ifferentiate$ fro) the responsibility of lea$in' the tribe in (ar an$ policin' it in peace as to re,uire the full*
ti)e serices of a special priest class! #his sa( the birth of the social an$ co))unal proble) of the co)petin' clai)s of
the 0in' an$ priest! Neertheless, fro) the be'innin', the 0in' an$ not the priest (as superior! #he hea$ of the tribe (as
the (arrior, an$ althou'h he also perfor)e$ priestly functions, he carrie$ out these functions because he (as the hea$
an$ representatie of the co))unity!
DB
#here bein' no $istinction bet(een the reli'ious an$ the secular, the sa)e authority that pro)ul'ate$ la(s re'ulatin'
relations bet(een )an an$ )an pro)ul'ate$ la(s concernin' )anTs obli'ations to the supernatural! #his authority (as
the 0in' (ho (as the hea$ of the state an$ the source of all la( an$ (ho only $ele'ate$ perfor)ance of rituals an$
sacrifice to the priests! #he Co$e of 1a))urabi, 0in' of Babylonia, i)pose$ penalties for ho)ici$e, larceny, per4ury, an$
other cri)es" re'ulate$ the fees of sur'eons an$ the (a'es of )asons an$ tailors an$ prescribe$ rules for inheritance of
property"
D1
an$ also catalo'ue$ the 'o$s an$ assi'ne$ the) their places in the $iine hierarchy so as to put 1a))urabiTs
o(n 'o$ to a position of e,uality (ith e5istin' 'o$s!
D2
&n su), the relationship of reli'ion to the state @0in'A in pre*1ebreic
ti)es )ay be characteri+e$ as a union of the t(o forces, (ith the state al)ost uniersally the $o)inant partner!
DD
/ith the rise of the 1ebre( state, a ne( ter) ha$ to be coine$ to $escribe the relation of the 1ebre( state (ith the
Mosaic reli'ion7 theocracy! #he authority an$ po(er of the state (as ascribe$ to 3o$!
D6
#he Mosaic cree$ (as not )erely
re'ar$e$ as the reli'ion of the state, it (as @at least until 2aulA the state itself! A)on' the 1ebre(s, patriarch, prophet,
an$ priest prece$e$ 0in' an$ prince! As )an of 3o$, Moses $eci$e$ (hen the people shoul$ trael an$ (hen to pitch
ca)p, (hen they shoul$ )a0e (ar an$ (hen peace! 2aul an$ .ai$ (ere )a$e 0in's by the prophet 2a)uel, $isciple of
Eli the priest! %i0e the Co$e of 1a))urabi, the Mosaic co$e co)bine$ ciil la(s (ith reli'ious )an$ates, but unli0e the
1a))urabi Co$e, reli'ious la(s (ere not of secon$ary i)portance! ?n the contrary, reli'ious )otiation (as pri)ary
an$ all*e)bracin'7 sacrifices (ere )a$e an$ &srael (as prohibite$ fro) e5actin' usury, )istreatin' aliens or usin' false
(ei'hts, all because 3o$ co))an$e$ these!
Moses of the Bible le$ not li0e the ancient 0in's! #he latter use$ reli'ion as an en'ine to a$ance the purposes of the
state! 1a))urabi unifie$ Mesopota)ia an$ establishe$ Babylon as its capital by eleatin' its city*'o$ to a pri)ary
position oer the preious rei'nin' 'o$s!
DC
Moses, on the other han$, capitali+e$ on the natural yearnin's of the 1ebre(
slaes for free$o) an$ in$epen$ence to further 3o$Ts purposes! %iberation an$ E5o$us (ere prelu$es to 2inai an$ the
receipt of the .iine %a(! #he con,uest of Canaan (as a preparation for the buil$in' of the te)ple an$ the full (orship of
3o$!
D;
>pon the )onotheis) of Moses (as the theocracy of &srael foun$e$! #his )onotheis), )ore than anythin' else, charte$
not only the future of reli'ion in (estern ciili+ation, but e,ually, the future of the relationship bet(een reli'ion an$ state in
the (est! #his fact is ac0no(le$'e$ by )any (riters, a)on' (ho) is Northcott (ho pointe$ out, i+7
1istorically it (as the 1ebre( an$ Christian conception of a sin'le an$ uniersal 3o$ that intro$uce$ a reli'ious
e5clusiis) lea$in' to co)pulsion an$ persecution in the real) of reli'ion! Ancient reli'ions (ere re'ar$e$ as confine$ to
each separate people beliein' in the), an$ the ,uestion of chan'e fro) one reli'ious belief to another $i$ not arise! &t
(as not until an e5clusie fello(ship, that the ,uestions of proselytis), chan'e of belief an$ liberty of reli'ion arose!
D7
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he 1ebre( theocracy e5iste$ in its pure for) fro) Moses to 2a)uel! &n this perio$, reli'ion (as not only superior to the
state, but it (as all of the state! #he %a( of 3o$ as trans)itte$ throu'h Moses an$ his successors (as the (hole of
'oern)ent!
/ith 2aul, ho(eer, the state rose to be the rial an$ ulti)ately, the )aster, of reli'ion! 2aul an$ .ai$ each receie$
their 0in'$o) fro) 2a)uel the prophet an$ $isciple of Eli the priest, but soon the 0in' $o)inate$ prophet an$ priest!
2aul $isobeye$ an$ een sou'ht to slay 2a)uel the prophet of 3o$!
D<
>n$er 2olo)on, the subor$ination of reli'ion to
state beca)e co)plete" he use$ reli'ion as an en'ine to further the stateTs purposes! 1e refor)e$ the or$er of
priesthoo$ establishe$ by Moses because the hi'h priest un$er that or$er en$orse$ the clai) of his rial to the throne!
D9
#he subor$ination of reli'ion to the state (as also true in pre*Christian Ro)e (hich en'a'e$ in e)peror*(orship! /hen
Au'ustus beca)e hea$ of the Ro)an state an$ the priestly hierarchy, he place$ reli'ion at a hi'h estee) as part of a
political plan to establish the real reli'ion of pre*Christian Ro)e * the (orship of the hea$ of the state! 1e set his 'reat
uncle -ulius Caesar a)on' the 'o$s, an$ co))an$e$ that (orship of .iine -ulius shoul$ not be less than (orship of
Apollo, -upiter an$ other 'o$s! /hen Au'ustus $ie$, he also 4oine$ the ran0s of the 'o$s, as other e)perors before
hi)!
6B
85
#he onset of Christianity, ho(eer, pose$ a $ifficulty to the e)peror as the ChristiansT $o')atic e5clusieness preente$
the) fro) payin' ho)a'e to publicly accepte$ 'o$s! &n the first t(o centuries after the $eath of -esus, Christians (ere
sub4ecte$ to persecution! By the ti)e of the e)peror #ra4an, Christians (ere consi$ere$ outla(s! #heir cri)e (as Shatre$
of the hu)an raceS, placin' the) in the sa)e cate'ory as pirates an$ bri'an$s an$ other Sene)ies of )an0in$S (ho
(ere sub4ect to su))ary punish)ents!
61
&n 2<6, .iocletian beca)e e)peror an$ sou'ht to reor'ani+e the e)pire an$ )a0e its a$)inistration )ore efficient! But
the closely*0nit hierarchically controlle$ church presente$ a serious proble), bein' a state (ithin a state oer (hich he
ha$ no control! 1e ha$ t(o options7 either to force it into sub)ission an$ brea0 its po(er or enter into an alliance (ith it
an$ procure political control oer it! 1e opte$ for force an$ reie$ the persecution, $estroye$ the churches, confiscate$
sacre$ boo0s, i)prisone$ the cler'y an$ by torture force$ the) to sacrifice!
62
But his efforts proe$ futile!
#he later e)peror, Constantine, too0 the secon$ option of alliance! Constantine 4oine$ (ith 3alerius an$ %icinius, his t(o
co*rulers of the e)pire, in issuin' an e$ict of toleration to Christians Son con$ition that nothin' is $one by the) contrary
to $iscipline!S
6D
A year later, after 3alerius $ie$, Constantine an$ %icius 4ointly issue$ the epochal E$ict of Milan @D12 or
D1DA, a $ocu)ent of )onu)ental i)portance in the history of reli'ious liberty! &t proi$e$ Sthat liberty of (orship shall not
be $enie$ to any, but that the )in$ an$ (ill of eery in$ii$ual shall be free to )ana'e $iine affairs accor$in' to his o(n
choice!S @e)phasis supplie$A #hus, all restrictie statutes (ere abro'ate$ an$ it (as enacte$ Sthat eery person (ho
cherishes the $esire to obsere the Christian reli'ion shall freely an$ uncon$itionally procee$ to obsere the sa)e
(ithout let or hin$rance!S Further)ore, it (as proi$e$ that the Ssa)e free an$ open po(er to follo( their o(n reli'ion or
(orship is 'rante$ also to others, in accor$ance (ith the tran,uillity of our ti)es, in or$er that eery person )ay hae
free opportunity to (orship the ob4ect of his choice!S@e)phasis supplie$A
66
Before lon', not only $i$ Christianity achiee e,ual status, but ac,uire$ priile'e, then presti'e, an$ eentually, e5clusie
po(er! Reli'ion beca)e an en'ine of state policy as Constantine consi$ere$ Christianity a )eans of unifyin' his co)ple5
e)pire! /ithin seen years after the E$ict of Milan, un$er the e)perorTs co))an$, 'reat Christian e$ifices (ere erecte$,
the cler'y (ere free$ fro) public bur$ens others ha$ to bear, an$ priate heathen sacrifices (ere forbi$$en!
#he faors 'rante$ to Christianity ca)e at a price7 state interference in reli'ious affairs! Constantine an$ his successors
calle$ an$ $is)isse$ church councils, an$ enforce$ unity of belief an$ practice! >ntil recently the church ha$ been the
icti) of persecution an$ repression, but this ti)e it (elco)e$ the stateTs persecution an$ repression of the
nonconfor)ist an$ the ortho$o5 on the belief that it (as better for heretics to be pur'e$ of their error than to $ie unsae$!
Both in theory as in practice, the partnership bet(een church an$ state (as not easy! &t (as a constant stru''le of one
clai)in' $o)inance oer the other! &n ti)e, ho(eer, after the collapse an$ $isinte'ration of the Ro)an E)pire, an$
(hile )onarchical states (ere 'ra$ually bein' consoli$ate$ a)on' the nu)erous feu$al hol$in's, the church stoo$ as
the one per)anent, stable an$ uniersal po(er! Not surprisin'ly, therefore, it clai)e$ not )erely e,uality but superiority
oer the secular states! #his clai), sy)boli+e$ by Pope %eoTs cro(nin' of Charle)a'ne, beca)e the churchTs accepte$
principle of its relationship to the state in the Mi$$le A'es! As ie(e$ by the church, the union of church an$ state (as
no( a union of the state in the church! #he rulers of the states $i$ not conce$e to this clai) of supre)acy! #hus, (hile
Charle)a'ne receie$ his cro(n fro) the Pope, he hi)self cro(ne$ his o(n son as successor to nullify the inference of
supre)acy!
6C
#he (hole history of )e$ieal Europe (as a stru''le for supre)acy bet(een prince an$ Pope an$ the
resultin' reli'ious (ars an$ persecution of heretics an$ nonconfor)ists! At about the secon$ ,uarter of the 1Dth century,
the &n,uisition (as establishe$, the purpose of (hich (as the $iscoery an$ e5ter)ination of heresy! Accuse$ heretics
(ere torture$ (ith the approal of the church in the bull A$ e5tirpan$a issue$ by Pope &nnocent &= in 12C2!
#he corruption an$ abuses of the Catholic Church spurre$ the Refor)ation ai)e$ at refor)in' the Catholic Church an$
resultin' in the establish)ent of Protestant churches! /hile Protestants are accusto)e$ to ascribe to the Refor)ation
the rise of reli'ious liberty an$ its acceptance as the principle 'oernin' the relations bet(een a $e)ocratic state an$ its
citi+ens, history sho(s that it is )ore accurate to say that the Ssa)e causes that 'ae rise to the Protestant reolution
also resulte$ in the (i$esprea$ acceptance of the principle of reli'ious liberty, an$ ulti)ately of the principle of separation
of church an$ state!S
6;
Pleas for tolerance an$ free$o) of conscience can (ithout $oubt be foun$ in the (ritin's of
lea$ers of the Refor)ation! But 4ust as Protestants liin' in the countries of papists plea$e$ for toleration of reli'ion, so
$i$ the papists that lie$ (here Protestants (ere $o)inant!
67
Papist an$ Protestant 'oern)ents ali0e accepte$ the i$ea
of cooperation bet(een church an$ state an$ re'ar$e$ as essential to national unity the unifor)ity of at least the out(ar$
)anifestations of reli'ion!
6<
Certainly, %uther, lea$er of the Refor)ation, state$ that Sneither pope, nor bishop, nor any
)an (hateer has the ri'ht of )a0in' one syllable bin$in' on a Christian )an, unless it be $one (ith his o(n consent!S
69
But (hen the tables ha$ turne$ an$ he (as no lon'er the hunte$ heretic, he li0e(ise state$ (hen he )a$e an alliance
(ith the secular po(ers that S@hAeretics are not to be $ispute$ (ith, but to be con$e)ne$ unhear$, an$ (hilst they perish
by fire, the faithful ou'ht to pursue the eil to its source, an$ bathe their han$s in the bloo$ of the Catholic bishops, an$ of
the Pope, (ho is a $eil in $is'uise!S
CB
#o %uther, unity a)on' the peoples in the interests of the state (as an i)portant
consi$eration! ?ther personalities in the Refor)ation such as Melanchton, M(in'li an$ Calin stron'ly espouse$
theocracy or the use of the state as an en'ine to further reli'ion! &n establishin' theocracy in 3enea, Calin )a$e
absence fro) the ser)on a cri)e, he inclu$e$ criticis) of the cler'y in the cri)e of blasphe)y punishable by $eath, an$
to eli)inate heresy, he cooperate$ in the &n,uisition!
C1
#here (ere, ho(eer, those (ho truly a$ocate$ reli'ious liberty! Eras)us, (ho belon'e$ to the Renaissance than the
Refor)ation, (rote that S@tAhe terrible papal e$ict, the )ore terrible i)perial e$ict, the i)prison)ents, the confiscations,
the recantations, the fa'ots an$ burnin's, all these thin's & can see acco)plish nothin' e5cept to )a0e the eil )ore
(i$esprea$!S
C2
#he )inority or $issi$ent sects also ar$ently a$ocate$ reli'ious liberty! #he Anabaptists, persecute$ an$
$espise$, alon' (ith the 2ocinians @>nitariansA an$ the Frien$s of the Wua0ers foun$e$ by 3eor'e Fo5 in the 17th
century, en$orse$ the supre)acy an$ free$o) of the in$ii$ual conscience! #hey re'ar$e$ reli'ion as outsi$e the real)
of political 'oern)ents!
CD
#he En'lish Baptists proclai)e$ that the S)a'istrate is not to )e$$le (ith reli'ion or )atters of
conscience, nor co)pel )en to this or that for) of reli'ion!S
C6
#hus, out of the Refor)ation, three rationali+ations of church*state relations )ay be $istin'uishe$7 the Erastian @after the
86
3er)an $octor ErastusA, the theocratic, an$ the separatist! #he first assu)e$ state superiority in ecclesiastical affairs
an$ the use of reli'ion as an en'ine of state policy as $e)onstrate$ by %utherTs belief that ciic cohesion coul$ not e5ist
(ithout reli'ious unity so that coercion to achiee reli'ious unity (as 4ustifie$! #he secon$ (as foun$e$ on ecclesiastical
supre)acy an$ the use of state )achinery to further reli'ious interests as pro)ote$ by Calin! #he thir$, (hich (as yet
to achiee ulti)ate an$ co)plete e5pression in the Ne( /orl$, (as $iscernibly in its incipient for) in the ar'u)ents of
so)e $issi$ent )inorities that the )a'istrate shoul$ not inter)e$$le in reli'ious affairs!
CC
After the Refor)ation,
Erastianis) pera$e$ all Europe e5cept for CalinTs theocratic 3enea! &n En'lan$, perhaps )ore than in any other
country, Erastianis) (as at its hei'ht! #o illustrate, a statute (as enacte$ by Parlia)ent in 1;7<, (hich, to encoura'e
(oolen tra$e, i)pose$ on all cler'y)en the $uty of seein' to it that no person (as burie$ in a shrou$ )a$e of any
substance other than (ool!
C;
>n$er Eli+abeth, supre)acy of the cro(n oer the church (as co)plete7 ecclesiastical
offices (ere re'ulate$ by her procla)ations, recusants (ere fine$ an$ i)prisone$, -esuits an$ proselyti+in' priests (ere
put to $eath for hi'h treason, the thirty*nine Articles of the Church of En'lan$ (ere a$opte$ an$ En'lish Protestantis)
attaine$ its present $octrinal status!
C7
Eli+abeth (as to be reco'ni+e$ as Sthe only 2upre)e 3oernor of this real) ! ! ! as
(ell in all spiritual or ecclesiastical thin's or causes as te)poral!S 2he an$ her successors (ere este$, in their
$o)inions, (ith Sall )anner of 4uris$ictions, priile'es, an$ pree)inences, in any (ise touchin' or concernin' any
spiritual or ecclesiastical 4uris$iction!S
C<
%ater, ho(eer, Cro)(ell establishe$ the constitution in 1;67 (hich 'rante$ full
liberty to all Protestant sects, but $enie$ toleration to Catholics!
C9
&n 1;<9, /illia) &&& issue$ the Act of #oleration (hich
establishe$ a $e facto toleration for all e5cept Catholics! #he Catholics achiee$ reli'ious liberty in the 19th century (hen
the Ro)an Catholic Relief Act of 1<29 (as a$opte$! #he -e(s follo(e$ suit in 1<C< (hen they (ere finally per)itte$ to
sit in Parlia)ent!
;B
/hen the representaties of the A)erican states )et in Phila$elphia in 17<7 to $raft the constitutional foun$ation of the
ne( republic, the theocratic state (hich ha$ flourishe$ inter)ittently in &srael, -u$ea, the 1oly Ro)an E)pire an$
3enea (as co)pletely 'one! #he preailin' church*state relationship in Europe (as Erastianis) e)bo$ie$ in the
syste) of 4uris$ictionalis) (hereby one faith (as faore$ as the official state*supporte$ reli'ion, but other faiths (ere
per)itte$ to e5ist (ith free$o) in arious $e'rees! No nation ha$ yet a$opte$ as the basis of its church*state relations
the principle of the )utual in$epen$ence of reli'ion an$ 'oern)ent an$ the conco)itant principle that neither )i'ht be
use$ as an en'ine to further the policies of the other, althou'h the principle (as in its se)inal for) in the ar'u)ents of
so)e $issi$ent )inorities an$ intellectual lea$ers of the Renaissance! #he reli'ious (ars of 1;th an$ 17th century
Europe (ere a thin' of the past by the ti)e A)erica $eclare$ its in$epen$ence fro) the ?l$ /orl$, but their )e)ory (as
still ii$ in the )in$s of the Constitutional Fathers as e5presse$ by the >nite$ 2tates 2upre)e Court, i+7
#he centuries i))e$iately before an$ conte)poraneous (ith the coloni+ation of A)erica ha$ been fille$ (ith tur)oil, ciil
strife, an$ persecution 'enerate$ in lar'e part by establishe$ sects $eter)ine$ to )aintain their absolute political an$
reli'ious supre)acy! /ith the po(er of 'oern)ent supportin' the), at arious ti)es an$ places, Catholics ha$
persecute$ Protestants, Protestants ha$ persecute$ Catholics, Protestant sects ha$ persecute$ other protestant sects,
Catholics of one sha$e of belief ha$ persecute$ Catholics of another sha$e of belief, an$ all of these ha$ fro) ti)e to
ti)e persecute$ -e(s! &n efforts to force loyalty to (hateer reli'ious 'roup happene$ to be on top an$ in lea'ue (ith the
'oern)ent of a particular ti)e an$ place, )en an$ (o)en ha$ been fine$, cast in 4ail, cruelly torture$, an$ 0ille$!
A)on' the offenses for (hich these punish)ents ha$ been inflicte$ (ere such thin's as spea0in' $isrespectfully of the
ie(s of )inisters of 'oern)ent*establishe$ churches, non*atten$ance at those churches, e5pressions of non*belief in
their $octrines, an$ failure to pay ta5es an$ tithes to support the)!
;1
&n 17<6, -a)es Ma$ison capture$ in this state)ent the entire history of church*state relations in Europe up to the ti)e
the >nite$ 2tates Constitution (as a$opte$, i+7
#orrents of bloo$ hae been spilt in the (orl$ in ain atte)pts of the secular ar) to e5tin'uish reli'ious $iscor$, by
proscribin' all $ifferences in reli'ious opinions!
;2
&n su), this history sho(s t(o salient features7 First, (ith )inor e5ceptions, the history of church*state relationships (as
characteri+e$ by persecution, oppression, hatre$, bloo$she$, an$ (ar, all in the na)e of the 3o$ of %oe an$ of the
Prince of Peace! 2econ$, li0e(ise (ith )inor e5ceptions, this history (itnesse$ the unscrupulous use of reli'ion by
secular po(ers to pro)ote secular purposes an$ policies, an$ the (illin' acceptance of that role by the an'uar$s of
reli'ion in e5chan'e for the faors an$ )un$ane benefits conferre$ by a)bitious princes an$ e)perors in e5chan'e for
reli'ionTs inaluable serice! #his (as the conte5t in (hich the uni,ue e5peri)ent of the principle of reli'ious free$o) an$
separation of church an$ state sa( its birth in A)erican constitutional $e)ocracy an$ in hu)an history!
;D
V. F-&o"! Co%&"+(/&+%2 &o &,# A'o$&+o% o1 &,# A7#"+-% R#8+2+o% C8/!#!
2ettlers fleein' fro) reli'ious persecution in Europe, pri)arily in An'lican*$o)inate$ En'lan$, establishe$ )any of the
A)erican colonies! British thou'ht pera$e$ these colonies as the i))i'rants brou'ht (ith the) their reli'ious an$
political i$eas fro) En'lan$ an$ En'lish boo0s an$ pa)phlets lar'ely proi$e$ their cultural fare!
;6
But althou'h these
settlers escape$ fro) Europe to be free$ fro) bon$a'e of la(s (hich co)pelle$ the) to support an$ atten$ 'oern)ent
faore$ churches, so)e of these settlers the)seles transplante$ into A)erican soil the oppressie practices they
escape$ fro)! #he charters 'rante$ by the En'lish Cro(n to the in$ii$uals an$ co)panies $esi'nate$ to )a0e the la(s
(hich (oul$ control the $estinies of the colonials authori+e$ the) to erect reli'ious establish)ents, (hich all, (hether
belieers or not, (ere re,uire$ to support or atten$!
;C
At one ti)e, si5 of the colonies establishe$ a state reli'ion! ?ther
colonies, ho(eer, such as Rho$e &slan$ an$ .ela(are tolerate$ a hi'h $e'ree of reli'ious $iersity! 2till others, (hich
ori'inally tolerate$ only a sin'le reli'ion, eentually e5ten$e$ support to seeral $ifferent faiths!
;;
#his (as the state of the A)erican colonies (hen the uni,ue A)erican e5peri)ent of separation of church an$ state
ca)e about! #he birth of the e5peri)ent cannot be attribute$ to a sin'le cause or eent! Rather, a nu)ber of
inter$epen$ent practical an$ i$eolo'ical factors contribute$ in brin'in' it forth! A)on' these (ere the SEn'lish Act of
#oleration of 1;<9, the )ultiplicity of sects, the lac0 of church affiliation on the part of )ost A)ericans, the rise of
co))ercial intercourse, the e5i'encies of the Reolutionary /ar, the /illia)s*Penn tra$ition an$ the success of their
e5peri)ents, the (ritin's of %oc0e, the social contract theory, the 3reat A(a0enin', an$ the influence of European
87
rationalis) an$ $eis)!S
;7
Each of these factors shall be briefly $iscusse$!
First, the practical factors! En'lan$Ts policy of openin' the 'ates of the A)erican colonies to $ifferent faiths resulte$ in the
)ultiplicity of sects in the colonies! /ith an Erastian 4ustification, En'lish lor$s chose to fore'o protectin' (hat (as
consi$ere$ to be the true an$ eternal church of a particular ti)e in or$er to encoura'e tra$e an$ co))erce! #he colonies
(ere lar'e financial inest)ents (hich (oul$ be profitable only if people (oul$ settle there! &t (oul$ be $ifficult to en'a'e
in tra$e (ith persons one see0s to $estroy for reli'ious belief, thus tolerance (as a necessity! #his ten$e$ to $istract the
colonies fro) their preoccupations oer their reli'ion an$ its e5clusieness, encoura'in' the) Sto thin0 less of the Church
an$ )ore of the 2tate an$ of co))erce!S
;<
#he $iersity brou'ht about by the coloniesT open 'ates encoura'e$ reli'ious
free$o) an$ non*establish)ent in seeral (ays! First, as there (ere too )any $issentin' sects to abolish, there (as no
alternatie but to learn to lie to'ether! 2econ$ly, because of the $aily e5posure to $ifferent reli'ions, the passionate
coniction in the e5clusie ri'htness of oneTs reli'ion, (hich i)pels persecution for the sa0e of oneTs reli'ion, (ane$!
Finally, because of the 'reat $iersity of the sects, reli'ious unifor)ity (as not possible, an$ (ithout such unifor)ity,
establish)ent coul$ not surie!
;9
But (hile there (as a )ultiplicity of $eno)ination, para$o5ically, there (as a scarcity of a$herents! ?nly about four
percent of the entire population of the country ha$ a church affiliation at the ti)e the republic (as foun$e$!
7B
#his )i'ht
be attribute$ to the $riftin' to the A)erican colonies of the s0epticis) that characteri+e$ European Enli'hten)ent!
71
Econo)ic consi$erations )i'ht hae also been a factor! #he in$ii$ualis) of the A)erican colonist, )anifeste$ in the
)ultiplicity of sects, also resulte$ in )uch unaffiliate$ reli'ion (hich treate$ reli'ion as a personal non*institutional )atter!
#he prealence of lac0 of church affiliation contribute$ to reli'ious liberty an$ $isestablish)ent as persons (ho (ere not
connecte$ (ith any church (ere not li0ely to persecute others for si)ilar in$epen$ence nor acce$e to co)pulsory
ta5ation to support a church to (hich they $i$ not belon'!
72
1o(eer, for those (ho (ere affiliate$ to churches, the colonial policy re'ar$in' their (orship 'enerally follo(e$ the
tenor of the En'lish Act of #oleration of 1;<9! &n En'lan$, this Act conferre$ on Protestant $issenters the ri'ht to hol$
public serices sub4ect to re'istration of their )inisters an$ places of (orship!
7D
Althou'h the toleration accor$e$ to
Protestant $issenters (ho ,ualifie$ un$er its ter)s (as only a )o$est a$ance in reli'ious free$o), it neertheless (as
of so)e influence to the A)erican e5peri)ent!
76
Een then, for practical consi$erations, concessions ha$ to be )a$e to
other $issentin' churches to ensure their cooperation in the /ar of &n$epen$ence (hich thus ha$ a unifyin' effect on the
colonies!
Ne5t, the i$eolo'ical factors! First, the 3reat A(a0enin' in )i$*1<th century, an ean'elical reli'ious reial ori'inatin' in
Ne( En'lan$, cause$ a brea0 (ith for)al church reli'ion an$ a resistance to coercion by establishe$ churches! #his
)oe)ent e)phasi+e$ an e)otional, personal reli'ion that appeale$ $irectly to the in$ii$ual, puttin' e)phasis on the
ri'hts an$ $uties of the in$ii$ual conscience an$ its ans(erability e5clusiely to 3o$! #hus, althou'h they ha$ no ,uarrel
(ith ortho$o5 Christian theolo'y as in fact they (ere fun$a)entalists, this 'roup beca)e staunch a$ocates of
separation of church an$ state!
7C
#hen there (as the /illia)s*Penn tra$ition! Ro'er /illia)s (as the foun$er of the colony of Rho$e &slan$ (here he
establishe$ a co))unity of Baptists, Wua0ers an$ other nonconfor)ists! &n this colony, reli'ious free$o) (as not base$
on practical consi$erations but on the concept of )utual in$epen$ence of reli'ion an$ 'oern)ent! &n 1;;D, Rho$e
&slan$ obtaine$ a charter fro) the British cro(n (hich $eclare$ that settlers hae it S)uch on their heart to hol$ forth a
lielie e5peri)ent that a )ost flourishin' ciil state )ay best be )aintaine$ ! ! ! (ith full libertie in reli'ious
concern)ents!S
7;
&n /illia)sT pa)phlet, #he Blou$y #enent of Persecution for cause of Conscience, $iscusse$ in a
Conference bet(een #ruth an$ Peace,
77
he articulate$ the philosophical basis for his ar'u)ent of reli'ious liberty! #o hi),
reli'ious free$o) an$ separation of church an$ state $i$ not constitute t(o but only one principle! Reli'ious persecution
is (ron' because it Sconfoun$s the Ciil an$ Reli'iousS an$ because S2tates ! ! ! are proe$ essentially Ciil! #he Spo(er
of true $iscernin' the true fear of 3o$S is not one of the po(ers that the people hae transferre$ to Ciil Authority!
7<
/illia)sT Blou$y #enet is consi$ere$ an epochal )ilestone in the history of reli'ious free$o) an$ the separation of
church an$ state!
79
/illia) Penn, proprietor of the lan$ that beca)e Pennsylania, (as also an ar$ent a$ocate of toleration, hain' been
i)prisone$ for his reli'ious conictions as a )e)ber of the $espise$ Wua0ers! 1e oppose$ coercion in )atters of
conscience because Si)position, restraint an$ persecution for conscience sa0e, hi'hly ina$e the .iine prero'atie!S
Asi$e fro) his i$ealis), proprietary interests )a$e toleration in Pennsylania necessary! 1e attracte$ lar'e nu)bers of
settlers by pro)isin' reli'ious toleration, thus brin'in' in i))i'rants both fro) the Continent an$ Britain! At the en$ of
the colonial perio$, Pennsylania ha$ the 'reatest ariety of reli'ious 'roups! Penn (as responsible in lar'e part for the
SConcessions an$ a'ree)ents of the Proprietors, Freehol$ers, an$ inhabitants of /est -ersey, in A)ericaS, a
)onu)ental $ocu)ent in the history of ciil liberty (hich proi$e$ a)on' others, for liberty of conscience!
<B
#he Baptist
follo(ers of /illia)s an$ the Wua0ers (ho ca)e after Penn continue$ the tra$ition starte$ by the lea$ers of their
$eno)inations! Asi$e fro) the Baptists an$ the Wua0ers, the Presbyterians li0e(ise 'reatly contribute$ to the eolution
of separation an$ free$o)!
<1
#he Constitutional fathers (ho conene$ in Phila$elphia in 17<7, an$ Con'ress an$ the
states that a$opte$ the First A)en$)ent in 1791 (ere ery fa)iliar (ith an$ stron'ly influence$ by the successful
e5a)ples of Rho$e &slan$ an$ Pennsylania!
<2
>n$eniably, -ohn %oc0e an$ the social contract theory also contribute$ to the A)erican e5peri)ent! #he social contract
theory populari+e$ by %oc0e (as so (i$ely accepte$ as to be $ee)e$ self*ei$ent truth in A)ericaTs .eclaration of
&n$epen$ence! /ith the $octrine of natural ri'hts an$ e,uality set forth in the .eclaration of &n$epen$ence, there (as no
roo) for reli'ious $iscri)ination! &t (as $ifficult to 4ustify ine,uality in reli'ious treat)ent by a ne( nation that seere$ its
political bon$s (ith the En'lish cro(n (hich iolate$ the self*ei$ent truth that all )en are create$ e,ual!
<D
#he social contract theory (as applie$ by )any reli'ious 'roups in ar'uin' a'ainst establish)ent, puttin' e)phasis on
reli'ion as a natural ri'ht that is entirely personal an$ not (ithin the scope of the po(ers of a political bo$y! #hat %oc0e
an$ the social contract theory (ere influential in the $eelop)ent of reli'ious free$o) an$ separation is ei$ent fro) the
)e)orial presente$ by the Baptists to the Continental Con'ress in 1776, )i;7
88
Men unite in society, accor$in' to the 'reat Mr! %oc0e, (ith an intention in eery one the better to presere hi)self, his
liberty an$ property! #he po(er of the society, or %e'islature constitute$ by the), can neer be suppose$ to e5ten$ any
further than the co))on 'oo$, but is obli'e$ to secure eery oneTs property! #o 'ie la(s, to receie obe$ience, to
co)pel (ith the s(or$, belon' to none but the ciil )a'istrate" an$ on this 'roun$ (e affir) that the )a'istrateTs po(er
e5ten$s not to establishin' any articles of faith or for)s of (orship, by force of la(s" for la(s are of no force (ithout
penalties! #he care of souls cannot belon' to the ciil )a'istrate, because his po(er consists only in out(ar$ force" but
pure an$ sain' reli'ion consists in the in(ar$ persuasion of the )in$, (ithout (hich nothin' can be acceptable to 3o$!
<6
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he i$ea that reli'ion (as outsi$e the 4uris$iction of ciil 'oern)ent (as acceptable to both the reli'ionist an$ rationalist!
#o the reli'ionist, 3o$ or Christ $i$ not $esire that 'oern)ent hae that 4uris$iction @Sren$er unto Caesar that (hich is
CaesarTsS" S)y 0in'$o) is not of this (orl$SA an$ to the rationalist, the po(er to act in the real) of reli'ion (as not one of
the po(ers conferre$ on 'oern)ent as part of the social contract!
<C
Not only the social contract theory $rifte$ to the colonies fro) Europe! Many of the lea$ers of the Reolutionary an$ post*
reolutionary perio$ (ere also influence$ by European $eis) an$ rationalis),
<;
in 'eneral, an$ so)e (ere apathetic if
not anta'onistic to for)al reli'ious (orship an$ institutionali+e$ reli'ion! -efferson, Paine, -ohn A$a)s, /ashin'ton,
Fran0lin, Ma$ison, a)on' others (ere rec0one$ to be a)on' the >nitarians or .eists! >nitarianis) an$ .eis)
contribute$ to the e)phasis on secular interests an$ the rele'ation of historic theolo'y to the bac0'roun$!
<7
For these
)en of the enli'hten)ent, reli'ion shoul$ be allo(e$ to rise an$ fall on its o(n, an$ the state )ust be protecte$ fro) the
clutches of the church (hose entan'le)ents has cause$ intolerance an$ corruption as (itnesse$ throu'hout history!
<<
Not only the lea$ers but also the )asses e)brace$ rationalis) at the en$ of the ei'hteenth century, accountin' for the
popularity of PaineTs A'e of Reason!
<9
Finally, the eents lea$in' to reli'ious free$o) an$ separation in =ir'inia contribute$ si'nificantly to the A)erican
e5peri)ent of the First A)en$)ent! =ir'inia (as the Sfirst state in the history of the (orl$ to proclai) the $ecree of
absolute $iorce bet(een church an$ state!S
9B
Many factors contribute$ to this, a)on' (hich (ere that half to t(o*thir$s
of the population (ere or'ani+e$ $issentin' sects, the 3reat A(a0enin' ha$ (on )any conerts, the establishe$
An'lican Church of =ir'inia foun$ the)seles on the losin' si$e of the Reolution an$ ha$ alienate$ )any influential
lay)en (ith its i$entification (ith the Cro(nTs tyranny, an$ aboe all, present in =ir'inia (as a 'roup of political lea$ers
(ho (ere $eote$ to liberty 'enerally,
91
(ho ha$ accepte$ the social contract as self*ei$ent, an$ (ho ha$ been 'reatly
influence$ by .eis) an$ >nitarianis)! A)on' these lea$ers (ere /ashin'ton, Patric0 1enry, 3eor'e Mason, -a)es
Ma$ison an$ aboe the rest, #ho)as -efferson!
#he first )a4or step to(ar$s separation in =ir'inia (as the a$option of the follo(in' proision in the Bill of Ri'hts of the
stateTs first constitution7
#hat reli'ion, or the $uty (hich (e o(e to our Creator, an$ the )anner of $ischar'in' it, can be $irecte$ only by reason
an$ coniction, not by force or iolence" an$ therefore, all )en are e,ually entitle$ to the free e5ercise of reli'ion
accor$in' to the $ictates of conscience" an$ that it is the )utual $uty of all to practice Christian forbearance, loe, an$
charity to(ar$s each other!
92
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he a$option of the Bill of Ri'hts si'nifie$ the be'innin' of the en$ of establish)ent! Baptists, Presbyterians an$
%utherans floo$e$ the first le'islatie asse)bly (ith petitions for abolition of establish)ent! /hile the )a4ority of the
population (ere $issenters, a )a4ority of the le'islature (ere church)en! #he le'islature co)pro)ise$ an$ enacte$ a bill
in 177; abolishin' the )ore oppressie features of establish)ent an$ 'rantin' e5e)ptions to the $issenters, but not
'uaranteein' separation! &t repeale$ the la(s punishin' heresy an$ absence fro) (orship an$ re,uirin' the $issenters to
contribute to the support of the establish)ent!
9D
But the $issenters (ere not satisfie$" they not only (ante$ abolition of
support for the establish)ent, they oppose$ the co)pulsory support of their o(n reli'ion as others! As )e)bers of the
establishe$ church (oul$ not allo( that only they (oul$ pay ta5es (hile the rest $i$ not, the le'islature enacte$ in 1779 a
bill )a0in' per)anent the establish)entTs loss of its e5clusie status an$ its po(er to ta5 its )e)bers" but those (ho
ote$ for it $i$ so in the hope that a 'eneral assess)ent bill (oul$ be passe$! /ithout the latter, the establish)ent (oul$
not surie! #hus, a bill (as intro$uce$ in 1779 re,uirin' eery person to enroll his na)e (ith the county cler0 an$
in$icate (hich Ssociety for the purpose of Reli'ious /orshipS he (ishe$ to support! ?n the basis of this list, collections
(ere to be )a$e by the sheriff an$ turne$ oer to the cler'y)en an$ teachers $esi'nate$ by the reli'ious con're'ation!
#he assess)ent of any person (ho faile$ to enroll in any society (as to be $ii$e$ proportionately a)on' the societies!
96
#he bill eo0e$ stron' opposition!
&n 17<6, another bill, entitle$ SBill Establishin' a Proision for #eachers of the Christian Reli'ionS (as intro$uce$ re,uirin'
all persons Sto pay a )o$erate ta5 or contribution annually for the support of the Christian reli'ion, or of so)e Christian
church, $eno)ination or co))union of Christians, or for so)e for) of Christian (orship!S
9C
#his li0e(ise arouse$ the
sa)e opposition to the 1779 bill! #he )ost tellin' blo( a'ainst the 17<6 bill (as the )onu)ental SMe)orial an$
Re)onstrance a'ainst Reli'ious Assess)entsS (ritten by Ma$ison an$ (i$ely $istribute$ before the reconenin' of
le'islature in the fall of 17<C!
9;
&t stresse$ natural ri'hts, the 'oern)entTs lac0 of 4uris$iction oer the $o)ain of reli'ion,
an$ the social contract as the i$eolo'ical basis of separation (hile also citin' practical consi$erations such as loss of
population throu'h )i'ration! 1e (rote, )i;7
Because (e hol$ it for a Tfun$a)ental an$ un$eniable truth,T that reli'ion, or the $uty (hich (e o(e to our creator, an$
the )anner of $ischar'in' it, can be $irecte$ only by reason an$ coniction, not by force or iolence! #he reli'ion, then,
of eery )an, )ust be left to the coniction an$ conscience of eery )an" an$ it is the ri'ht of eery )an to e5ercise it as
these )ay $ictate! #his ri'ht is, in its nature, an unalienable ri'ht! &t is unalienable, because the opinions of )en,
$epen$in' only on the ei$ence conte)plate$ in their o(n )in$s, cannot follo( the $ictates of other )en" it is
unalienable, also, because (hat is here a ri'ht to(ar$s )en, is a $uty to(ar$s the creator! &t is the $uty of eery )an to
ren$er the creator such ho)a'e, an$ such only as he beliees to be acceptable to hi)" this $uty is prece$ent, both in
or$er of ti)e an$ $e'ree of obli'ation, to the clai)s of ciil society! Before any )an can be consi$ere$ as a )e)ber of
ciil society, he )ust be consi$ere$ as a sub4ect of the 'oernor of the unierse" an$ if a )e)ber of ciil society, (ho
89
enters into any subor$inate association, )ust al(ays $o it (ith a reseration of his $uty to the 'eneral authority, )uch
)ore )ust eery )an (ho beco)es a )e)ber of any particular ciil society $o it (ith the sain' his alle'iance to the
uniersal soerei'n!
97
@e)phases supplie$A
Ma$ison articulate$ in the Me)orial the (i$ely hel$ beliefs in 17<C as in$icate$ by the 'reat nu)ber of si'natures
appen$e$ to the Me)orial! #he assess)ent bill (as spee$ily $efeate$!
#a0in' a$anta'e of the situation, Ma$ison calle$ up a )uch earlier 1779 bill of -efferson (hich ha$ not been ote$ on,
the SBill for Establishin' Reli'ious Free$o)S, an$ it (as finally passe$ in -anuary 17<;! &t proi$e$, )i;7
/ell a(are that Al)i'hty 3o$ hath create$ the )in$ free" that all atte)pts to influence it by te)poral punish)ents or
bur$ens, or by ciil incapacitations, ten$ not only to be'et habits of hypocrisy an$ )eanness, an$ are a $eparture fro)
the plan of the 1oly Author of our reli'ion, (ho bein' %or$ both of bo$y an$ )in$, yet chose not to propa'ate it by
coercions on either, as (as in his Al)i'hty po(er to $o"
555 555 555
Be it therefore enacte$ by the 3eneral Asse)bly! #hat no )an shall be co)pelle$ to fre,uent or support any reli'ious
(orship, place or )inistry (hatsoeer, nor shall be enforce$, restraine$, )oleste$ or bur$ene$ in his bo$y or 'oo$s, nor
shall other(ise suffer on account of his reli'ious opinions or beliefs, but that all )en shall be free to profess, an$ by
ar'u)ent to )aintain, their opinions in )atters of reli'ion, an$ that the sa)e shall in no (ise $i)inish, enlar'e or affect
their ciil capacities!
9<
@e)phases supplie$A
#his statute forba$e any 0in$ of ta5ation in support of reli'ion an$ effectually en$e$ any thou'ht of a 'eneral or particular
establish)ent in =ir'inia!
99
But the passa'e of this la( (as obtaine$ not only because of the influence of the 'reat
lea$ers in =ir'inia but also because of substantial popular support co)in' )ainly fro) the t(o 'reat $issentin' sects,
na)ely the Presbyterians an$ the Baptists! #he for)er (ere neer establishe$ in =ir'inia an$ an un$erpriile'e$ )inority
of the population! #his )a$e the) an5ious to pull $o(n the e5istin' state church as they reali+e$ that it (as i)possible
for the) to be eleate$ to that priile'e$ position! Apart fro) these e5pe$iential consi$erations, ho(eer, )any of the
Presbyterians (ere sincere a$ocates of separation
1BB
'roun$e$ on rational, secular ar'u)ents an$ to the lan'ua'e of
natural reli'ion!
1B1
&nfluence$ by Ro'er /illia)s, the Baptists, on the other han$, assu)e$ that reli'ion (as essentially a
)atter of concern of the in$ii$ual an$ his 3o$, i!e!, sub4ectie, spiritual an$ supernatural, hain' no relation (ith the
social or$er!
1B2
#o the), the 1oly 3host (as sufficient to )aintain an$ $irect the Church (ithout 'oern)ental assistance
an$ state*supporte$ reli'ion (as contrary ti the spirit of the 3ospel!
1BD
#hus, separation (as necessary!
1B6
-effersonTs
reli'ious free$o) statute (as a )ilestone in the history of reli'ious free$o)! #he >nite$ 2tates 2upre)e Court has not
4ust once ac0no(le$'e$ that the proisions of the First A)en$)ent of the >!2! Constitution ha$ the sa)e ob4ecties an$
inten$e$ to affor$ the sa)e protection a'ainst 'oern)ent interference (ith reli'ious liberty as the =ir'inia 2tatute of
Reli'ious %iberty!
Een in the absence of the reli'ion clauses, the principle that 'oern)ent ha$ no po(er to le'islate in the area of reli'ion
by restrictin' its free e5ercise or establishin' it (as i)plicit in the Constitution of 17<7! #his coul$ be $e$uce$ fro) the
prohibition of any reli'ious test for fe$eral office in Article =& of the Constitution an$ the assu)e$ lac0 of po(er of
Con'ress to act on any sub4ect not e5pressly )entione$ in the Constitution!
1BC
1o(eer, o)ission of an e5press 'uaranty
of reli'ious free$o) an$ other natural ri'hts nearly preente$ the ratification of the Constitution!
1B;
&n the ratifyin'
conentions of al)ost eery state, so)e ob4ection (as e5presse$ to the absence of a restriction on the Fe$eral
3oern)ent as re'ar$s le'islation on reli'ion!
1B7
#hus, in 1791, this restriction (as )a$e e5plicit (ith the a$option of the
reli'ion clauses in the First A)en$)ent as they are (or$e$ to this $ay, (ith the first part usually referre$ to as the
Establish)ent Clause an$ the secon$ part, the Free E5ercise Clause, )i;7
Con'ress shall )a0e no la( respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof!
VI. R#8+2+o% C8/!#! +% &,# U%+&#' S&&#!6Co%-#$&, J/"+!$"/'#%-#, S&%'"'!
/ith the (i$esprea$ a'ree)ent re'ar$in' the alue of the First A)en$)ent reli'ion clauses co)es an e,ually broa$
$isa'ree)ent as to (hat these clauses specifically re,uire, per)it an$ forbi$! No a'ree)ent has been reache$ by those
(ho hae stu$ie$ the reli'ion clauses as re'ar$s its e5act )eanin' an$ the paucity of recor$s in Con'ress ren$ers it
$ifficult to ascertain its )eanin'!
1B<
Conse,uently, the 4urispru$ence in this area is olatile an$ frau'ht (ith
inconsistencies (hether (ithin a Court $ecision or across $ecisions!
?ne source of $ifficulty is the $ifference in the conte5t in (hich the First A)en$)ent (as a$opte$ an$ in (hich it is
applie$ to$ay! &n the 17<Bs, reli'ion playe$ a pri)ary role in social life * i!e!, fa)ily responsibilities, e$ucation, health care,
poor relief, an$ other aspects of social life (ith si'nificant )oral $i)ension * (hile 'oern)ent playe$ a supportie an$
in$irect role by )aintainin' con$itions in (hich these actiities )ay be carrie$ out by reli'ious or reli'iously*)otiate$
associations! #o$ay, 'oern)ent plays this pri)ary role an$ reli'ion plays the supportie role!
1B9
3oern)ent runs een
fa)ily plannin', se5 e$ucation, a$option an$ foster care pro'ra)s!
11B
2tate$ other(ise an$ (ith so)e e5a''eration,
S@(Ahereas t(o centuries a'o, in )atters of social life (hich hae a si'nificant )oral $i)ension, 'oern)ent (as the
han$)ai$ of reli'ion, to$ay reli'ion, in its social responsibilities, as contraste$ (ith personal faith an$ collectie (orship,
is the han$)ai$ of 'oern)ent!S
111
/ith 'oern)ent re'ulation of in$ii$ual con$uct hain' beco)e )ore perasie,
ineitably so)e of those re'ulations (oul$ reach con$uct that for so)e in$ii$uals are reli'ious! As a result, increasin'ly,
there )ay be ina$ertent collisions bet(een purely secular 'oern)ent actions an$ reli'ion clause alues!
112
Parallel to this e5pansion of 'oern)ent has been the e5pansion of reli'ious or'ani+ations in population, physical
institutions, types of actiities un$erta0en, an$ sheer ariety of $eno)inations, sects an$ cults! Churches run $ay*care
centers, retire)ent ho)es, hospitals, schools at all leels, research centers, settle)ent houses, half(ay houses for
prisoners, sports facilities, the)e par0s, publishin' houses an$ )ass )e$ia pro'ra)s! &n these actiities, reli'ious
90
or'ani+ations co)ple)ent an$ co)pete (ith co))ercial enterprises, thus blurrin' the line bet(een )any types of
actiities un$erta0en by reli'ious 'roups an$ secular actiities! Churches hae also concerne$ the)seles (ith social
an$ political issues as a necessary out'ro(th of reli'ious faith as (itnesse$ in pastoral letters on (ar an$ peace,
econo)ic 4ustice, an$ hu)an life, or in rin'in' affir)ations for racial e,uality on reli'ious foun$ations! &neitably, these
$eelop)ents hae brou'ht about substantial entan'le)ent of reli'ion an$ 'oern)ent! %i0e(ise, the 'ro(th in
population $ensity, )obility an$ $iersity has si'nificantly chan'e$ the eniron)ent in (hich reli'ious or'ani+ations an$
actiities e5ist an$ the la(s affectin' the) are )a$e! &t is no lon'er easy for in$ii$uals to lie solely a)on' their o(n
0in$ or to shelter their chil$ren fro) e5posure to co)petin' alues! #he result is $isa'ree)ent oer (hat la(s shoul$
re,uire, per)it or prohibit"
11D
an$ a'ree)ent that if the ri'hts of belieers as (ell as non*belieers are all to be respecte$
an$ 'ien their 4ust $ue, a ri'i$, (oo$en interpretation of the reli'ion clauses that is blin$ to societal an$ political realities
)ust be aoi$e$!
116
Reli'ion cases arise fro) $ifferent circu)stances! #he )ore obious ones arise fro) a 'oern)ent action (hich
purposely ai$s or inhibits reli'ion! #hese cases are easier to resole as, in 'eneral, these actions are plainly
unconstitutional! 2till, this 0in$ of cases poses $ifficulty in ascertainin' proof of intent to ai$ or inhibit reli'ion!
11C
#he )ore
$ifficult reli'ion clause cases inole 'oern)ent action (ith a secular purpose an$ 'eneral applicability (hich
inci$entally or ina$ertently ai$s or bur$ens reli'ious e5ercise! &n Free E5ercise Clause cases, these 'oern)ent actions
are referre$ to as those (ith Sbur$enso)e effectS on reli'ious e5ercise een if the 'oern)ent action is not reli'iously
)otiate$!
11;
&$eally, the le'islature (oul$ reco'ni+e the reli'ions an$ their practices an$ (oul$ consi$er the), (hen
practical, in enactin' la(s of 'eneral application! But (hen the le'islature fails to $o so, reli'ions that are threatene$ an$
bur$ene$ turn to the courts for protection!
117
Most of these free e5ercise clai)s brou'ht to the Court are for e5e)ption,
not inali$ation of the facially neutral la( that has a Sbur$enso)eS effect!
11<
/ith the chan'e in political an$ social conte5t an$ the increasin' ina$ertent collisions bet(een la( an$ reli'ious
e5ercise, the $efinition of reli'ion for purposes of interpretin' the reli'ion clauses has also been )o$ifie$ to suit current
realities! .efinin' reli'ion is a $ifficult tas0 for een theolo'ians, philosophers an$ )oralists cannot a'ree on a
co)prehensie $efinition! Neertheless, courts )ust $efine reli'ion for constitutional an$ other le'al purposes!
119
&t (as in
the 1<9B case of .ais ! Beason
12B
that the >nite$ 2tates 2upre)e Court first ha$ occasion to $efine reli'ion, )i;7
#he ter) Treli'ionT has reference to oneTs ie(s of his relations to his Creator, an$ to the obli'ations they i)pose of
reerence for his bein' an$ character, an$ of obe$ience to his (ill! &t is often confoun$e$ (ith the cultus or for) of
(orship of a particular sect, but is $istin'uishable fro) the latter! #he First A)en$)ent to the Constitution, in $eclarin'
that Con'ress shall )a0e no la( respectin' the establish)ent of reli'ion, or forbi$$in' the free e5ercise thereof, (as
inten$e$ to allo( eeryone un$er the 4uris$iction of the >nite$ 2tates to entertain such notions respectin' his relations to
his Ma0er an$ the $uties they i)pose as )ay be approe$ by his 4u$')ent an$ conscience, an$ to e5hibit his senti)ents
in such for) of (orship as he )ay thin0 proper, not in4urious to the e,ual ri'hts of others, an$ to prohibit le'islation for
the support of any reli'ious tenets, or the )o$es of (orship of any sect!
121
#he $efinition (as clearly theistic (hich (as reflectie of the popular attitu$es in 1<9B!
&n 1966, the Court state$ in >nite$ 2tates ! Ballar$
122
that the free e5ercise of reli'ion Se)braces the ri'ht to )aintain
theories of life an$ of $eath an$ of the hereafter (hich are ran0 heresy to follo(ers of the ortho$o5 faiths!S
12D
By the
19;Bs, A)erican pluralis) in reli'ion ha$ flourishe$ to inclu$e non*theistic cree$s fro) Asia such as Bu$$his) an$
#aois)!
126
&n 19;1, the Court, in To"-!o 0. W&A+%!,
12C
e5pan$e$ the ter) Sreli'ionS to non*theistic beliefs such as
Bu$$his), #aois), Ethical Culture, an$ 2ecular 1u)anis)! Four years later, the Court face$ a $efinitional proble) in
>nite$ 2tates ! 2ee'er
12;
(hich inole$ four )en (ho clai)e$ Sconscientious ob4ectorS status in refusin' to sere in the
=ietna) /ar! ?ne of the four, 2ee'er, (as not a )e)ber of any or'ani+e$ reli'ion oppose$ to (ar, but (hen specifically
as0e$ about his belief in a 2upre)e Bein', 2ee'er state$ that Syou coul$ call @itA a belief in a 2upre)e Bein' or 3o$!
#hese 4ust $o not happen to be the (or$s that & use!S Forest Peter, another one of the four clai)e$ that after
consi$erable )e$itation an$ reflection Son alues $erie$ fro) the /estern reli'ious an$ philosophical tra$ition,S he
$eter)ine$ that it (oul$ be Sa iolation of his )oral co$e to ta0e hu)an life an$ that he consi$ere$ this belief superior to
any obli'ation to the state!S #he Court aoi$e$ a constitutional ,uestion by broa$ly interpretin' not the Free E5ercise
Clause, but the statutory $efinition of reli'ion in the >niersal Military #rainin' an$ 2erice Act of 196B (hich e5e)pt
fro) co)bat anyone S(ho, by reason of reli'ious trainin' an$ belief, is conscientiously oppose$ to participation in (ar in
any for)!S 2pea0in' for the Court, -ustice Clar0 rule$, )i;7
Con'ress, in usin' the e5pression T2upre)e Bein'T rather than the $esi'nation T3o$,T (as )erely clarifyin' the )eanin'
of reli'ious tra$ition an$ belief so as to e)brace all reli'ions an$ to e5clu$e essentially political, sociolo'ical, or
philosophical ie(s @an$A the test of belief Tin relation to a 2upre)e Bein'T is (hether a 'ien belief that is sincere an$
)eanin'ful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to the ortho$o5 belief in 3o$! @e)phasis supplie$A
#he Court (as conince$ that 2ee'er, Peter an$ the others (ere conscientious ob4ectors possesse$ of such reli'ious
belief an$ trainin'!
Fe$eral an$ state courts hae e5pan$e$ the $efinition of reli'ion in 2ee'er to inclu$e een non*theistic beliefs such as
#aois) or Men Bu$$his)! &t has been propose$ that basically, a cree$ )ust )eet four criteria to ,ualify as reli'ion un$er
the First A)en$)ent! First, there )ust be belief in 3o$ or so)e parallel belief that occupies a central place in the
belieerTs life! 2econ$, the reli'ion )ust inole a )oral co$e transcen$in' in$ii$ual belief, i!e!, it cannot be purely
sub4ectie! #hir$, a $e)onstrable sincerity in belief is necessary, but the court )ust not in,uire into the truth or
reasonableness of the belief!
127
Fourth, there )ust be so)e associational ties,
12<
althou'h there is also a ie( that
reli'ious beliefs hel$ by a sin'le person rather than bein' part of the teachin's of any 0in$ of 'roup or sect are entitle$ to
the protection of the Free E5ercise Clause!
129
.efinin' reli'ion is only the be'innin' of the $ifficult tas0 of $eci$in' reli'ion clause cases! 1ain' hur$le$ the issue of
$efinition, the court then has to $ra( lines to $eter)ine (hat is or is not per)issible un$er the reli'ion clauses! &n this
tas0, the purpose of the clauses is the yar$stic0! #heir purpose is sin'ular" they are t(o si$es of the sa)e coin!
1DB
&n
91
$eotin' t(o clauses to reli'ion, the Foun$ers (ere statin' not t(o opposin' thou'hts that (oul$ cancel each other out,
but t(o co)ple)entary thou'hts that apply in $ifferent (ays in $ifferent circu)stances!
1D1
#he purpose of the reli'ion
clauses * both in the restriction it i)poses on the po(er of the 'oern)ent to interfere (ith the free e5ercise of reli'ion
an$ the li)itation on the po(er of 'oern)ent to establish, ai$, an$ support reli'ion * is the protection an$ pro)otion of
reli'ious liberty!
1D2
#he en$, the 'oal, an$ the rationale of the reli'ion clauses is this liberty!
1DD
Both clauses (ere a$opte$
to preent 'oern)ent i)position of reli'ious ortho$o5y" the 'reat eil a'ainst (hich they are $irecte$ is 'oern)ent*
in$uce$ ho)o'eneity!
1D6
#he Free E5ercise Clause $irectly articulates the co))on ob4ectie of the t(o clauses an$ the
Establish)ent Clause specifically a$$resses a for) of interference (ith reli'ious liberty (ith (hich the Fra)ers (ere
)ost fa)iliar an$ for (hich 'oern)ent historically ha$ $e)onstrate$ a propensity!
1DC
&n other (or$s, free e5ercise is the
en$, proscribin' establish)ent is a necessary )eans to this en$ to protect the ri'hts of those (ho )i'ht $issent fro)
(hateer reli'ion is establishe$!
1D;
&t has een been su''este$ that the sense of the First A)en$)ent is capture$ if it
(ere to rea$ as SCon'ress shall )a0e no la( respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion or other(ise prohibitin' the free
e5ercise thereofS because the fun$a)ental an$ sin'le purpose of the t(o reli'ious clauses is to Saoi$ any infrin'e)ent
on the free e5ercise of reli'ionsS
1D7
#hus, the Establish)ent Clause )an$ates separation of church an$ state to protect
each fro) the other, in serice of the lar'er 'oal of preserin' reli'ious liberty! #he effect of the separation is to li)it the
opportunities for any reli'ious 'roup to capture the state apparatus to the $isa$anta'e of those of other faiths, or of no
faith at all
1D<
because history has sho(n that reli'ious feror con4oine$ (ith state po(er is li0ely to tolerate far less
reli'ious $isa'ree)ent an$ $isobe$ience fro) those (ho hol$ $ifferent beliefs than an enli'htene$ secular state!
1D9
&n the
(or$s of the >!2! 2upre)e Court, the t(o clauses are interrelate$, )i;7 S@tAhe structure of our 'oern)ent has, for the
preseration of ciil liberty, rescue$ the te)poral institutions fro) reli'ious interference! ?n the other han$, it has secure$
reli'ious liberty fro) the inasion of the ciil authority!S
16B
&n uphol$in' reli'ious liberty as the en$ 'oal in reli'ious clause cases, the line the court $ra(s to ensure that 'oern)ent
$oes not establish an$ instea$ re)ains neutral to(ar$ reli'ion is not absolutely strai'ht! Chief -ustice Bur'er e5plains,
)i;7
#he course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely strai'ht line" ri'i$ity coul$ (ell $efeat the basic
purpose of these proisions, (hich is to insure that no reli'ion be sponsore$ or faore$, none co))an$e$ an$ none
inhibite$!
161
@e)phasis supplie$A
Conse,uently, >!2! 4urispru$ence has pro$uce$ t(o i$entifiably $ifferent,
162
een opposin', strains of 4urispru$ence on
the reli'ion clauses7 separation @in the for) of strict separation or the ta)er ersion of strict neutrality or separationA an$
beneolent neutrality or acco))o$ation! A ie( of the lan$scape of >!2! reli'ion clause cases (oul$ be useful in
un$erstan$in' these t(o strains, the scope of protection of each clause, an$ the tests use$ in reli'ious clause cases!
Most of these cases are cite$ as authorities in Philippine reli'ion clause cases!
A. F"## E.#"-+!# C8/!#
#he Court first interprete$ the Free E5ercise Clause in the 1<7< case of Reynol$s ! >nite$ 2tates!
16D
#his lan$)ar0 case
inole$ Reynol$s, a Mor)on (ho proe$ that it (as his reli'ious $uty to hae seeral (ies an$ that the failure to
practice poly'a)y by )ale )e)bers of his reli'ion (hen circu)stances (oul$ per)it (oul$ be punishe$ (ith $a)nation
in the life to co)e! Reynol$sT act of contractin' a secon$ )arria'e iolate$ 2ection CDC2, Reise$ 2tatutes prohibitin'
an$ penali+in' bi'a)y, for (hich he (as conicte$! #he Court affir)e$ Reynol$sT coniction, usin' (hat in 4urispru$ence
(oul$ be calle$ the belief*action test (hich allo(s absolute protection to belief but not to action! &t cite$ -effersonTs Bill
Establishin' Reli'ious Free$o) (hich, accor$in' to the Court, $eclares Sthe true $istinction bet(een (hat properly
belon's to the Church an$ (hat to the 2tate!S
166
#he bill, )a0in' a $istinction bet(een belief an$ action, states in releant
part, )i;7
#hat to suffer the ciil )a'istrate to intru$e his po(ers into the fiel$ of opinion, an$ to restrain the profession or
propa'ation of principles on supposition of their ill ten$ency, is a $an'erous fallacy (hich at once $estroys all reli'ious
liberty"
that it is ti)e enou'h for the ri'htful purposes of ciil 'oern)ent for its officers to interfere (hen principles brea0 out into
oert acts a'ainst peace an$ 'oo$ or$er!
16C
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he Court then hel$, )i;7
Con'ress (as $eprie$ of all le'islatie po(er oer )ere opinion, but (as left free to reach actions (hich (ere in
iolation of social $uties or subersie of 'oo$ or$er! ! !
%a(s are )a$e for the 'oern)ent of actions, an$ (hile they cannot interfere (ith )ere reli'ious belief an$ opinions,
they )ay (ith practices! 2uppose one beliee$ that hu)an sacrifice (ere a necessary part of reli'ious (orship, (oul$ it
be seriously conten$e$ that the ciil 'oern)ent un$er (hich he lie$ coul$ not interfere to preent a sacrificeK ?r if a
(ife reli'iously beliee$ it (as her $uty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her $ea$ husban$, (oul$ it be beyon$ the
po(er of the ciil 'oern)ent to preent her carryin' her belief into practiceK
2o here, as a la( of the or'ani+ation of society un$er the e5clusie $o)inion of the >nite$ 2tates, it is proi$e$ that
plural )arria'es shall not be allo(e$! Can a )an e5cuse his practices to the contrary because of his reli'ious beliefK #o
per)it this (oul$ be to )a0e the professe$ $octrines of reli'ious belief superior to the la( of the lan$, an$ in effect to
per)it eery citi+en to beco)e a la( unto hi)self! 3oern)ent coul$ e5ist only in na)e un$er such circu)stances!
16;
#he construct (as thus si)ple7 the state (as absolutely prohibite$ by the Free E5ercise Clause fro) re'ulatin' in$ii$ual
reli'ious beliefs, but place$ no restriction on the ability of the state to re'ulate reli'iously )otiate$ con$uct! &t (as lo'ical
for belief to be accor$e$ absolute protection because any statute $esi'ne$ to prohibit a particular reli'ious belief
unacco)panie$ by any con$uct (oul$ )ost certainly be )otiate$ only by the le'islatureTs preference of a co)petin'
92
reli'ious belief! #hus, all cases of re'ulation of belief (oul$ a)ount to re'ulation of reli'ion for reli'ious reasons iolatie
of the Free E5ercise Clause! ?n the other han$, )ost state re'ulations of con$uct are for public (elfare purposes an$
hae nothin' to $o (ith the le'islatureTs reli'ious preferences! Any bur$en on reli'ion that results fro) state re'ulation of
con$uct arises only (hen particular in$ii$uals are en'a'in' in the 'enerally re'ulate$ con$uct because of their
particular reli'ious beliefs! #hese bur$ens are thus usually ina$ertent an$ $i$ not fi'ure in the belief*action test! As lon'
as the Court foun$ that re'ulation a$$ress action rather than belief, the Free E5ercise Clause $i$ not pose any
proble)!
167
#he Free E5ercise Clause thus 'ae no protection a'ainst the proscription of actions een if consi$ere$
central to a reli'ion unless the le'islature for)ally outla(e$ the belief itself!
16<
#his belief*action $istinction (as hel$ by the Court for so)e years as sho(n by cases (here the Court uphel$ other la(s
(hich bur$ene$ the practice of the Mor)on reli'ion by i)posin' arious penalties on poly'a)y such as the .ais case
an$ Church of %atter .ay 2aints ! >nite$ 2tates!
169
1o(eer, )ore than a century since Reynol$s (as $eci$e$, the
Court has e5pan$e$ the scope of protection fro) belief to speech an$ con$uct! But (hile the belief*action test has been
aban$one$, the rulin's in the earlier Free E5ercise cases hae 'one unchallen'e$! #he belief*action $istinction is still of
so)e i)portance thou'h as there re)ains an absolute prohibition of 'oern)ental proscription of beliefs!
1CB
#he Free E5ercise Clause accor$s absolute protection to in$ii$ual reli'ious conictions an$ beliefs
1C1
an$ proscribes
'oern)ent fro) ,uestionin' a personTs beliefs or i)posin' penalties or $isabilities base$ solely on those beliefs! #he
Clause e5ten$s protection to both beliefs an$ unbelief! #hus, in To"-!o 0. W&A+%!,
1C2
a unani)ous Court struc0 $o(n a
state la( re,uirin' as a ,ualification for public office an oath $eclarin' belief in the e5istence of 3o$! #he protection also
allo(s courts to loo0 into the 'oo$ faith of a person in his belief, but prohibits in,uiry into the truth of a personTs reli'ious
beliefs! As hel$ in U%+&#' S&&#! 0. B88"',
1CD
S@hAeresy trials are forei'n to the Constitution! Men )ay beliee (hat they
cannot proe! #hey )ay not be put to the proof of their reli'ious $octrines or beliefs!S
Ne5t to belief (hich en4oys irtually absolute protection, reli'ious speech an$ e5pressie reli'ious con$uct are accor$e$
the hi'hest $e'ree of protection! #hus, in the 196B case of C%&;#88 0. Co%%#-&+-/&,
1C6
the Court struc0 $o(n a state la(
prohibitin' $oor*to*$oor solicitation for any reli'ious or charitable cause (ithout prior approal of a state a'ency! #he la(
(as challen'e$ by Cant(ell, a )e)ber of the -ehoahTs /itnesses (hich is co))itte$ to actie proselyti+in'! #he Court
inali$ate$ the state statute as the prior approal necessary (as hel$ to be a censorship of reli'ion prohibite$ by the
Free E5ercise Clause! #he Court hel$, )i;7
&n the real) of reli'ious faith, an$ in that of political belief, sharp $ifferences arise! &n both fiel$s the tenets of one )ay
see) the ran0est error to his nei'hbor! #o persua$e others to his point of ie(, the plea$er, as (e 0no(, resorts to
e5a''eration, to ilification of )en (ho hae been, or are, pro)inent in church or state, an$ een to false state)ent! But
the people of this nation hae or$aine$ in the li'ht of history, that, in spite of the probability of e5cesses an$ abuses,
these liberties are, in the lon' ie(, essential to enli'htene$ opinion an$ ri'ht con$uct on the part of citi+ens of a
$e)ocracy!
1CC
Cant(ell too0 a step for(ar$ fro) the protection affor$e$ by the Reynol$s case in that it not only affir)e$ protection of
belief but also free$o) to act for the propa'ation of that belief, )i;7
#hus the A)en$)ent e)braces t(o concepts * free$o) to beliee an$ free$o) to act! #he first is absolute but, in the
nature of thin's, the secon$ cannot be! Con$uct re)ains sub4ect to re'ulation for the protection of society! ! ! &n eery
case, the po(er to re'ulate )ust be so e5ercise$ as not, in attainin' a per)issible en$, un$uly to infrin'e the protecte$
free$o)! @e)phasis supplie$A
1C;
#he Court state$, ho(eer, that 'oern)ent ha$ the po(er to re'ulate the ti)es, places, an$ )anner of solicitation on
the streets an$ assure the peace an$ safety of the co))unity!
#hree years after Cant(ell, the Court in Do/28! 0. C+&) o1 J#%#&&#,
1C7
rule$ that police coul$ not prohibit )e)bers of
the -ehoahTs /itnesses fro) peaceably an$ or$erly proselyti+in' on 2un$ays )erely because other citi+ens
co)plaine$! &n another case li0e(ise inolin' the -ehoahTs /itnesses, N+#7o&Ao 0. M")8%',
1C<
the Court
unani)ously hel$ unconstitutional a city councilTs $enial of a per)it to the -ehoahTs /itnesses to use the city par0 for a
public )eetin'! #he city councilTs refusal (as because of the SunsatisfactoryS ans(ers of the -ehoahTs /itnesses to
,uestions about Catholicis), )ilitary serice, an$ other issues! #he $enial of the public foru) (as consi$ere$ blatant
censorship! /hile protecte$, reli'ious speech in the public foru) is still sub4ect to reasonable ti)e, place an$ )anner
re'ulations si)ilar to non*reli'ious speech! Reli'ious proselyti+in' in con'este$ areas, for e5a)ple, )ay be li)ite$ to
certain areas to )aintain the safe an$ or$erly flo( of pe$estrians an$ ehicular traffic as hel$ in the case of H#11"o% 0.
I%&#"%&+o%8 So-+#&) 1o" F"+!,% Co%!-+o/!%#!!!
1C9
#he least protecte$ un$er the Free E5ercise Clause is reli'ious con$uct, usually in the for) of unconentional reli'ious
practices! Protection in this real) $epen$s on the character of the action an$ the 'oern)ent rationale for re'ulatin' the
action!
1;B
#he Mor)onsT reli'ious con$uct of poly'a)y is an e5a)ple of unconentional reli'ious practice! As $iscusse$
in the Reynol$s case aboe, the Court $i$ not affor$ protection to the practice! Reynol$s (as reiterate$ in the 1<9B case
of .ais a'ain inolin' Mor)ons, (here the Court hel$, )i;7 S@cAri)e is not the less o$ious because sanctione$ by (hat
any particular sect )ay $esi'nate as reli'ion!S
1;1
#he belief*action test in Reynol$s an$ .ais proe$ unsatisfactory! >n$er this test, re'ulation of reli'iously $ictate$
con$uct (oul$ be uphel$ no )atter ho( central the con$uct (as to the e5ercise of reli'ion an$ no )atter ho(
insi'nificant (as the 'oern)entTs non*reli'ious re'ulatory interest so lon' as the 'oern)ent is proscribin' action an$
not belief! #hus, the Court aban$one$ the si)plistic belief*action $istinction an$ instea$ reco'ni+e$ the $eliberate*
ina$ertent $istinction, i%e%, the $istinction bet(een $eliberate state interference of reli'ious e5ercise for reli'ious reasons
(hich (as plainly unconstitutional an$ 'oern)entTs ina$ertent interference (ith reli'ion in pursuin' so)e secular
ob4ectie!
1;2
&n the 196B case of M+%#"!0+88# S-,oo8 D+!&"+-& 0. Go(+&+!,
1;D
the Court uphel$ a local school boar$
re,uire)ent that all public school stu$ents participate in a $aily fla' salute pro'ra), inclu$in' the -ehoahTs /itnesses
93
(ho (ere force$ to salute the A)erican fla' in iolation of their reli'ious trainin', (hich consi$ere$ fla' salute to be
(orship of a S'raen i)a'e!S #he Court reco'ni+e$ that the 'eneral re,uire)ent of co)pulsory fla' salute ina$ertently
bur$ene$ the -ehoah /itnessesT practice of their reli'ion, but 4ustifie$ the 'oern)ent re'ulation as an appropriate
)eans of attainin' national unity, (hich (as the Sbasis of national security!S #hus, althou'h the Court (as alrea$y a(are
of the $eliberate*ina$ertent $istinction in 'oern)ent interference (ith reli'ion, it continue$ to hol$ that the Free
E5ercise Clause presente$ no proble) to interference (ith reli'ion that (as ina$ertent no )atter ho( serious the
interference, no )atter ho( triial the stateTs non*reli'ious ob4ecties, an$ no )atter ho( )any alternatie approaches
(ere aailable to the state to pursue its ob4ecties (ith less i)pact on reli'ion, so lon' as 'oern)ent (as actin' in
pursuit of a secular ob4ectie!
#hree years later, the 3obitis $ecision (as oerturne$ in W#!& V+"2+%+ 0. B"%#&&#
1;6
(hich inole$ a si)ilar set of
facts an$ issue! #he Court reco'ni+e$ that salutin' the fla', in connection (ith the ple$'es, (as a for) of utterance an$
the fla' salute pro'ra) (as a co)pulsion of stu$ents to $eclare a belief! #he Court rule$ that Sco)pulsory unification of
opinions lea$s only to the unani)ity of the 'raeyar$S an$ e5e)pt the stu$ents (ho (ere )e)bers of the -ehoahTs
/itnesses fro) salutin' the fla'! A close scrutiny of the case, ho(eer, (oul$ sho( that it (as $eci$e$ not on the issue
of reli'ious con$uct as the Court sai$, S@nAor $oes the issue as (e see it turn on oneTs possession of particular reli'ious
ie(s or the sincerity (ith (hich they are hel$! /hile reli'ion supplies appelleesT )otie for en$urin' the $isco)forts of
)a0in' the issue in this case, )any citi+ens (ho $o not share these reli'ious ie(s hol$ such a co)pulsory rite to
infrin'e constitutional liberty of the in$ii$ual!S @e)phasis supplie$A
1;C
#he Court pronounce$, ho(eer, that, Sfree$o)s of
speech an$ of press, of asse)bly, an$ of (orship ! ! ! are susceptible only of restriction only to preent 'rae an$
i))e$iate $an'er to interests (hich the state )ay la(fully protect!S
1;;
#he Court see)e$ to reco'ni+e the e5tent to (hich
its approach in 3obitis subor$inate$ the reli'ious liberty of political )inorities * a specially protecte$ constitutional alue *
to the co))on eery$ay econo)ic an$ public (elfare ob4ecties of the )a4ority in the le'islature! #his ti)e, een
ina$ertent interference (ith reli'ion )ust pass 4u$icial scrutiny un$er the Free E5ercise Clause (ith only 'rae an$
i))e$iate $an'er sufficin' to oerri$e reli'ious liberty! But the see$s of this hei'htene$ scrutiny (oul$ only 'ro( to a full
flo(er in the 19;Bs!
1;7
Nearly a century after Reynol$s e)ploye$ the belief*action test, the /arren Court be'an the )o$ern free e5ercise
4urispru$ence!
1;<
A t(o*part balancin' test (as establishe$ in B"/%1#8' 0. B"o;%
1;9
(here the Court consi$ere$ the
constitutionality of applyin' 2un$ay closin' la(s to ?rtho$o5 -e(s (hose beliefs re,uire$ the) to obsere another $ay
as the 2abbath an$ abstain fro) co))ercial actiity on 2atur$ay! Chief -ustice /arren, (ritin' for the Court, foun$ that
the la( place$ a seere bur$en on 2abattarian retailers! 1e note$, ho(eer, that since the bur$en (as the in$irect effect
of a la( (ith a secular purpose, it (oul$ iolate the Free E5ercise Clause only if there (ere alternatie (ays of achiein'
the stateTs interest! 1e e)ploye$ a t(o*part balancin' test of ali$ity (here the first step (as for plaintiff to sho( that the
re'ulation place$ a real bur$en on his reli'ious e5ercise! Ne5t, the bur$en (oul$ be uphel$ only if the state sho(e$ that
it (as pursuin' an oerri$in' secular 'oal by the )eans (hich i)pose$ the least bur$en on reli'ious practices!
17B
#he
Court foun$ that the state ha$ an oerri$in' secular interest in settin' asi$e a sin'le $ay for rest, recreation an$
tran,uility an$ there (as no alternatie )eans of pursuin' this interest but to re,uire 2un$ay as a unifor) rest $ay!
#(o years after ca)e the stricter co)pellin' state interest test in the 19;D case of S,#"(#"& 0. V#"%#"!
171
#his test (as
si)ilar to the t(o*part balancin' test in Braunfel$,
172
but this latter test stresse$ that the state interest (as not )erely any
colorable state interest, but )ust be para)ount an$ co)pellin' to oerri$e the free e5ercise clai)! &n this case, 2herbert,
a 2eenth .ay A$entist, clai)e$ une)ploy)ent co)pensation un$er the la( as her e)ploy)ent (as ter)inate$ for
refusal to (or0 on 2atur$ays on reli'ious 'roun$s! 1er clai) (as $enie$! 2he sou'ht recourse in the 2upre)e Court! &n
layin' $o(n the stan$ar$ for $eter)inin' (hether the $enial of benefits coul$ (ithstan$ constitutional scrutiny, the Court
rule$, )i;7
Plainly enou'h, appelleeTs conscientious ob4ection to 2atur$ay (or0 constitutes no con$uct pro)pte$ by reli'ious
principles of a 0in$ (ithin the reach of state le'islation! &f, therefore, the $ecision of the 2outh Carolina 2upre)e Court is
to (ithstan$ appellantTs constitutional challen'e, it )ust be either because her $is,ualification as a beneficiary represents
no infrin'e)ent by the 2tate of her constitutional ri'hts of free e5ercise, or because any inci$ental bur$en on the free
e5ercise of appellantTs reli'ion )ay be 4ustifie$ by a Tco)pellin' state interest in the re'ulation of a sub4ect (ithin the
2tateTs constitutional po(er to re'ulate! ! !T NAACP 0. B/&&o%, D71 >2 61C, 6D< 9 % e$ 2$ 6BC, 621, <D 2 Ct D2<!
17D
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he Court stresse$ that in the area of reli'ious liberty, it is basic that it is not sufficient to )erely sho( a rational
relationship of the substantial infrin'e)ent to the reli'ious ri'ht an$ a colorable state interest! S@&An this hi'hly sensitie
constitutional area, T9o:nly the 'raest abuses, en$an'erin' para)ount interests, 'ie occasion for per)issible li)itation!T
#ho)as ! Collins, D2D >2 C1;, CDB, <9 % e$ 6DB, 66B, ;C 2 Ct D1C!S
176
#he Court foun$ that there (as no such
co)pellin' state interest to oerri$e 2herbertTs reli'ious liberty! &t a$$e$ that een if the state coul$ sho( that 2herbertTs
e5e)ption (oul$ pose serious $etri)ental effects to the une)ploy)ent co)pensation fun$ an$ sche$ulin' of (or0, it
(as incu)bent upon the state to sho( that no alternatie )eans of re'ulations (oul$ a$$ress such $etri)ental effects
(ithout infrin'in' reli'ious liberty! #he state, ho(eer, $i$ not $ischar'e this bur$en! #he Court thus care$ out for
2herbert an e5e)ption fro) the 2atur$ay (or0 re,uire)ent that cause$ her $is,ualification fro) clai)in' the
une)ploy)ent benefits! #he Court reasone$ that uphol$in' the $enial of 2herbertTs benefits (oul$ force her to choose
bet(een receiin' benefits an$ follo(in' her reli'ion! #his choice place$ Sthe sa)e 0in$ of bur$en upon the free e5ercise
of reli'ion as (oul$ a fine i)pose$ a'ainst @herA for her 2atur$ay (orship!S #his 'er)inal case of 2herbert fir)ly
establishe$ the e5e)ption $octrine,
17C
)i;7
&t is certain that not eery conscience can be acco))o$ate$ by all the la(s of the lan$" but (hen 'eneral la(s conflict
(ith scruples of conscience, e5e)ptions ou'ht to be 'rante$ unless so)e Tco)pellin' state interestT interenes!
#hus, in a short perio$ of t(enty*three years fro) 3obitis to 2herbert @or een as early as Braunfel$A, the Court )oe$
fro) the $octrine that ina$ertent or inci$ental interferences (ith reli'ion raise no proble) un$er the Free E5ercise
Clause to the $octrine that such interferences iolate the Free E5ercise Clause in the absence of a co)pellin' state
interest * the hi'hest leel of constitutional scrutiny short of a hol$in' of a per se iolation! #hus, the proble) pose$ by
94
the belief*action test an$ the $eliberate*ina$ertent $istinction (as a$$resse$!
17;
#hrou'hout the 197Bs an$ 19<Bs un$er the /arren, an$ after(ar$s, the Bur'er Court, the rationale in 2herbert
continue$ to be applie$! &n T,o7! 0. R#0+#; Bo"'
177
an$ Ho((+# 0. U%#7$8o)7#%& A$$#8! D+0+!+o%,
17<
for
e5a)ple, the Court reiterate$ the e5e)ption $octrine an$ hel$ that in the absence of a co)pellin' 4ustification, a state
coul$ not (ithhol$ une)ploy)ent co)pensation fro) an e)ployee (ho resi'ne$ or (as $ischar'e$ $ue to un(illin'ness
to $epart fro) reli'ious practices an$ beliefs that conflicte$ (ith 4ob re,uire)ents! But not eery 'oern)ental refusal to
allo( an e5e)ption fro) a re'ulation (hich bur$ens a sincerely hel$ reli'ious belief has been inali$ate$, een thou'h
strict or hei'htene$ scrutiny is applie$! &n U%+&#' S&&#! 0. L##,
179
for instance, the Court usin' strict scrutiny an$
referrin' to #ho)as, uphel$ the fe$eral 'oern)entTs refusal to e5e)pt A)ish e)ployers (ho re,ueste$ for e5e)ption
fro) payin' social security ta5es on (a'es on the 'roun$ of reli'ious beliefs! #he Court hel$ that S@bAecause the broa$
public interest in )aintainin' a soun$ ta5 syste) is of such a hi'h or$er, reli'ious belief in conflict (ith the pay)ent of
ta5es affor$s no basis for resistin' the ta5!S
1<B
&t reasone$ that unli0e in 2herbert, an e5e)ption (oul$ si'nificantly i)pair
'oern)entTs achiee)ent of its ob4ectie * Sthe fiscal itality of the social security syste)"S )an$atory participation is
in$ispensable to attain this ob4ectie! #he Court note$ that if an e5e)ption (ere )a$e, it (oul$ be har$ to 4ustify not
allo(in' a si)ilar e5e)ption fro) 'eneral fe$eral ta5es (here the ta5payer ar'ues that his reli'ious beliefs re,uire hi) to
re$uce or eli)inate his pay)ents so that he (ill not contribute to the 'oern)entTs (ar*relate$ actiities, for e5a)ple!
#he strict scrutiny an$ co)pellin' state interest test si'nificantly increase$ the $e'ree of protection affor$e$ to reli'iously
)otiate$ con$uct! /hile not affor$in' absolute i))unity to reli'ious actiity, a co)pellin' secular 4ustification (as
necessary to uphol$ public policies that colli$e$ (ith reli'ious practices! Althou'h the )e)bers of the Court often
$isa'ree$ oer (hich 'oern)ental interests shoul$ be consi$ere$ co)pellin', thereby pro$ucin' $issentin' an$
separate opinions in reli'ious con$uct cases, this 'eneral test establishe$ a stron' presu)ption in faor of the free
e5ercise of reli'ion!
1<1
1ei'htene$ scrutiny (as also use$ in the 1972 case of W+!-o%!+% 0. Yo'#"
1<2
(here the Court uphel$ the reli'ious
practice of the ?l$ ?r$er A)ish faith oer the stateTs co)pulsory hi'h school atten$ance la(! #he A)ish parents in this
case $i$ not per)it secular e$ucation of their chil$ren beyon$ the ei'hth 'ra$e! Chief -ustice Bur'er, (ritin' for the
)a4ority, hel$, )i;7
&t follo(s that in or$er for /isconsin to co)pel school atten$ance beyon$ the ei'hth 'ra$e a'ainst a clai) that such
atten$ance interferes (ith the practice of a le'iti)ate reli'ious belief, it )ust appear either that the 2tate $oes not $eny
the free e5ercise of reli'ious belief by its re,uire)ent, or that there is a state interest of sufficient )a'nitu$e to oerri$e
the interest clai)in' protection un$er the Free E5ercise Clause! %on' before there (as 'eneral ac0no(le$'e)ent of the
nee$ for uniersal e$ucation, the Reli'ion Clauses ha$ specially an$ fir)ly fi5e$ the ri'ht of free e5ercise of reli'ious
beliefs, an$ buttressin' this fun$a)ental ri'ht (as an e,ually fir), een if less e5plicit, prohibition a'ainst the
establish)ent of any reli'ion! #he alues un$erlyin' these t(o proisions relatin' to reli'ion hae been +ealously
protecte$, so)eti)es een at the e5pense of other interests of a$)itte$ly hi'h social i)portance! ! !
#he essence of all that has been sai$ an$ (ritten on the sub4ect is that only those interests of the hi'hest or$er an$ those
not other(ise sere$ can oerbalance le'iti)ate clai)s to the free e5ercise of reli'ion! ! !
! ! ! our $ecisions hae re4ecte$ the i$ea that that reli'iously 'roun$e$ con$uct is al(ays outsi$e the protection of the
Free E5ercise Clause! &t is true that actiities of in$ii$uals, een (hen reli'iously base$, are often sub4ect to re'ulation
by the 2tates in the e5ercise of their un$oubte$ po(er to pro)ote the health, safety, an$ 'eneral (elfare, or the Fe$eral
'oern)ent in the e5ercise of its $ele'ate$ po(ers ! ! ! But to a'ree that reli'iously 'roun$e$ con$uct )ust often be
sub4ect to the broa$ police po(er of the 2tate is not to $eny that there are areas of con$uct protecte$ by the Free
E5ercise Clause of the First A)en$)ent an$ thus beyon$ the po(er of the 2tate to control, een un$er re'ulations of
'eneral applicability! ! ! !#his case, therefore, $oes not beco)e easier because respon$ents (ere conicte$ for their
SactionsS in refusin' to sen$ their chil$ren to the public hi'h school" in this conte5t belief an$ action cannot be neatly
confine$ in lo'ic*ti'ht co)part)ents! ! !
1<D
#he onset of the 199Bs, ho(eer, sa( a )a4or setbac0 in the protection affor$e$ by the Free E5ercise Clause! &n
E)ploy)ent .iision, O"#2o% D#$"&7#%& o1 H/7% R#!o/"-#! 0. S7+&,,
1<6
the sharply $ii$e$ Rehn,uist Court
$ra)atically $eparte$ fro) the hei'htene$ scrutiny an$ co)pellin' 4ustification approach an$ i)pose$ serious li)its on
the scope of protection of reli'ious free$o) affor$e$ by the First A)en$)ent! &n this case, the (ell*establishe$ practice
of the Natie A)erican Church, a sect outsi$e the -u$eo*Christian )ainstrea) of A)erican reli'ion, ca)e in conflict (ith
the stateTs interest in prohibitin' the use of illicit $ru's! ?re'onTs controlle$ substances statute )a$e the possession of
peyote a cri)inal offense! #(o )e)bers of the church, 2)ith an$ Blac0, (or0e$ as $ru' rehabilitation counselors for a
priate social serice a'ency in ?re'on! Alon' (ith other church )e)bers, 2)ith an$ Blac0 in'este$ peyote, a
hallucino'enic $ru', at a sacra)ental cere)ony practice$ by Natie A)ericans for hun$re$s of years! #he social serice
a'ency fire$ 2)ith an$ Blac0 citin' their use of peyote as S4ob*relate$ )iscon$uctS! #hey applie$ for une)ploy)ent
co)pensation, but the ?re'on E)ploy)ent Appeals Boar$ $enie$ their application as they (ere $ischar'e$ for 4ob*
relate$ )iscon$uct! -ustice 2calia, (ritin' for the )a4ority, rule$ that Sif prohibitin' the e5ercise of reli'ion ! ! ! is ! ! !
)erely the inci$ental effect of a 'enerally applicable an$ other(ise ali$ la(, the First A)en$)ent has not been
offen$e$!S &n other (or$s, the Free E5ercise Clause (oul$ be offen$e$ only if a particular reli'ious practice (ere sin'le$
out for proscription! #he )a4ority opinion relie$ heaily on the Reynol$s case an$ in effect, e,uate$ ?re'onTs $ru'
prohibition la( (ith the anti*poly'a)y statute in Reynol$s! #he releant portion of the )a4ority opinion hel$, )i;7
/e hae neer inali$ate$ any 'oern)ental action on the basis of the 2herbert test e5cept the $enial of une)ploy)ent
co)pensation!
Een if (e (ere incline$ to breathe into 2herbert so)e life beyon$ the une)ploy)ent co)pensation fiel$, (e (oul$ not
apply it to re,uire e5e)ptions fro) a 'enerally applicable cri)inal la(! ! !
95
/e conclu$e to$ay that the soun$er approach, an$ the approach in accor$ (ith the ast )a4ority of our prece$ents, is to
hol$ the test inapplicable to such challen'es! #he 'oern)entTs ability to enforce 'enerally applicable prohibitions of
socially har)ful con$uct, li0e its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, Scannot $epen$ on )easurin' the
effects of a 'oern)ental action on a reli'ious ob4ectorTs spiritual $eelop)ent!S ! ! !#o )a0e an in$ii$ualTs obli'ation to
obey such a la( contin'ent upon the la(Ts coinci$ence (ith his reli'ious beliefs e5cept (here the 2tateTs interest is
Sco)pellin'S * per)ittin' hi), by irtue of his beliefs, Sto beco)e a la( unto hi)self,S ! ! ! * contra$icts both constitutional
tra$ition an$ co))on sense!
-ustice ?TConnor (rote a concurrin' opinion pointin' out that the )a4orityTs re4ection of the co)pellin' 'oern)ental
interest test (as the )ost controersial part of the $ecision! Althou'h she concurre$ in the result that the Free E5ercise
Clause ha$ not been offen$e$, she sharply critici+e$ the )a4ority opinion as a $ra)atic $eparture Sfro) (ell*settle$ First
A)en$)ent 4urispru$ence! ! ! an$ ! ! ! @asA inco)patible (ith our NationTs fun$a)ental co))it)ent to reli'ious liberty!S
#his portion of her concurrin' opinion (as supporte$ by -ustices Brennan, Marshall an$ Blac0)un (ho $issente$ fro)
the CourtTs $ecision! -ustice ?TConnor asserte$ that S@tAhe co)pellin' state interest test effectuates the First
A)en$)entTs co))an$ that reli'ious liberty is an in$epen$ent liberty, that it occupies a preferre$ position, an$ that the
Court (ill not per)it encroach)ents upon this liberty, (hether $irect or in$irect, unless re,uire$ by clear an$ co)pellin'
'oern)ent interest Tof the hi'hest or$erT!S -ustice Blac0)un re'istere$ a separate $issentin' opinion, 4oine$ by -ustices
Brennan an$ Marshall! 1e char'e$ the )a4ority (ith S)ischaracteri+in'S prece$ents an$ Soerturnin'! ! ! settle$ la(
concernin' the Reli'ion Clauses of our Constitution!S 1e pointe$ out that the Natie A)erican Church restricte$ an$
superise$ the sacra)ental use of peyote! #hus, the state ha$ no si'nificant health or safety 4ustification for re'ulatin'
the sacra)ental $ru' use! 1e also obsere$ that ?re'on ha$ not atte)pte$ to prosecute 2)ith or Blac0, or any Natie
A)ericans, for that )atter, for the sacra)ental use of peyote! &n conclusion, he sai$ that S?re'onTs interest in enforcin'
its $ru' la(s a'ainst reli'ious use of peyote @(asA not sufficiently co)pellin' to out(ei'h respon$entsT ri'ht to the free
e5ercise of their reli'ion!S
#he Court (ent bac0 to the Reynol$s an$ 3obitis $octrine in 2)ith! #he CourtTs stan$ar$ in 2)ith irtually eli)inate$ the
re,uire)ent that the 'oern)ent 4ustify (ith a co)pellin' state interest the bur$ens on reli'ious e5ercise i)pose$ by
la(s neutral to(ar$ reli'ion! #he 2)ith $octrine is hi'hly unsatisfactory in seeral respects an$ has been critici+e$ as
e5hibitin' a shallo( un$erstan$in' of free e5ercise 4urispru$ence!
1<C
First, the First a)en$)ent (as inten$e$ to protect
)inority reli'ions fro) the tyranny of the reli'ious an$ political )a4ority! A $eliberate re'ulatory interference (ith )inority
reli'ious free$o) is the (orst for) of this tyranny! But re'ulatory interference (ith a )inority reli'ion as a result of
i'norance or sensitiity of the reli'ious an$ political )a4ority is no less an interference (ith the )inorityTs reli'ious
free$o)! &f the re'ulation ha$ instea$ restricte$ the )a4orityTs reli'ious practice, the )a4oritarian le'islatie process (oul$
in all probability hae )o$ifie$ or re4ecte$ the re'ulation! #hus, the i)position of the political )a4orityTs non*reli'ious
ob4ecties at the e5pense of the )inorityTs reli'ious interests i)ple)ents the )a4orityTs reli'ious ie(point at the e5pense
of the )inorityTs! 2econ$, 'oern)ent i)pair)ent of reli'ious liberty (oul$ )ost often be of the ina$ertent 0in$ as in
2)ith consi$erin' the political culture (here $irect an$ $eliberate re'ulatory i)position of reli'ious ortho$o5y is nearly
inconceiable! &f the Free E5ercise Clause coul$ not affor$ protection to ina$ertent interference, it (oul$ be left al)ost
)eanin'less! #hir$, the Reynol$s*3obitis*2)ith $octrine si)ply $efies co))on sense! #he state shoul$ not be allo(e$
to interfere (ith the )ost $eeply hel$ fun$a)ental reli'ious conictions of an in$ii$ual in or$er to pursue so)e triial
state econo)ic or bureaucratic ob4ectie! #his is especially true (hen there are alternatie approaches for the state to
effectiely pursue its ob4ectie (ithout serious ina$ertent i)pact on reli'ion!
1<;
#hus, the 2)ith $ecision has been critici+e$ not only for increasin' the po(er of the state oer reli'ion but as
$iscri)inatin' in faor of )ainstrea) reli'ious 'roups a'ainst s)aller, )ore peripheral 'roups (ho lac0 le'islatie
clout,
1<7
contrary to the ori'inal theory of the First A)en$)ent!
1<<
>n$eniably, clai)s for 4u$icial e5e)ption e)anate
al)ost inariably fro) relatiely politically po(erless )inority reli'ions an$ 2)ith irtually (ipe$ out their 4u$icial recourse
for e5e)ption!
1<9
#hus, the 2)ith $ecision elicite$ )uch ne'atie public reaction especially fro) the reli'ious co))unity,
an$ co))entaries insiste$ that the Court (as allo(in' the Free E5ercise Clause to $isappear!
19B
2o )uch (as the
uproar that a )a4ority in Con'ress (as conince$ to enact the Reli'ious Free$o) Restoration Act @RFRAA of 199D! #he
RFRA prohibite$ 'oern)ent at all leels fro) substantially bur$enin' a personTs free e5ercise of reli'ion, een if such
bur$en resulte$ fro) a 'enerally applicable rule, unless the 'oern)ent coul$ $e)onstrate a co)pellin' state interest
an$ the rule constitute$ the least restrictie )eans of furtherin' that interest!
191
RFRA, in effect, sou'ht to oerturn the
substance of the 2)ith rulin' an$ restore the status ,uo prior to 2)ith! #hree years after the RFRA (as enacte$,
ho(eer, the Court, $ii$in' ; to D, $eclare$ the RFRA unconstitutional in C+&) o1 Bo#"%# 0. F8o"#!!
192
#he Court rule$
that SRFRA contra$icts ital principles necessary to )aintain separation of po(ers an$ the fe$eral balance!S &t
e)phasi+e$ the pri)acy of its role as interpreter of the Constitution an$ une,uiocally re4ecte$, on broa$ institutional
'roun$s, a $irect con'ressional challen'e of final 4u$icial authority on a ,uestion of constitutional interpretation!
After 2)ith ca)e C,/"-, o1 &,# L/A/7+ B(8/ A)#, I%-. 0. C+&) o1 H+8#,
19D
(hich (as rule$ consistent (ith the
2)ith $octrine! #his case inole$ ani)al sacrifice of the 2anteria, a blen$ of Ro)an Catholicis) an$ /est African
reli'ions brou'ht to the Carribean by East African slaes! An or$inance )a$e it a cri)e to Sunnecessarily 0ill, tor)ent,
torture, or )utilate an ani)al in public or priate ritual or cere)ony not for the pri)ary purpose of foo$ consu)ption!S #he
or$inance ca)e as a response to the local concern oer the sacrificial practices of the 2anteria! -ustice Lenne$y, (ritin'
for the )a4ority, carefully pointe$ out that the ,uestione$ or$inance (as not a 'enerally applicable cri)inal prohibition,
but instea$ sin'le$ out practitioners of the 2anteria in that it forba$e ani)al slau'hter only insofar as it too0 place (ithin
the conte5t of reli'ious rituals!
&t )ay be seen fro) the fore'oin' cases that un$er the Free E5ercise Clause, reli'ious belief is absolutely protecte$,
reli'ious speech an$ proselyti+in' are hi'hly protecte$ but sub4ect to restraints applicable to non*reli'ious speech, an$
unconentional reli'ious practice receies less protection" neertheless con$uct, een if its iolates a la(, coul$ be
accor$e$ protection as sho(n in /isconsin!
196
B. E!&(8+!,7#%& C8/!#
#he CourtTs first encounter (ith the Establish)ent Clause (as in the 1967 case of E0#"!o% 0. Bo"' o1 E'/-&+o%!
19C
96
Prior cases ha$ )a$e passin' reference to the Establish)ent Clause
19;
an$ raise$ establish)ent ,uestions but (ere
$eci$e$ on other 'roun$s!
197
&t (as in the Eerson case that the >!2! 2upre)e Court a$opte$ -effersonTs )etaphor of Sa
(all of separation bet(een church an$ stateS as encapsulatin' the )eanin' of the Establish)ent Clause! #he often an$
loosely use$ phrase Sseparation of church an$ stateS $oes not appear in the >!2! Constitution! &t beca)e part of >!2!
4urispru$ence (hen the Court in the 1<7< case of R#)%o8'! 0. U%+&#' S&&#!
19<
,uote$ -effersonTs fa)ous letter of 1<B2
to the .anbury Baptist Association in narratin' the history of the reli'ion clauses, )i;7
Beliein' (ith you that reli'ion is a )atter (hich lies solely bet(een )an an$ his 3o$" that he o(es account to none
other for his faith or his (orship" that the le'islatie po(ers of the 3oern)ent reach actions only, an$ not opinions, &
conte)plate (ith soerei'n reerence that act of the (hole A)erican people (hich $eclare$ that their %e'islature shoul$
T)a0e no la( respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof,T thus buil$in' a (all of
separation bet(een Church an$ 2tate!
199
@e)phasis supplie$A
Chief -ustice /aite, spea0in' for the )a4ority, then a$$e$, S@cAo)in' as this $oes fro) an ac0no(le$'e$ lea$er of the
a$ocates of the )easure, it )ay be accepte$ al)ost as an authoritatie $eclaration of the scope an$ effect of the
a)en$)ent thus secure$!S
2BB
#he interpretation of the Establish)ent Clause has in lar'e part been in cases inolin' e$ucation, notably state ai$ to
priate reli'ious schools an$ prayer in public schools!
2B1
&n Eerson ! Boar$ of E$ucation, for e5a)ple, the issue (as
(hether a Ne( -ersey local school boar$ coul$ rei)burse parents for e5penses incurre$ in transportin' their chil$ren to
an$ fro) Catholic schools! #he rei)burse)ent (as part of a 'eneral pro'ra) un$er (hich all parents of chil$ren in
public schools an$ nonprofit priate schools, re'ar$less of reli'ion, (ere entitle$ to rei)burse)ent for transportation
costs! -ustice 1u'o Blac0, (ritin' for a sharply $ii$e$ Court, 4ustifie$ the rei)burse)ents on the chil$ benefit theory, i!e!,
that the school boar$ (as )erely furtherin' the stateTs le'iti)ate interest in 'ettin' chil$ren Sre'ar$less of their reli'ion,
safely an$ e5pe$itiously to an$ fro) accre$ite$ schools!S #he Court, after narratin' the history of the First A)en$)ent in
=ir'inia, interprete$ the Establish)ent Clause, )i;7
#he Testablish)ent of reli'ionT clause of the First A)en$)ent )eans at least this7 Neither a state nor the Fe$eral
3oern)ent can set up a church! Neither can pass la(s (hich ai$ one reli'ion, ai$ all reli'ions, or prefer one reli'ion
oer another! Neither can force nor influence a person to 'o to or re)ain a(ay fro) church a'ainst his (ill or force hi) to
profess a belief or $isbelief in any reli'ion! No person can be punishe$ for entertainin' or professin' reli'ious beliefs or
$isbeliefs, for church atten$ance or non*atten$ance! No ta5 in any a)ount, lar'e or s)all, can be leie$ to support any
reli'ious actiities or institutions, (hateer they )ay be calle$, or (hateer for) they )ay a$opt to teach or practice
reli'ion! Neither a state nor the Fe$eral 3oern)ent can, openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any reli'ious
or'ani+ations or 'roups an$ ice ersa! &n the (or$s of -efferson, the clause a'ainst establish)ent of reli'ion by la( (as
inten$e$ to erect Sa (all of separation bet(een Church an$ 2tate!S
2B2
#he Court then en$e$ the opinion, )i;7
#he First A)en$)ent has erecte$ a (all bet(een church an$ state! #hat (all )ust be 0ept hi'h an$ i)pre'nable! /e
coul$ not approe the sli'htest breach! Ne( -ersey has not breache$ it here!
2BD
By 1971, the Court inte'rate$ the $ifferent ele)ents of the CourtTs Establish)ent Clause 4urispru$ence that eole$ in
the 19CBs an$ 19;Bs an$ lai$ $o(n a three*pron'e$ test in L#7o% 0. F/"&L7%
2B6
in $eter)inin' the constitutionality of
policies challen'e$ un$er the Establish)ent Clause! #his case inole$ a Pennsylania statutory pro'ra) proi$in'
publicly fun$e$ rei)burse)ent for the cost of teachersT salaries, te5tboo0s, an$ instructional )aterials in secular sub4ects
an$ a Rho$e &slan$ statute proi$in' salary supple)ents to teachers in parochial schools! #he %e)on test re,uires a
challen'e$ policy to )eet the follo(in' criteria to pass scrutiny un$er the Establish)ent Clause! SFirst, the statute )ust
hae a secular le'islatie purpose" secon$, its pri)ary or principal effect )ust be one that neither a$ances nor inhibits
reli'ion @Boar$ of E$ucation ! Allen, D92 >2 2D;, 26D, 2B % E$ 2$ 1B;B, 1B;C, << 2 Ct 192D 919;<:A" finally, the statute
)ust not foster Tan e5cessie entan'le)ent (ith reli'ion!T @/al+ !#a5 Co))ission, D97 >2 ;;6, ;;<, 2C % E$ 2$ ;97,
7B1, 9B 2 Ct 16B9 9197B:AS @e)phasis supplie$A
2BC
>sin' this test, the Court hel$ that the Pennsylania statutory pro'ra)
an$ Rho$e &slan$ statute (ere unconstitutional as fosterin' e5cessie entan'le)ent bet(een 'oern)ent an$ reli'ion!
#he )ost controersial of the e$ucation cases inolin' the Establish)ent Clause are the school prayer $ecisions! SFe(
$ecisions of the )o$ern 2upre)e Court hae been critici+e$ )ore intensely than the school prayer $ecisions of the early
19;Bs!S
2B;
&n the 19;2 case of E%2#8 0. V+&8#,
2B7
the Court inali$ate$ a Ne( Nor0 Boar$ of Re'ents policy that
establishe$ the oluntary recitation of a brief 'eneric prayer by chil$ren in the public schools at the start of each school
$ay! #he )a4ority opinion (ritten by -ustice Blac0 state$ that Sin this country it is no part of the business of 'oern)ent to
co)pose official prayers for any 'roup of the A)erican people to recite as part of a reli'ious pro'ra) carrie$ on by
'oern)ent!S &n fact, history sho(s that this ery practice of establishin' 'oern)entally co)pose$ prayers for reli'ious
serices (as one of the reasons that cause$ )any of the early colonists to leae En'lan$ an$ see0 reli'ious free$o) in
A)erica! #he Court calle$ to )in$ that the first an$ )ost i))e$iate purpose of the Establish)ent Clause reste$ on the
belief that a union of 'oern)ent an$ reli'ion ten$s to $estroy 'oern)ent an$ to $e'ra$e reli'ion! #he follo(in' year,
the En'el $ecision (as reinforce$ in A(+%2&o% S-,oo8 D+!&"+-& 0. S-,#7$$
2B<
an$ M/"") 0. C/"8#&&
2B9
(here the Court
struc0 $o(n the practice of Bible rea$in' an$ the recitation of the %or$Ts prayer in the Pennsylania an$ Marylan$
schools! #he Court hel$ that to (ithstan$ the strictures of the Establish)ent Clause, a statute )ust hae a secular
le'islatie purpose an$ a pri)ary effect that neither a$ances nor inhibits reli'ion! &t reiterate$, )i;7
#he (holeso)e TneutralityT of (hich this CourtTs cases spea0 thus ste)s fro) a reco'nition of the teachin's of history
that po(erful sects or 'roups )i'ht brin' about a fusion of 'oern)ental an$ reli'ious functions or a concert or
$epen$ency of one upon the other to the en$ that official support of the 2tate of Fe$eral 3oern)ent (oul$ be place$
behin$ the tenets of one or of all ortho$o5ies! #his the Establish)ent Clause prohibits! An$ a further reason for neutrality
is foun$ in the Free E5ercise Clause, (hich reco'ni+es the alue of reli'ious trainin', teachin' an$ obserance an$,
)ore particularly, the ri'ht of eery person to freely choose his o(n course (ith reference thereto, free of any co)pulsion
fro) the state!
21B
97
#he school prayer $ecisions $re( furious reactions! Reli'ious lea$ers an$ conseratie )e)bers of Con'ress an$
resolutions passe$ by seeral state le'islatures con$e)ne$ these $ecisions!
211
?n seeral occasions, constitutional
a)en$)ents hae been intro$uce$ in Con'ress to oerturn the school prayer $ecisions! 2till, the Court has )aintaine$
its position an$ has in fact reinforce$ it in the 19<C case of W88-# 0. J11"##
212
(here the Court struc0 $o(n an
Alaba)a la( that re,uire$ public school stu$ents to obsere a )o)ent of silence Sfor the purpose of )e$itation or
oluntary prayerS at the start of each school $ay!
Reli'ious instruction in public schools has also presse$ the Court to interpret the Establish)ent Clause! ?ptional
reli'ious instruction (ithin public school pre)ises an$ instructional ti)e (ere $eclare$ offensie of the Establish)ent
Clause in the 196< case of M-Co88/7 0. Bo"' o1 E'/-&+o%,
21D
$eci$e$ 4ust a year after the se)inal Eerson case! &n
this case, intereste$ )e)bers of the -e(ish, Ro)an Catholic an$ a fe( Protestant faiths obtaine$ per)ission fro) the
Boar$ of E$ucation to offer classes in reli'ious instruction to public school stu$ents in 'ra$es four to nine! Reli'ion
classes (ere atten$e$ by pupils (hose parents si'ne$ printe$ car$s re,uestin' that their chil$ren be per)itte$ to atten$!
#he classes (ere tau'ht in three separate 'roups by Protestant teachers, Catholic priests an$ a -e(ish rabbi an$ (ere
hel$ (ee0ly fro) thirty to forty )inutes $urin' re'ular class hours in the re'ular classroo)s of the school buil$in'! #he
reli'ious teachers (ere e)ploye$ at no e5pense to the school authorities but they (ere sub4ect to the approal an$
superision of the superinten$ent of schools! 2tu$ents (ho $i$ not choose to ta0e reli'ious instruction (ere re,uire$ to
leae their classroo)s an$ 'o to so)e other place in the school buil$in' for their secular stu$ies (hile those (ho (ere
release$ fro) their secular stu$y for reli'ious instruction (ere re,uire$ to atten$ the reli'ious classes! #he Court hel$
that the use of ta5*supporte$ property for reli'ious instruction an$ the close cooperation bet(een the school authorities
an$ the reli'ious council in pro)otin' reli'ious e$ucation a)ounte$ to a prohibite$ use of ta5*establishe$ an$ ta5*
supporte$ public school syste) to ai$ reli'ious 'roups sprea$ their faith! #he Court re4ecte$ the clai) that the
Establish)ent Clause only prohibite$ 'oern)ent preference of one reli'ion oer another an$ not an i)partial
'oern)ental assistance of all reli'ions! &n *o"-, 0. C8/!o%,
216
ho(eer, the Court uphel$ release$ ti)e pro'ra)s
allo(in' stu$ents in public schools to leae ca)pus upon parental per)ission to atten$ reli'ious serices (hile other
stu$ents atten$e$ stu$y hall! -ustice .ou'las, the (riter of the opinion, stresse$ that S@tAhe First A)en$)ent $oes not
re,uire that in eery an$ all respects there shall be a separation of Church an$ 2tate!S #he Court $istin'uishe$ Morach
fro) McCollu), )i;7
&n the McCollu) case the classroo)s (ere use$ for reli'ious instruction an$ the force of the public school (as use$ to
pro)ote that instruction! ! ! /e follo( the McCollu) case! But (e cannot e5pan$ it to coer the present release$ ti)e
pro'ra) unless separation of Church an$ 2tate )eans that public institutions can )a0e no a$4ust)ents of their
sche$ules to acco))o$ate the reli'ious nee$s of the people! /e cannot rea$ into the Bill of Ri'hts such a philosophy of
hostility to reli'ion!
21C
&n the area of 'oern)ent $isplays or affir)ations of belief, the Court has 'ien lee(ay to reli'ious beliefs an$ practices
(hich hae ac,uire$ a secular )eanin' an$ hae beco)e $eeply entrenche$ in history! For instance, in M-Go;% 0.
M")8%',
21;
the Court uphel$ la(s that prohibite$ certain businesses fro) operatin' on 2un$ay $espite the obious
reli'ious un$erpinnin's of the restrictions! Citin' the secular purpose of the 2un$ay closin' la(s an$ treatin' as
inci$ental the fact that this $ay of rest happene$ to be the $ay of (orship for )ost Christians, the Court hel$, )i;7
&t is co))on 0no(le$'e that the first $ay of the (ee0 has co)e to hae special si'nificance as a rest $ay in this country!
People of all reli'ions an$ people (ith no reli'ion re'ar$ 2un$ay as a ti)e for fa)ily actiity, for isitin' frien$s an$
relaties, for later sleepin', for passie an$ actie entertain)ents, for $inin' out, an$ the li0e!
217
&n the 19<D case of M"!, 0. C,7(#"!,
21<
the Court refuse$ to inali$ate Nebras0aTs policy of be'innin' le'islatie
sessions (ith prayers offere$ by a Protestant chaplain retaine$ at the ta5payersT e5pense! #he )a4ority opinion $i$ not
rely on the %e)on test an$ instea$ $re( heaily fro) history an$ the nee$ for acco))o$ation of popular reli'ious
beliefs, )i;7
&n li'ht of the una)bi'uous an$ unbro0en history of )ore than 2BB years, there can be no $oubt that the practice of
openin' le'islatie sessions (ith prayer has beco)e the fabric of our society! #o ino0e .iine 'ui$ance on a public bo$y
entruste$ (ith )a0in' the la(s is not, in these circu)stances, an Sestablish)entS of reli'ion or a step to(ar$
establish)ent" it is si)ply a tolerable ac0no(le$'e)ent of beliefs (i$ely hel$ a)on' the people of this country! As
-ustice .ou'las obsere$, S@(Ae are a reli'ious people (hose institutions presuppose a 2upre)e Bein'!S @Morach c!
Clauson, D6D >2 DB;, D1D 919C2:A
219
@e)phasis supplie$A
2o)e ie( the Marsh rulin' as a )ere aberration as the Court (oul$ Sineitably be e)barrasse$ if it (ere to atte)pt to
stri0e $o(n a practice that occurs in nearly eery le'islature in the >nite$ 2tates, inclu$in' the >!2! Con'ress!S
22B
#hat
Marsh (as not an aberration is su''este$ by subse,uent cases! &n the 19<6 case of L)%-, 0. Do%%#88),
221
the Court
uphel$ a city*sponsore$ natiity scene in Rho$e &slan$! By a C*6 $ecision, the )a4ority opinion har$ly e)ploye$ the
%e)on test an$ a'ain relie$ on history an$ the fact that the creche ha$ beco)e a Sneutral harbin'er of the holi$ay
seasonS for )any, rather than a sy)bol of Christianity!
#he Establish)ent Clause has also been interprete$ in the area of ta5 e5e)ption! By tra$ition, church an$ charitable
institutions hae been e5e)pt fro) local property ta5es an$ their inco)e e5e)pt fro) fe$eral an$ state inco)e ta5es! &n
the 197B case of W8L 0. T. Co77+!!+o%,
222
the Ne( Nor0 City #a5 Co))issionTs 'rant of property ta5 e5e)ptions to
churches as allo(e$ by state la( (as challen'e$ by /al+ on the theory that this re,uire$ hi) to subsi$i+e those
churches in$irectly! #he Court uphel$ the la( stressin' its neutrality, )i;7
&t has not sin'le$ out one particular church or reli'ious 'roup or een churches as such" rather, it has 'rante$ e5e)ptions
to all houses of reli'ious (orship (ithin a broa$ class of property o(ne$ by non*profit, ,uasi*public corporations ! ! ! #he
2tate has an affir)atie policy that consi$ers these 'roups as beneficial an$ stabili+in' influences in co))unity life an$
fin$s this classification useful, $esirable, an$ in the public interest!
22D
98
#he Court a$$e$ that the e5e)ption (as not establishin' reli'ion but Ssparin' the e5ercise of reli'ion fro) the bur$en of
property ta5ation leie$ on priate profit institutionsS
226
an$ preentin' e5cessie entan'le)ent bet(een state an$
reli'ion! At the sa)e ti)e, the Court ac0no(le$'e$ the lon'*stan$in' practice of reli'ious ta5 e5e)ption an$ the CourtTs
tra$itional $eference to le'islatie bo$ies (ith respect to the ta5in' po(er, )i;7
@fAe( concepts are )ore $eeply e)be$$e$ in the fabric of our national life, be'innin' (ith pre*Reolutionary colonial
ti)es, than for the 'oern)ent to e5ercise ! ! ! this 0in$ of beneolent neutrality to(ar$ churches an$ reli'ious e5ercise
'enerally so lon' as none (as faore$ oer others an$ none suffere$ interference!
22C
@e)phasis supplie$A
C. S&"+-& N#/&"8+&) 0. B#%#0o8#%& N#/&"8+&)
#o be sure, the cases $iscusse$ aboe, (hile citin' )any lan$)ar0 $ecisions in the reli'ious clauses area, are but a
s)all fraction of the hun$re$s of reli'ion clauses cases that the >!2! 2upre)e Court has passe$ upon! Court rulin's
contrary to or )a0in' nuances of the aboe cases )ay be cite$! Professor McConnell poi'nantly reco'ni+es this, )i;7
#hus, as of to$ay, it is constitutional for a state to hire a Presbyterian )inister to lea$ the le'islature in $aily prayers
@Marsh ! Cha)bers, 6;D >27<D, 792*9D919<D:A, but unconstitutional for a state to set asi$e a )o)ent of silence in the
schools for chil$ren to pray if they (ant to @/allace ! -affree, 672 >2 D<, C; 919<C:A! &t is unconstitutional for a state to
re,uire e)ployers to acco))o$ate their e)ployeesT (or0 sche$ules to their sabbath obserances @Estate of #hornton !
Cal$or, &nc!, 672 >2 7BD, 7B9*1B 919<C:A but constitutionally )an$atory for a state to re,uire e)ployers to pay (or0ers
co)pensation (hen the resultin' inconsistency bet(een (or0 an$ sabbath lea$s to $ischar'e @! ! !2herbert ! =erner,
D76 >2 D9<, 6BD*6 919;D:A! &t is constitutional for the 'oern)ent to 'ie )oney to reli'iously*affiliate$ or'ani+ations to
teach a$olescents about proper se5ual behaior @Bo(en ! Len$ric0, 6<7 >2 C<9, ;11 919<<:A, but not to teach the)
science or history @%e)on ! Lurt+)an, 6BD >2 ;B2, ;1<*;19 91971:A! &t is constitutional for the 'oern)ent to proi$e
reli'ious school pupils (ith boo0s @Boar$ of E$ucation ! Allen, D92 >2 2D;, 2D< 919;<:A, but not (ith )aps @/ol)an !
/alter, 6DD >2 229, 269*C1 91977:A" (ith bus ri$es to reli'ious schools @Eerson ! Boar$ of E$ucation, DDB >2 1, 17
91967:A, but not fro) school to a )useu) on a fiel$ trip @/ol)an ! /alter, 6DD >2 229, 2C2*CC 91977:A" (ith cash to pay
for state*)an$ate$ stan$ar$i+e$ tests @Co))ittee for Pub! E$uc! an$ Reli'ious %iberty ! Re'an, 666 >2 ;6;, ;CD*C6
919<B:A, but not to pay for safety*relate$ )aintenance @Co))ittee for Pub! E$uc ! Ny,uist, 61D >2 7C;, 776*<B 9197D:A!
&t is a )ess!
22;
But the purpose of the oerie( is not to reie( the entirety of the >!2! reli'ion clause 4urispru$ence nor to e5tract the
preailin' case la( re'ar$in' particular reli'ious beliefs or con$uct colli$in' (ith particular 'oern)ent re'ulations!
Rather, the cases $iscusse$ aboe suffice to sho( that, as le'al scholars obsere, this area of 4urispru$ence has
$e)onstrate$ t(o )ain stan$ar$s use$ by the Court in $eci$in' reli'ion clause cases7 separation @in the for) of strict
separation or the ta)er ersion of strict neutrality or separationA an$ beneolent neutrality or acco))o$ation! #he (ei'ht
of current authority, 4u$icial an$ in ter)s of sheer olu)e, appears to lie (ith the separationists, strict or ta)e!
227
But the
acco))o$ationists hae also attracte$ a nu)ber of influential scholars an$ 4urists!
22<
#he t(o stan$ar$s pro$ucin' t(o
strea)s of 4urispru$ence branch out respectiely fro) the history of the First A)en$)ent in En'lan$ an$ the A)erican
colonies an$ cli)a5in' in =ir'inia as narrate$ in this opinion an$ officially ac0no(le$'e$ by the Court in Eerson, an$
fro) A)erican societal life (hich reeres reli'ion an$ practices a'e*ol$ reli'ious tra$itions! 2tate$ other(ise, separation *
strict or ta)e * protects the principle of church*state separation (ith a ri'i$ rea$in' of the principle (hile beneolent
neutrality protects reli'ious realities, tra$ition an$ establishe$ practice (ith a fle5ible rea$in' of the principle!
229
#he latter
also appeals to history in support of its position, )i;7
#he opposin' school of thou'ht ar'ues that the First Con'ress inten$e$ to allo( 'oern)ent support of reli'ion, at least
as lon' as that support $i$ not $iscri)inate in faor of one particular reli'ion! ! ! the 2upre)e Court has oerloo0e$ )any
i)portant pieces of history! Ma$ison, for e5a)ple, (as on the con'ressional co))ittee that appointe$ a chaplain, he
$eclare$ seeral national $ays of prayer an$ fastin' $urin' his presi$ency, an$ he sponsore$ -effersonTs bill for
punishin' 2abbath brea0ers" )oreoer, (hile presi$ent, -efferson allo(e$ fe$eral support of reli'ious )issions to the
&n$ians! ! ! An$ so, conclu$es one recent boo0, Tthere is no support in the Con'ressional recor$s that either the First
Con'ress, (hich fra)e$ the First A)en$)ent, or its principal author an$ sponsor, -a)es Ma$ison, inten$e$ that
A)en$)ent to create a state of co)plete in$epen$ence bet(een reli'ion an$ 'oern)ent! &n fact, the ei$ence in the
public $ocu)ents 'oes the other (ay!
2DB
@e)phasis supplie$A
#o succinctly an$ poi'nantly illustrate the historical basis of beneolent neutrality that 'ies roo) for acco))o$ation,
less than t(enty*four hours after Con'ress a$opte$ the First A)en$)entTs prohibition on la(s respectin' an
establish)ent of reli'ion, Con'ress $eci$e$ to e5press its than0s to 3o$ Al)i'hty for the )any blessin's en4oye$ by the
nation (ith a resolution in faor of a presi$ential procla)ation $eclarin' a national $ay of #han0s'iin' an$ Prayer! ?nly
t(o )e)bers of Con'ress oppose$ the resolution, one on the 'roun$ that the )oe (as a S)i)ic0in' of European
custo)s, (here they )a$e a )ere )oc0ery of than0s'iin'sS, the other on establish)ent clause concerns!
Neertheless, the salutary effect of than0s'iin's throu'hout /estern history (as ac0no(le$'e$ an$ the )otion (as
passe$ (ithout further recor$e$ $iscussion!
2D1
#hus, acco))o$ationists also 'o bac0 to the fra)ers to ascertain the
)eanin' of the First A)en$)ent, but prefer to focus on acts rather than (or$s! Contrary to the clai) of separationists
that rationalis) pera$e$ A)erica in the late 19th century an$ that A)erica (as less specifically Christian $urin' those
years than at any other ti)e before or since,
2D2
acco))o$ationaists clai) that A)erican citi+ens at the ti)e of the
ConstitutionTs ori'ins (ere a re)ar0ably reli'ious people in particularly Christian ter)s!
2DD
#he t(o strea)s of 4urispru$ence * separationist or acco))o$ationist * are anchore$ on a $ifferent rea$in' of the S(all of
separation!S #he strict separtionist ie( hol$s that -efferson )eant the S(all of separationS to protect the state fro) the
church! -efferson (as a )an of the Enli'hten)ent Era of the ei'hteenth century, characteri+e$ by the rationalis) an$
anticlericalis) of that philosophic bent!
2D6
1e has often been re'ar$e$ as espousin' .eis) or the rationalistic belief in a
natural reli'ion an$ natural la( $iorce$ fro) its )e$ieal connection (ith $iine la(, an$ instea$ a$herin' to a secular
belief in a uniersal har)ony!
2DC
#hus, accor$in' to this -effersonian ie(, the Establish)ent Clause bein' )eant to
protect the state fro) the church, the stateTs hostility to(ar$s reli'ion allo(s no interaction bet(een the t(o!
2D;
&n fact,
(hen -efferson beca)e Presi$ent, he refuse$ to proclai) fast or than0s'iin' $ays on the 'roun$ that these are
99
reli'ious e5ercises an$ the Constitution prohibite$ the 'oern)ent fro) inter)e$$lin' (ith reli'ion!
2D7
#his approach
erects an absolute barrier to for)al inter$epen$ence of reli'ion an$ state! Reli'ious institutions coul$ not receie ai$,
(hether $irect or in$irect, fro) the state! Nor coul$ the state a$4ust its secular pro'ra)s to alleiate bur$ens the
pro'ra)s place$ on belieers!
2D<
?nly the co)plete separation of reli'ion fro) politics (oul$ eli)inate the for)al
influence of reli'ious institutions an$ proi$e for a free choice a)on' political ie(s thus a strict S(all of separationS is
necessary!
2D9
2trict separation faces $ifficulties, ho(eer, as it is $eeply e)be$$e$ in history an$ conte)porary practice
that enor)ous a)ounts of ai$, both $irect an$ in$irect, flo( to reli'ion fro) 'oern)ent in return for hu'e a)ounts of
)ostly in$irect ai$ fro) reli'ion! #hus, strict separationists are cau'ht in an a(0(ar$ position of clai)in' a constitutional
principle that has neer e5iste$ an$ is neer li0ely to!
26B
A ta)er ersion of the strict separationist ie(, the strict neutrality or separationist ie( is lar'ely use$ by the Court,
sho(in' the CourtTs ten$ency to press relentlessly to(ar$s a )ore secular society!
261
&t fin$s basis in the Eerson case
(here the Court $eclare$ that -effersonTs S(all of separationS encapsulate$ the )eanin' of the First A)en$)ent but at
the sa)e ti)e hel$ that the First A)en$)ent Sre,uires the state to be neutral in its relations (ith 'roups of reli'ious
belieers an$ non*belieers" it $oes not re,uire the state to be their a$ersary! 2tate po(er is no )ore to be use$ so as
to han$icap reli'ions than it is to faor the)!S @e)phasis supplie$A
262
/hile the strict neutrality approach is not hostile to
reli'ion, it is strict in hol$in' that reli'ion )ay not be use$ as a basis for classification for purposes of 'oern)ental
action, (hether the action confers ri'hts or priile'es or i)poses $uties or obli'ations! ?nly secular criteria )ay be the
basis of 'oern)ent action! &t $oes not per)it, )uch less re,uire, acco))o$ation of secular pro'ra)s to reli'ious
belief!
26D
Professor Lurlan$ (rote, )i;7
#he thesis propose$ here as the proper construction of the reli'ion clauses of the first a)en$)ent is that the free$o)
an$ separation clauses shoul$ be rea$ as a sin'le precept that 'oern)ent cannot utili+e reli'ion as a stan$ar$ for
action or inaction because these clauses prohibit classification in ter)s of reli'ion either to confer a benefit or to i)pose a
bur$en!
266
#he Court has repeate$ly $eclare$ that reli'ious free$o) )eans 'oern)ent neutrality in reli'ious )atters an$ the Court
has also repeate$ly interprete$ this policy of neutrality to prohibit 'oern)ent fro) actin' e5cept for secular purposes
an$ in (ays that hae pri)arily secular effects!
26C
Prayer in public schools is an area (here the Court has applie$ strict neutrality an$ refuse$ to allo( any for) of prayer,
spo0en or silent, in the public schools as in En'el an$ 2che)pp!
26;
#he McCollu) case prohibitin' optional reli'ious
instruction (ithin public school pre)ises $urin' re'ular class hours also $e)onstrates strict neutrality! &n these e$ucation
cases, the Court refuse$ to uphol$ the 'oern)ent action as they (ere base$ not on a secular but on a reli'ious
purpose! 2trict neutrality (as also use$ in Reynol$s an$ 2)ith (hich both hel$ that if 'oern)ent acts in pursuit of a
'enerally applicable la( (ith a secular purpose that )erely inci$entally bur$ens reli'ious e5ercise, the First A)en$)ent
has not been offen$e$! 1o(eer, if the strict neutrality stan$ar$ is applie$ in interpretin' the Establish)ent Clause, it
coul$ $e facto oi$ reli'ious e5pression in the Free E5ercise Clause! As pointe$ out by -ustice 3ol$ber' in his concurrin'
opinion in 2che)pp, strict neutrality coul$ lea$ to Sa broo$in' an$ perasie $eotion to the secular an$ a passie, or
een actie, hostility to the reli'iousS (hich is prohibite$ by the Constitution!
267
Professor %aurence #ribe co))ente$ in
his authoritatie treatise, i+7
#o )ost obserers! ! ! strict neutrality has see)e$ inco)patible (ith the ery i$ea of a free e5ercise clause! #he Fra)ers,
(hateer specific applications they )ay hae inten$e$, clearly enisione$ reli'ion as so)ethin' special" they enacte$
that ision into la( by 'uaranteein' the free e5ercise of reli'ion but not, say, of philosophy or science! #he strict neutrality
approach all but erases this $istinction! #hus it is not surprisin' that the 2upre)e Court has re4ecte$ strict neutrality,
per)ittin' an$ so)eti)es )an$atin' reli'ious classifications!
26<
#he separationist approach, (hether strict or ta)e, is cau'ht in a $ile))a because (hile the -effersonian (all of
separation Scaptures the spirit of the A)erican i$eal of church*state separationS, in real life church an$ state are not an$
cannot be totally separate!
269
#his is all the )ore true in conte)porary ti)es (hen both the 'oern)ent an$ reli'ion are
'ro(in' an$ e5pan$in' their spheres of inole)ent an$ actiity, resultin' in the intersection of 'oern)ent an$ reli'ion
at )any points!
2CB
Conse,uently, the Court has also $eci$e$ cases e)ployin' beneolent neutrality! Beneolent neutrality (hich 'ies roo)
for acco))o$ation is buttresse$ by a $ifferent ie( of the S(all of separationS associate$ (ith /illia)s, foun$er of the
Rho$e &slan$ colony! &n Mar0 .e/olfe 1o(eTs classic, #he 3ar$en an$ the /il$erness, he asserts that to the e5tent the
Foun$ers ha$ a (all of separation in )in$, it (as unli0e the -effersonian (all that is )eant to protect the state fro) the
church" instea$, the (all is )eant to protect the church fro) the state,
2C1
i!e!, the S'ar$enS of the church )ust be (alle$ in
for its o(n protection fro) the S(il$ernessS of the (orl$
2C2
(ith its potential for corruptin' those alues so necessary to
reli'ious co))it)ent!
2CD
1o(e calle$ this the Stheolo'icalS or Sean'elicalS rationale for church*state separation (hile the
(all espouse$ by Senli'htene$S states)en such as -efferson an$ Ma$ison, (as a SpoliticalS rationale see0in' to protect
politics fro) intrusions by the church!
2C6
But it has been asserte$ that this contrast bet(een the /illia)s an$ -effersonian
positions is )ore accurately $escribe$ as a $ifference in 0in$s or styles of reli'ious thin0in', not as a conflict bet(een
Sreli'iousS an$ Ssecular @politicalAS" the reli'ious style (as biblical an$ ean'elical in character (hile the secular style (as
'roun$e$ in natural reli'ion, )ore 'eneric an$ philosophical in its reli'ious orientation!
2CC
#he /illia)s (all is, ho(eer, breache$ for the church is in the state an$ so the re)ainin' purpose of the (all is to
safe'uar$ reli'ious liberty! /illia)sT ie( (oul$ therefore allo( for interaction bet(een church an$ state, but is strict (ith
re'ar$ to state action (hich (oul$ threaten the inte'rity of reli'ious co))it)ent!
2C;
1is conception of separation is not
total such that it proi$es basis for certain interactions bet(een church an$ state $ictate$ by apparent necessity or
practicality!
2C7
#his Stheolo'icalS ie( of separation is foun$ in /illia)sT (ritin's, )i;7
! ! ! (hen they hae opene$ a 'ap in the he$'e or (all of separation bet(een the 'ar$en of the church an$ the
(il$erness of the (orl$, 3o$ hath eer bro0e $o(n the (all itself, re)oe$ the can$lestic0, an$ )a$e his 'ar$en a
(il$erness, as this $ay! An$ that therefore if 1e (ill eer please to restore 1is 'ar$en an$ para$ise a'ain, it )ust of
100
necessity be (alle$ in peculiarly unto 1i)self fro) the (orl$! ! !
2C<
Chief -ustice Bur'er spo0e of beneolent neutrality in /al+, )i;7
#he 'eneral principle $e$ucible fro) the First A)en$)ent an$ all that has been sai$ by the Court is this7 that (e (ill not
tolerate either 'oern)entally establishe$ reli'ion or 'oern)ental interference (ith reli'ion! 2hort of those e5pressly
proscribe$ 'oern)ental acts there is roo) for play in the 4oints pro$uctie of a beneolent neutrality (hich (ill per)it
reli'ious e5ercise to e5ist (ithout sponsorship an$ (ithout interference!
2C9
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he Morach case e5presse$ the $octrine of acco))o$ation,
2;B
i+7
#he First A)en$)ent, ho(eer, $oes not say that in eery an$ all respects there shall be a separation of Church an$
2tate! Rather, it stu$iously $efines the )anner, the specific (ays, in (hich there shall be no concert or union or
$epen$ency one or the other! #hat is the co))on sense of the )atter! ?ther(ise, the state an$ reli'ion (oul$ be aliens
to each other * hostile, suspicious, an$ een unfrien$ly! Churches coul$ not be re,uire$ to pay een property ta5es!
Municipalities (oul$ not be per)itte$ to ren$er police or fire protection to reli'ious 'roups! Police)en (ho helpe$
parishioners into their places of (orship (oul$ iolate the Constitution! Prayers in our le'islatie halls" the appeals to the
Al)i'hty in the )essa'es of the Chief E5ecutie" the procla)ations )a0in' #han0s'iin' .ay a holi$ay" Sso help )e
3o$S in our courtroo) oaths* these an$ all other references to the Al)i'hty that run throu'h our la(s, our public rituals,
our cere)onies (oul$ be floutin' the First A)en$)ent! A fasti$ious atheist or a'nostic coul$ een ob4ect to the
supplication (ith (hich the Court opens each session7 T3o$ sae the >nite$ 2tates an$ this 1onorable Court!
555 555 555
/e are a reli'ious people (hose institutions presuppose a 2upre)e Bein'! /e 'uarantee the free$o) to (orship as one
chooses! ! ! /hen the state encoura'es reli'ious instruction or cooperates (ith reli'ious authorities by a$4ustin' the
sche$ule of public eents, it follo(s the best of our tra$itions! For it then respects the reli'ious nature of our people an$
acco))o$ates the public serice to their spiritual nee$s! #o hol$ that it )ay not (oul$ be to fin$ in the Constitution a
re,uire)ent that the 'oern)ent sho( a callous in$ifference to reli'ious 'roups! ! ! But (e fin$ no constitutional
re,uire)ent (hich )a0es it necessary for 'oern)ent to be hostile to reli'ion an$ to thro( its (ei'ht a'ainst efforts to
(i$en their effectie scope of reli'ious influence!
2;1
@e)phases supplie$A
Beneolent neutrality is con'ruent (ith the sociolo'ical proposition that reli'ion seres a function essential to the surial
of society itself, thus there is no hu)an society (ithout one or )ore (ays of perfor)in' the essential function of reli'ion!
Althou'h for so)e in$ii$uals there )ay be no felt nee$ for reli'ion an$ thus it is optional or een $ispensable, for society
it is not, (hich is (hy there is no hu)an society (ithout one or )ore (ays of perfor)in' the essential function of reli'ion!
Een in ostensibly atheistic societies, there are i'orous un$er'roun$ reli'ion@sA an$ surro'ate reli'ion@sA in their
i$eolo'y!
2;2
As one sociolo'ist (rote7
&t is (i$ely hel$ by stu$ents of society that there are certain functional prere,uisites (ithout (hich society (oul$ not
continue to e5ist! At first 'lance, this see)s to be obious * scarcely )ore than to say that an auto)obile coul$ not e5ist,
as a 'oin' syste), (ithout a carburetor! ! ! Most (riters list reli'ion a)on' the functional prere,uisites!
2;D
Another note$ sociolo'ist, #alcott Parsons, (rote7 S#here is no 0no(n hu)an society (ithout so)ethin' (hich )o$ern
social scientists (oul$ classify as a reli'ion[Reli'ion is as )uch a hu)an uniersal as lan'ua'e!S
2;6
Beneolent neutrality thus reco'ni+es that reli'ion plays an i)portant role in the public life of the >nite$ 2tates as sho(n
by )any tra$itional 'oern)ent practices (hich, to strict neutrality, pose Establish)ent Clause ,uestions! A)on' these
are the inscription of S&n 3o$ /e #rustS on A)erican currency, the reco'nition of A)erica as Sone nation un$er 3o$S in
the official ple$'e of alle'iance to the fla', the 2upre)e CourtTs ti)e*honore$ practice of openin' oral ar'u)ent (ith the
inocation S3o$ sae the >nite$ 2tates an$ this honorable Court,S an$ the practice of Con'ress an$ eery state
le'islature of payin' a chaplain, usually of a particular Protestant $eno)ination to lea$ representaties in prayer!
2;C
#hese
practices clearly sho( the preference for one theolo'ical ie(point *the e5istence of an$ potential for interention by a
'o$ * oer the contrary theolo'ical ie(point of atheis)! Church an$ 'oern)ent a'encies also cooperate in the buil$in'
of lo(*cost housin' an$ in other for)s of poor relief, in the treat)ent of alcoholis) an$ $ru' a$$iction, in forei'n ai$ an$
other 'oern)ent actiities (ith stron' )oral $i)ension!
2;;
#he persistence of these $e facto establish)ents are in lar'e
part e5plaine$ by the fact that throu'hout history, the ean'elical theory of separation, i!e!, /illia)sT (all, has $e)an$e$
respect for these $e facto establish)ents!
2;7
But the separationists hae a $ifferent e5planation! #o characteri+e these as
de (ure establish)ents accor$in' to the principle of the -effersonian (all, the >!2! 2upre)e Court, the )any $issentin'
an$ concurrin' opinions e5plain so)e of these practices as STde minimisT instances of 'oern)ent en$orse)ent or as
historic 'oern)ental practices that hae lar'ely lost their reli'ious si'nificance or at least hae proen not to lea$ the
'oern)ent into further inole)ent (ith reli'ion!
2;<
/ith reli'ion loo0e$ upon (ith beneolence an$ not hostility, beneolent neutrality allo(s acco))o$ation of reli'ion
un$er certain circu)stances! Acco))o$ations are 'oern)ent policies that ta0e reli'ion specifically into account not to
pro)ote the 'oern)entTs faore$ for) of reli'ion, but to allo( in$ii$uals an$ 'roups to e5ercise their reli'ion (ithout
hin$rance! #heir purpose or effect therefore is to re)oe a bur$en on, or facilitate the e5ercise of, a personTs or
institutionTs reli'ion! As -ustice Brennan e5plaine$, the S'oern)ent 9)ay: ta0e reli'ion into account[to e5e)pt, (hen
possible, fro) 'enerally applicable 'oern)ental re'ulation in$ii$uals (hose reli'ious beliefs an$ practices (oul$
other(ise thereby be infrin'e$, or to create (ithout state inole)ent an at)osphere in (hich oluntary reli'ious
e5ercise )ay flourish!S
2;9
@e)phasis supplie$A Acco))o$ation is forbearance an$ not alliance! it $oes not reflect
a'ree)ent (ith the )inority, but respect for the conflict bet(een the te)poral an$ spiritual authority in (hich the )inority
fin$s itself!
27B
Acco))o$ation is $istin'uishe$ fro) strict neutrality in that the latter hol$s that 'oern)ent shoul$ base public policy
101
solely on secular consi$erations, (ithout re'ar$ to the reli'ious conse,uences of its actions! #he $ebate bet(een
acco))o$ation an$ strict neutrality is at base a ,uestion of )eans7 S&s the free$o) of reli'ion best achiee$ (hen the
'oern)ent is conscious of the effects of its action on the arious reli'ious practices of its people, an$ see0s to )ini)i+e
interferences (ith those practicesK ?r is it best a$ance$ throu'h a policy of Treli'ious blin$nessT * 0eepin' 'oern)ent
aloof fro) reli'ious practices an$ issuesKS An acco))o$ationist hol$s that it is 'oo$ public policy, an$ so)eti)es
constitutionally re,uire$, for the state to )a0e conscious an$ $eliberate efforts to aoi$ interference (ith reli'ious
free$o)! ?n the other han$, the strict neutrality a$herent beliees that it is 'oo$ public policy, an$ also constitutionally
re,uire$, for the 'oern)ent to aoi$ reli'ion*specific policy een at the cost of inhibitin' reli'ious e5ercise!
271
#here are stron' an$ co)pellin' reasons, ho(eer, to ta0e the acco))o$ationist position rather than the strict neutrality
position! First, the acco))o$ationist interpretation is )ost consistent (ith the lan'ua'e of the First A)en$)ent! #he
reli'ion clauses contain t(o parallel proisions, both specifically $irecte$ at Sreli'ion!S #he 'oern)ent )ay not
SestablishS reli'ion an$ neither )ay 'oern)ent SprohibitS it! #a0en to'ether, the reli'ion clauses can be rea$ )ost
plausibly as (ar$in' off t(o e,ual an$ opposite threats to reli'ious free$o) * 'oern)ent action that pro)otes the
@politicalA )a4orityTs faore$ bran$ of reli'ion an$ 'oern)ent action that i)pe$es reli'ious practices not faore$ by the
)a4ority! #he substantie en$ in ie( is the preseration of the autono)y of reli'ious life an$ not 4ust the for)al process
alue of ensurin' that 'oern)ent $oes not act on the basis of reli'ious bias! ?n the other han$, strict neutrality
interprets the reli'ion clauses as allo(in' 'oern)ent to $o (hateer it $esires to or for reli'ion, as lon' as it $oes the
sa)e to or for co)parable secular entities! #hus, for e5a)ple, if 'oern)ent prohibits all alcoholic consu)ption by
)inors, it can prohibit )inors fro) ta0in' part in co))union! Para$o5ically, this ie( (oul$ )a0e the reli'ion clauses
iolate the reli'ion clauses, so to spea0, since the reli'ion clauses sin'le out reli'ion by na)e for special protection!
2econ$, the acco))o$ationist position best achiees the purposes of the First A)en$)ent! #he principle un$erlyin' the
First A)en$)ent is that free$o) to carry out oneTs $uties to a 2upre)e Bein' is an inalienable ri'ht, not one $epen$ent
on the 'race of le'islature! Althou'h inalienable, it is necessarily li)ite$ by the ri'hts of others, inclu$in' the public ri'ht
of peace an$ 'oo$ or$er! Neertheless it is a substantie ri'ht an$ not )erely a priile'e a'ainst $iscri)inatory
le'islation! #he acco)plish)ent of the purpose of the First A)en$)ent re,uires )ore than the Sreli'ion blin$nessS of
strict neutrality! /ith the perasieness of 'oern)ent re'ulation, conflicts (ith reli'ious practices beco)e fre,uent an$
intense! %a(s that are suitable for secular entities are so)eti)es inappropriate for reli'ious entities, thus the 'oern)ent
)ust )a0e special proisions to presere a $e'ree of in$epen$ence for reli'ious entities for the) to carry out their
reli'ious )issions accor$in' to their reli'ious beliefs! ?ther(ise, reli'ion (ill beco)e 4ust li0e other secular entities
sub4ect to perasie re'ulation by )a4oritarian institutions! #hir$, the acco))o$ationist interpretation is particularly
necessary to protect a$herents of )inority reli'ions fro) the ineitable effects of )a4oritarianis), (hich inclu$e
i'norance an$ in$ifference an$ oert hostility to the )inority! &n a $e)ocratic republic, la(s are ineitably base$ on the
presuppositions of the )a4ority, thus not infre,uently, they co)e into conflict (ith the reli'ious scruples of those hol$in'
$ifferent (orl$ ie(s, een in the absence of a $eliberate intent to interfere (ith reli'ious practice! At ti)es, this effect is
unaoi$able as a practical )atter because so)e la(s are so necessary to the co))on 'oo$ that e5ceptions are
intolerable! But in other instances, the in4ury to reli'ious conscience is so 'reat an$ the a$ance)ent of public purposes
so s)all or inco)parable that only in$ifference or hostility coul$ e5plain a refusal to )a0e e5e)ptions! Because of plural
tra$itions, le'islators an$ e5ecutie officials are fre,uently (illin' to )a0e such e5e)ptions (hen the nee$ is brou'ht to
their attention, but this )ay not al(ays be the case (hen the reli'ious practice is either un0no(n at the ti)e of enact)ent
or is for so)e reason unpopular! &n these cases, a constitutional interpretation that allo(s acco))o$ations preents
nee$less in4ury to the reli'ious consciences of those (ho can hae an influence in the le'islature" (hile a constitutional
interpretation that re,uires acco))o$ations e5ten$s this treat)ent to reli'ious faiths that are less able to protect
the)seles in the political arena! Fourth, the acco))o$ationist position is practical as it is a co))onsensical (ay to
$eal (ith the arious nee$s an$ beliefs of $ifferent faiths in a pluralistic nation! /ithout acco))o$ation, )any other(ise
beneficial la(s (oul$ interfere seerely (ith reli'ious free$o)! Asi$e fro) la(s a'ainst serin' alcoholic beera'es to
)inors conflictin' (ith celebration of co))union, re'ulations re,uirin' har$ hats in construction areas can effectiely
e5clu$e A)ish an$ 2i0hs fro) the (or0place, or e)ploy)ent anti*$iscri)ination la(s can conflict (ith the Ro)an
Catholic )ale priesthoo$, a)on' others! E5e)ptions fro) such la(s are easy to craft an$ a$)inister an$ contribute
)uch to pro)otin' reli'ious free$o) at little cost to public policy! /ithout e5e)ptions, le'islature (oul$ be fre,uently
force$ to choose bet(een iolatin' reli'ious conscience of a se')ent of the population or $ispensin' (ith le'islation it
consi$ers beneficial to society as a (hole! E5e)ption see)s )anifestly )ore reasonable than either of the alternatie7
no e5e)ption or no la(!
272
Beneolent neutrality 'ies roo) for $ifferent 0in$s of acco))o$ation7 those (hich are constitutionally co)pelle$, i!e!,
re,uire$ by the Free E5ercise Clause" an$ those (hich are $iscretionary or le'islatie, i!e!, an$ those not re,uire$ by the
Free E5ercise Clause but nonetheless per)itte$ by the Establish)ent Clause!
27D
2o)e -ustices of the 2upre)e Court
hae also use$ the ter) acco))o$ation to $escribe 'oern)ent actions that ac0no(le$'e or e5press preailin'
reli'ious senti)ents of the co))unity such as $isplay of a reli'ious sy)bol on public property or the $eliery of a prayer
at public cere)onial eents!
276
2tate$ other(ise, usin' beneolent neutrality as a stan$ar$ coul$ result to three situations
of acco))o$ation7 those (here acco))o$ation is re,uire$, those (here it is per)issible, an$ those (here it is
prohibite$! &n the first situation, acco))o$ation is re,uire$ to presere free e5ercise protections an$ not
unconstitutionally infrin'e on reli'ious liberty or create penalties for reli'ious free$o)! Contrary to the 2)ith $eclaration
that free e5ercise e5e)ptions are Sintentional 'oern)ent a$ance)entS, these e5e)ptions )erely reliee the prohibition
on the free e5ercise thus allo(in' the bur$ene$ reli'ious a$herent to be left alone! #he state )ust create e5ceptions to
la(s of 'eneral applicability (hen these la(s threaten reli'ious conictions or practices in the absence of a co)pellin'
state interest!
27C
By allo(in' such e5e)ptions, the Free E5ercise Clause $oes not 'ie belieers the ri'ht or priile'e to
choose for the)seles to oerri$e socially*prescribe$ $ecision" it allo(s the) to obey spiritual rather than te)poral
authority
27;
for those (ho seriously ino0e the Free E5ercise Clause clai) to be fulfillin' a sole)n $uty! Reli'ious
free$o) is a )atter less of ri'hts than $uties" )ore precisely, it is a )atter of ri'hts $erie$ fro) $uties! #o $eny a person
or a co))unity the ri'ht to act upon such a $uty can be 4ustifie$ only by appeal to a yet )ore co)pellin' $uty! ?f course,
those $enie$ (ill usually not fin$ the reason for the $enial co)pellin'! SBecause they )ay turn out to be ri'ht about the
$uty in ,uestion, an$ because, een if they are (ron', reli'ion bears (itness to that (hich transcen$s the political or$er,
such $enials shoul$ be rare an$ painfully reluctant!S
277
#he No$er case is an e5a)ple (here the Court hel$ that the state )ust acco))o$ate the reli'ious beliefs of the A)ish
(ho ob4ecte$ to enrollin' their chil$ren in hi'h school as re,uire$ by la(! #he 2herbert case is another e5a)ple (here
the Court hel$ that the state une)ploy)ent co)pensation plan )ust acco))o$ate the reli'ious conictions of
102
2herbert!
27<
&n these cases of Sbur$enso)e effectS, the )o$ern approach of the Court has been to apply strict scrutiny,
i!e!, to $eclare the bur$en as per)issible, the Court re,uires the state to $e)onstrate that the re'ulation (hich bur$ens
the reli'ious e5ercise pursues a particularly i)portant or co)pellin' 'oern)ent 'oal throu'h the least restrictie )eans!
&f the stateTs ob4ectie coul$ be sere$ as (ell or al)ost as (ell by 'rantin' an e5e)ption to those (hose reli'ious beliefs
are bur$ene$ by the re'ulation, such an e5e)ption )ust be 'ien!
279
#his approach of the Court on Sbur$enso)e effectS
(as only applie$ since the 19;Bs! Prior to this ti)e, the Court too0 the separationist ie( that as lon' as the state (as
actin' in pursuit of non*reli'ious en$s an$ re'ulatin' con$uct rather than pure reli'ious beliefs, the Free E5ercise Clause
$i$ not pose a hin$rance such as in Reynol$s!
2<B
&n the secon$ situation (here acco))o$ation is per)issible, the state
)ay, but is not re,uire$ to, acco))o$ate reli'ious interests! #he /al+ case illustrates this situation (here the Court
uphel$ the constitutionality of ta5 e5e)ption 'ien by Ne( Nor0 to church properties, but $i$ not rule that the state (as
re,uire$ to proi$e ta5 e5e)ptions! #he Court $eclare$ that S@tAhe li)its of per)issible state acco))o$ation to reli'ion
are by no )eans co*e5tensie (ith the noninterference )an$ate$ by the Free E5ercise Clause!S
2<1
#he Court hel$ that
Ne( Nor0 coul$ hae an interest in encoura'in' reli'ious alues an$ aoi$in' threats to those alues throu'h the bur$en
of property ta5es! ?ther e5a)ples are the Morach case allo(in' release$ ti)e in public schools an$ Marsh allo(in'
pay)ent of le'islatie chaplains fro) public fun$s! Finally, in the situation (here acco))o$ation is prohibite$,
establish)ent concerns preail oer potential acco))o$ation interests! #o say that there are ali$ e5e)ptions
buttresse$ by the Free E5ercise Clause $oes not )ean that all clai)s for free e5ercise e5e)ptions are ali$!
2<2
An
e5a)ple (here acco))o$ation (as prohibite$ is McCollu) (here the Court rule$ a'ainst optional reli'ious instruction in
the public school pre)ises!
2<D
&n effect, the last situation (oul$ arrie at a strict neutrality conclusion!
&n the first situation (here acco))o$ation is re,uire$, the approach follo(s this basic fra)e(or07
&f the plaintiff can sho( that a la( or 'oern)ent practice inhibits the free e5ercise of his reli'ious beliefs, the bur$en
shifts to the 'oern)ent to $e)onstrate that the la( or practice is necessary to the acco)plish)ent of so)e i)portant
@or Tco)pellin'TA secular ob4ectie an$ that it is the least restrictie )eans of achiein' that ob4ectie! &f the plaintiff )eets
this bur$en an$ the 'oern)ent $oes not, the plaintiff is entitle$ to e5e)ption fro) the la( or practice at issue! &n or$er to
be protecte$, the clai)antTs beliefs )ust be TsincereT, but they nee$ not necessarily be consistent, coherent, clearly
articulate$, or con'ruent (ith those of the clai)antTs reli'ious $eno)ination! T?nly beliefs roote$ in reli'ion are protecte$
by the Free E5ercise ClauseT" secular beliefs, ho(eer sincere an$ conscientious, $o not suffice!
2<6
&n other (or$s, a three*step process @also referre$ to as the St(o*step balancin' processS supra (hen the secon$ an$
thir$ steps are co)bine$A as in 2herbert is follo(e$ in (ei'hin' the stateTs interest an$ reli'ious free$o) (hen these
colli$e! #hree ,uestions are ans(ere$ in this process! First, S@hAas the statute or 'oern)ent action create$ a bur$en on
the free e5ercise of reli'ionKS #he courts often loo0 into the sincerity of the reli'ious belief, but (ithout in,uirin' into the
truth of the belief because the Free E5ercise Clause prohibits in,uirin' about its truth as hel$ in Ballar$ an$ Cant(ell!
#he sincerity of the clai)antTs belief is ascertaine$ to aoi$ the )ere clai) of reli'ious beliefs to escape a )an$atory
re'ulation! As ei$ence of sincerity, the >!2! 2upre)e Court has consi$ere$ historical ei$ence as in /isconsin (here
the A)ish people ha$ hel$ a lon'*stan$in' ob4ection to enrollin' their chil$ren in ninth an$ tenth 'ra$es in public hi'h
schools! &n another case, Do(A+% 0. D+!&"+-& o1 Co8/7(+,
2<C
the Court $enie$ the clai) of a party (ho refuse$ to appear
in court on 2atur$ay alle'in' he (as a 2abbatarian, but the Court note$ that he re'ularly con$ucte$ business on
2atur$ay! Althou'h it is true that the Court )i'ht erroneously $eny so)e clai)s because of a )is4u$')ent of sincerity,
this is not as ar'u)ent to re4ect all clai)s by not allo(in' acco))o$ation as a rule! #here )i'ht be in4ury to the
particular clai)ant or to his reli'ious co))unity, but for the )ost part, the in4ustice is $one only in the particular case!
2<;
Asi$e fro) the sincerity, the court )ay loo0 into the centrality of those beliefs, assessin' the) not on an ob4ectie basis
but in ter)s of the opinion an$ belief of the person see0in' e5e)ption! &n /isconsin, for e5a)ple, the Court note$ that
the A)ish peopleTs conictions a'ainst beco)in' inole$ in public hi'h schools (ere central to their (ay of life an$ faith!
2i)ilarly, in 2herbert, the Court conclu$e$ that the prohibition a'ainst 2atur$ay (or0 (as a Scar$inal principle!S
2<7
Professor %upu puts to tas0 the person clai)in' e5e)ption, )i;7
?n the clai)antTs si$e, the )eanin' an$ si'nificance of the releant reli'ious practice )ust be $e)onstrate$! Reli'ious
co))an$ shoul$ out(ei'h custo), in$ii$ual conscience shoul$ count for )ore than personal conenience, an$
theolo'ical principle shoul$ be of 'reater si'nificance than institutional ease! 2incerity )atters, @footnote o)itte$A an$
lon'eity of practice * both by the in$ii$ual an$ (ithin the in$ii$ualTs reli'ious tra$ition * reinforces sincerity! Most
i)portantly, the la( of free e5ercise )ust be inclusie an$ e5pansie, reco'ni+in' non*Christian reli'ions * eastern,
/estern, abori'inal an$ other(ise * as constitutionally e,ual to their Christian counterparts, an$ acceptin' of the intensity
an$ scope of fun$a)entalist cree$!
2<<
2econ$, the court as0s7 S@iAs there a sufficiently co)pellin' state interest to 4ustify this infrin'e)ent of reli'ious libertyKS &n
this step, the 'oern)ent has to establish that its purposes are le'iti)ate for the state an$ that they are co)pellin'!
3oern)ent )ust $o )ore than assert the ob4ecties at ris0 if e5e)ption is 'ien" it )ust precisely sho( ho( an$ to
(hat e5tent those ob4ecties (ill be un$er)ine$ if e5e)ptions are 'rante$!
2<9
#he person clai)in' reli'ious free$o), on
the other han$, (ill en$eaor to sho( that the interest is not le'iti)ate or that the purpose, althou'h le'iti)ate, is not
co)pellin' co)pare$ to infrin'e)ent of reli'ious liberty! #his step inoles balancin', i!e!, (ei'hin' the interest of the
state a'ainst reli'ious liberty to $eter)ine (hich is )ore co)pellin' un$er the particular set of facts! #he 'reater the
stateTs interests, the )ore central the reli'ious belief (oul$ hae to be to oerco)e it! &n assessin' the state interest, the
court (ill hae to $eter)ine the i)portance of the secular interest an$ the e5tent to (hich that interest (ill be i)paire$ by
an e5e)ption for the reli'ious practice! 2houl$ the court fin$ the interest truly co)pellin', there (ill be no re,uire)ent
that the state $i)inish the effectieness of its re'ulation by 'rantin' the e5e)ption!
29B
#hir$, the court as0s7 S@hAas the state in achiein' its le'iti)ate purposes use$ the least intrusie )eans possible so that
the free e5ercise is not infrin'e$ any )ore than necessary to achiee the le'iti)ate 'oal of the stateKS
291
#he analysis
re,uires the state to sho( that the )eans in (hich it is achiein' its le'iti)ate state ob4ectie is the least intrusie )eans,
i!e!, it has chosen a (ay to achiee its le'iti)ate state en$ that i)poses as little as possible on reli'ious liberties! &n
Cant(ell, for e5a)ple, the Court inali$ate$ the license re,uire)ent for the $oor*to*$oor solicitation as it (as a forbi$$en
bur$en on reli'ious liberty, notin' that less $rastic )eans of insurin' peace an$ tran,uility e5iste$! As a (hole, in carryin'
out the co)pellin' state interest test, the Court shoul$ 'ie careful attention to conte5t, both reli'ious an$ re'ulatory, to
achiee refine$ 4u$')ent!
292
103
&n su), as sho(n by >!2! 4urispru$ence on reli'ion clause cases, the co)petin' alues of secular 'oern)ent an$
reli'ious free$o) create tensions that )a0e constitutional la( on the sub4ect of reli'ious liberty unsettle$, )irrorin' the
eolin' ie(s of a $yna)ic society!
29D
VII. R#8+2+o% C8/!#! +% &,# P,+8+$$+%#!
A. H+!&o")
Before our country fell un$er A)erican rule, the blan0et of Catholicis) coere$ the archipela'o! #here (as a union of
church an$ state an$ Catholicis) (as the state reli'ion un$er the 2panish Constitution of 1<7;! Ciil authorities
e5ercise$ reli'ious functions an$ the friars e5ercise$ ciil po(ers!
296
Catholics alone en4oye$ the ri'ht of en'a'in' in
public cere)onies of (orship!
29C
Althou'h the 2panish Constitution itself (as not e5ten$e$ to the Philippines, Catholicis)
(as also the establishe$ church in our country un$er the 2panish rule! Catholicis) (as in fact protecte$ by the 2panish
Penal Co$e of 1<<6 (hich (as in effect in the Philippines! 2o)e of the offenses in chapter si5 of the Penal Co$e entitle$
SCri)es a'ainst Reli'ion an$ /orshipS referre$ to cri)es a'ainst the state reli'ion!
29;
#he co)in' of the A)ericans to our
country, ho(eer, chan'e$ this state*church sche)e for (ith the a$ent of this re'i)e, the uni,ue A)erican e5peri)ent
of Sseparation of church an$ stateS (as transporte$ to Philippine soil!
Een as early as the conclusion of the #reaty of Paris bet(een the >nite$ 2tates an$ 2pain on .ece)ber 1B, 1<9<, the
A)erican 'uarantee of reli'ious free$o) ha$ been e5ten$e$ to the Philippines! #he #reaty proi$e$ that Sthe inhabitants
of the territories oer (hich 2pain relin,uishes or ce$es her soerei'nty shall be secure$ in the free e5ercise of
reli'ion!S
297
Een the Filipinos the)seles 'uarantee$ reli'ious free$o) a )onth later or on -anuary 22, 1<99 upon the
a$option of the Malolos Constitution of the Philippine Republic un$er 3eneral E)ilio A'uinal$o! &t proi$e$ that Sthe 2tate
reco'ni+es the liberty an$ e,uality of all reli'ion @$e to$os los cultosA in the sa)e )anner as the separation of the Church
an$ 2tate!S But the Malolos Constitution an$ 'oern)ent (as short*lie$ as the A)ericans too0 oer the rei'ns of
'oern)ent!
29<
/ith the Philippines un$er the A)erican re'i)e, Presi$ent McLinley issue$ &nstructions to the 2econ$ Philippine
Co))ission, the bo$y create$ to ta0e oer the ciil 'oern)ent in the Philippines in 19BB! #he &nstructions 'uarantee$
reli'ious free$o), )i;7
#hat no la( shall be )a$e respectin' the establish)ent of reli'ion or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof, an$ that the
free e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession an$ (orship (ithout $iscri)ination or preference shall foreer be
allo(e$ !!! that no for) of reli'ion an$ no )inister of reli'ion shall be force$ upon the co))unity or upon any citi+en of
the &slan$s, that, on the other han$, no )inister of reli'ion shall be interfere$ (ith or )oleste$ in follo(in' his callin'!
299
#his proision (as base$ on the First A)en$)ent of the >nite$ 2tates Constitution! %i0e(ise, the &nstructions $eclare$
that S@tAhe separation bet(een 2tate an$ Church shall be real, entire an$ absolute!S
DBB
#hereafter, eery or'anic act of the Philippines containe$ a proision on free$o) of reli'ion! 2i)ilar to the reli'ious
free$o) clause in the &nstructions, the Philippine Bill of 19B2 proi$e$ that7
No la( shall be )a$e respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof, an$ that free
e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious (orship, (ithout $iscri)ination or preference, shall foreer be allo(e$!
&n U.S. 0. B8-o"&,
DB1
the Court state$ that the Philippine Bill of 19B2 Scause$ the co)plete separation of church an$
state, an$ the abolition of all special priile'es an$ all restrictions theretofor conferre$ or i)pose$ upon any particular
reli'ious sect!S
DB2
#he -ones %a( of 191; carrie$ the sa)e proision, but e5pan$e$ it (ith a restriction a'ainst usin' public )oney or
property for reli'ious purposes, )i;7
#hat no la( shall be )a$e respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof, an$ that the
free e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession an$ (orship (ithout $iscri)ination or preference, shall foreer be
allo(e$" an$ no reli'ious test shall be re,uire$ for the e5ercise of ciil or political ri'hts! No public )oney or property
shall eer be appropriate$, applie$, $onate$, or use$, $irectly or in$irectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, $eno)ination, sectarian institution, or syste) of reli'ion, or for the use, benefit or support of any priest, preacher,
)inister, or other reli'ious teachers or $i'nitary as such!
#his (as follo(e$ by the Philippine &n$epen$ence %a( or #y$in's*Mc.uffie %a( of 19D6 (hich 'uarantee$
in$epen$ence to the Philippines an$ authori+e$ the $raftin' of a Philippine constitution! &t en4oine$ Filipinos to inclu$e
free$o) of reli'ion in $raftin' their constitution preparatory to the 'rant of in$epen$ence! #he la( prescribe$ that
S@aAbsolute toleration of reli'ious senti)ent shall be secure$ an$ no inhabitant or reli'ious or'ani+ation shall be )oleste$
in person or property on account of reli'ious belief or )o$e of (orship!S
DBD
#he Constitutional Conention then be'an (or0in' on the 19DC Constitution! &n their procee$in's, .ele'ate -ose P!
%aurel as Chair)an of the Co))ittee on Bill of Ri'hts ac0no(le$'e$ that S@iAt (as the #reaty of Paris of .ece)ber 1B,
1<9<, (hich first intro$uce$ reli'ious toleration in our country! Presi$ent McLinleyTs &nstructions to the 2econ$ Philippine
Co))ission reasserte$ this ri'ht (hich later (as incorporate$ into the Philippine Bill of 19B2 an$ in the -ones %a(!S
DB6
&n
accor$ance (ith the #y$in's*Mc.uffie %a(, the 19DC Constitution proi$e$ in the Bill of Ri'hts, Article &=, 2ection 7, i+7
2ec! 7! No la( shall be )a$e respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion, or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof, an$ the free
e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession an$ (orship, (ithout $iscri)ination or preference, shall foreer be
allo(e$! No reli'ious test shall be re,uire$ for the e5ercise of ciil or political ri'hts!
104
#his proision, borro(e$ fro) the -ones %a(, (as rea$ily approe$ by the Conention!
DBC
&n his speech as Chair)an of
the Co))ittee on Bill of Ri'hts, .ele'ate %aurel sai$ that )o$ifications in phraseolo'y of the Bill of Ri'hts in the -ones
%a( (ere aoi$e$ (heneer possible because Sthe principles )ust re)ain couche$ in a lan'ua'e e5pressie of their
historical bac0'roun$, nature, e5tent an$ li)itations as construe$ an$ interprete$ by the 'reat states)en an$ 4urists that
itali+e$ the)!S
DB;
#he 197D Constitution (hich superse$e$ the 19DC Constitution containe$ an al)ost i$entical proision on reli'ious
free$o) in the Bill of Ri'hts in Article &=, 2ection <, i+7
2ec! <! No la( shall be )a$e respectin' an establish)ent of reli'ion, or prohibitin' the free e5ercise thereof! #he free
e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession an$ (orship, (ithout $iscri)ination or preference, shall foreer be
allo(e$! No reli'ious test shall be re,uire$ for the e5ercise of ciil or political ri'hts!
#his ti)e, ho(eer, the 3eneral Proisions in Article I= a$$e$ in 2ection 1C that S@tAhe separation of church an$ state
shall be iniolable!S
/ithout $iscussion by the 19<; Constitutional Co))ission, the 197D reli'ious clauses (ere repro$uce$ in the 19<7
Constitution un$er the Bill of Ri'hts in Article &&&, 2ection C!
DB7
%i0e(ise, the proision on separation of church an$ state
(as inclu$e$ erbati) in the 19<7 Constitution, but this ti)e as a principle in 2ection ;, Article && entitle$ .eclaration of
Principles an$ 2tate Policies!
Consi$erin' the A)erican ori'in of the Philippine reli'ion clauses an$ the intent to a$opt the historical bac0'roun$,
nature, e5tent an$ li)itations of the First A)en$)ent of the >!2! Constitution (hen it (as inclu$e$ in the 19DC Bill of
Ri'hts, it is not surprisin' that nearly all the )a4or Philippine cases inolin' the reli'ion clauses turn to >!2!
4urispru$ence in e5plainin' the nature, e5tent an$ li)itations of these clauses! 1o(eer, a close scrutiny of these cases
(oul$ also reeal that (hile >!2! 4urispru$ence on reli'ion clauses flo(s into t(o )ain strea)s of interpretation *
separation an$ beneolent neutrality * the (ell*sprin' of Philippine 4urispru$ence on this sub4ect is for the )ost part,
beneolent neutrality (hich 'ies roo) for acco))o$ation!
B. J/"+!$"/'#%-#
&n reisitin' the lan$scape of Philippine 4urispru$ence on the reli'ion clauses, (e be'in (ith the $efinition of Sreli'ionS!
SReli'ionS is $erie$ fro) the Mi$$le En'lish reli'ioun, fro) ?l$ French reli'ion, fro) %atin reli'io, a'uely referrin' to a
Sbon$ bet(een )an an$ the 'o$s!S
DB<
#his pre*Christian ter) for the cult an$ rituals of pa'an Ro)e (as first
Christiani+e$ in the %atin translation of the Bible!
DB9
/hile the >!2! 2upre)e Court has ha$ to ta0e up the challen'e of
$efinin' the para)eters an$ contours of Sreli'ionS to $eter)ine (hether a non*theistic belief or act is coere$ by the
reli'ion clauses, this Court has not been confronte$ (ith the sa)e issue! &n Philippine 4urispru$ence, reli'ion, for
purposes of the reli'ion clauses, has thus far been interprete$ as theistic! &n 19D7, the P,+8+$$+%# -!# o1 A28+$) 0.
R/+L
D1B
inolin' the Establish)ent Clause, $efine$ Sreli'ionS as a Sprofession of faith to an actie po(er that bin$s an$
eleates )an to his Creator!S #(enty years later, the Court cite$ the A'lipay $efinition in A7#"+-% B+(8# So-+#&) 0. C+&)
o1 M%+8,
D11
a case inolin' the Free E5ercise clause! #he latter also cite$ the A)erican case of .ais in $efinin'
reli'ion, )i;7 S@iAt has reference to oneTs ie(s of his relations to 1is Creator an$ to the obli'ations they i)pose of
reerence to 1is bein' an$ character an$ obe$ience to 1is /ill!S #he Beason $efinition, ho(eer, has been e5pan$e$ in
>!2! 4urispru$ence to inclu$e non*theistic beliefs!
1. F"## E.#"-+!# C8/!#
Free$o) of choice 'uarantees the liberty of the reli'ious conscience an$ prohibits any $e'ree of co)pulsion or bur$en,
(hether $irect or in$irect, in the practice of oneTs reli'ion! #he Free E5ercise Clause principally 'uarantees oluntaris),
althou'h the Establish)ent Clause also assures oluntaris) by placin' the bur$en of the a$ance)ent of reli'ious
'roups on their intrinsic )erits an$ not on the support of the state!
D12
&n interpretin' the Free E5ercise Clause, the real) of belief poses no $ifficulty! #he early case of G#"o% 0. S#-"#&") o1
E'/-&+o%
D1D
is instructie on the )atter, i+7
#he real) of belief an$ cree$ is infinite an$ li)itless boun$e$ only by oneTs i)a'ination an$ thou'ht! 2o is the free$o) of
belief, inclu$in' reli'ious belief, li)itless an$ (ithout boun$s! ?ne )ay beliee in )ost anythin', ho(eer stran'e,
bi+arre an$ unreasonable the sa)e )ay appear to others, een heretical (hen (ei'he$ in the scales of ortho$o5y or
$octrinal stan$ar$s! But bet(een the free$o) of belief an$ the e5ercise of sai$ belief, there is ,uite a stretch of roa$ to
trael!
D16
#he $ifficulty in interpretation sets in (hen belief is e5ternali+e$ into speech an$ action!
Reli'ious speech co)es (ithin the pale of the Free E5ercise Clause as illustrate$ in the A)erican Bible 2ociety case! &n
that case, plaintiff A)erican Bible 2ociety (as a forei'n, non*stoc0, non*profit, reli'ious )issionary corporation (hich
sol$ bibles an$ 'ospel portions of the bible in the course of its )inistry! #he $efen$ant City of Manila re,uire$ plaintiff to
secure a )ayorTs per)it an$ a )unicipal license as or$inarily re,uire$ of those en'a'e$ in the business of 'eneral
)erchan$ise un$er the cityTs or$inances! Plaintiff ar'ue$ that this a)ounte$ to Sreli'ious censorship an$ restraine$ the
free e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession, to (it7 the $istribution an$ sale of bibles an$ other reli'ious literature
to the people of the Philippines!S
After $efinin' reli'ion, the Court, citin' #ana$a an$ Fernan$o, )a$e this state)ent, )i;7
#he constitutional 'uaranty of the free e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession an$ (orship carries (ith it the ri'ht
105
to $isse)inate reli'ious infor)ation! Any restraint of such ri'ht can only be 4ustifie$ li0e other restraints of free$o) of
e5pression on the 'roun$s that there is a clear an$ present $an'er of any substantie eil (hich the 2tate has the ri'ht to
preent! @#ana$a an$ Fernan$o on the Constitution of the Philippines, ol! 1, 6th e$!, p! 297A @e)phasis supplie$A
#his (as the CourtTs )ai$en une,uiocal affir)ation of the Sclear an$ present $an'erS rule in the reli'ious free$o) area,
an$ in Philippine 4urispru$ence, for that )atter!
D1C
#he case $i$ not clearly sho(, ho(eer, (hether the Court procee$e$
to apply the test to the facts an$ issues of the case, i!e!, it $i$ not i$entify the secular alue the 'oern)ent re'ulation
sou'ht to protect, (hether the reli'ious speech pose$ a clear an$ present $an'er to this or other secular alue protecte$
by 'oern)ent, or (hether there (as $an'er but it coul$ not be characteri+e$ as clear an$ present! &t is one thin' to
apply the test an$ fin$ that there is no clear an$ present $an'er, an$ ,uite another not to apply the test alto'ether!
&nstea$, the Court cate'orically hel$ that the ,uestione$ or$inances (ere not applicable to plaintiff as it (as not en'a'e$
in the business or occupation of sellin' sai$ S)erchan$iseS for profit! #o a$$, the Court, citin' M/"'o-A 0.
P#%%!)80%+,
D1;
rule$ that applyin' the or$inance re,uirin' it to secure a license an$ pay a license fee or ta5 (oul$
i)pair its free e5ercise of reli'ious profession an$ (orship an$ its ri'ht of $isse)ination of reli'ious beliefs Sas the po(er
to ta5 the e5ercise of a priile'e is the po(er to control or suppress its en4oy)ent!S #hus, in A)erican Bible 2ociety, the
Sclear an$ present $an'erS rule (as lai$ $o(n but it (as not clearly applie$!
&n the )uch later case of To8#%&+%o 0. S#-"#&") o1 F+%%-#,
D17
also inolin' the sale of reli'ious boo0s, the Court
$istin'uishe$ the A)erican Bible 2ociety case fro) the facts an$ issues in #olentino an$ $i$ not apply the A)erican Bible
2ociety rulin'! &n #olentino, the Philippine Bible 2ociety challen'e$ the ali$ity of the re'istration proisions of the =alue
A$$e$ #a5 @=A#A %a( as a prior restraint! #he Court hel$, ho(eer, that the fi5e$ a)ount of re'istration fee (as not
i)pose$ for the e5ercise of a priile'e li0e a license ta5 (hich A)erican Bible 2ociety rule$ (as iolatie of reli'ious
free$o)! Rather, the re'istration fee (as )erely an a$)inistratie fee to $efray part of the cost of re'istration (hich (as
a central feature of the =A# syste)! Citin' J+77) S;22"& M+%+!&"+#! 0. Bo"' o1 E:/8+L&+o%,
D1<
the Court also
$eclare$ prefatorily that Sthe Free E5ercise of Reli'ion Clause $oes not prohibit i)posin' a 'enerally applicable sales
an$ use ta5 on the sale of reli'ious )aterials by a reli'ious or'ani+ation!S &n the CourtTs resolution of the )otion for
reconsi$eration of the #olentino $ecision, the Court note$ that the bur$en on reli'ious free$o) cause$ by the ta5 (as 4ust
si)ilar to any other econo)ic i)position that )i'ht )a0e the ri'ht to $isse)inate reli'ious $octrines costly!
#(o years after A)erican Bible 2ociety ca)e the 19C9 case of G#"o% 0. S#-"#&") o1 E'/-&+o%,
D19
this ti)e inolin'
con$uct e5pressie of reli'ious belief colli$in' (ith a rule prescribe$ in accor$ance (ith la(! &n this case, petitioners (ere
)e)bers of the -ehoahTs /itnesses! #hey challen'e$ a .epart)ent ?r$er issue$ by the 2ecretary of E$ucation
i)ple)entin' Republic Act No! 12;C (hich prescribe$ co)pulsory fla' cere)onies in all public schools! &n iolation of the
?r$er, petitionerTs chil$ren refuse$ to salute the Philippine fla', sin' the national anthe), or recite the patriotic ple$'e,
hence they (ere e5pelle$ fro) school! 2ee0in' protection un$er the Free E5ercise Clause, petitioners clai)e$ that their
refusal (as on account of their reli'ious belief that the Philippine fla' is an i)a'e an$ salutin' the sa)e is contrary to
their reli'ious belief! #he Court state$, )i;7
! ! ! &f the e5ercise of reli'ious belief clashes (ith the establishe$ institutions of society an$ (ith the la(, then the for)er
)ust yiel$ to the latter! #he 3oern)ent steps in an$ either restrains sai$ e5ercise or een prosecutes the one e5ercisin'
it! @e)phasis supplie$A
D2B
#he Court then procee$e$ to $eter)ine if the acts inole$ constitute$ a reli'ious cere)ony in conflict (ith the beliefs of
the petitioners (ith the follo(in' 4ustification7
After all, the $eter)ination of (hether a certain ritual is or is not a reli'ious cere)ony )ust rest (ith the courts! &t cannot
be left to a reli'ious 'roup or sect, )uch less to a follo(er of sai$ 'roup or sect" other(ise, there (oul$ be confusion an$
)isun$erstan$in' for there )i'ht be as )any interpretations an$ )eanin' to be 'ien to a certain ritual or cere)ony as
there are reli'ious 'roups or sects or follo(ers, all $epen$in' upon the )eanin' (hich they, thou'h in all sincerity an$
'oo$ faith, )ay (ant to 'ie to such ritual or cere)ony!
D21
&t (as hel$ that the fla' (as not an i)a'e, the fla' salute (as not a reli'ious cere)ony, an$ there (as nothin'
ob4ectionable about the sin'in' of the national anthe) as it spea0s only of loe of country, patriotis), liberty an$ the 'lory
of sufferin' an$ $yin' for it! #he Court uphel$ the ,uestione$ ?r$er an$ the e5pulsion of petitionerTs chil$ren, stressin'
that7
Men )ay $iffer an$ $o $iffer on reli'ious beliefs an$ cree$s, 'oern)ent policies, the (is$o) an$ le'ality of la(s, een
the correctness of 4u$icial $ecisions an$ $ecrees" but in the fiel$ of loe of country, reerence for the fla', national unity
an$ patriotis), they can har$ly affor$ to $iffer, for these are )atters in (hich they are )utually an$ itally intereste$, for
to the), they )ean national e5istence an$ surial as a nation or national e5tinction!
D22
&n support of its rulin', the Court cite$ -ustice Fran0furterTs $issent in the Barnette case, i+7
#he constitutional protection of reli'ious free$o) 5 5 5 'ae reli'ious e,uality, not ciil i))unity! &ts essence is free$o)
fro) confor)ity to reli'ious $o')a, not free$o) fro) confor)ity to la( because of reli'ious $o')a!
D2D
&t state$ in cate'orical ter)s, i+7
#he free$o) of reli'ious belief 'uarantee$ by the Constitution $oes not an$ cannot )ean e5e)ption fro) or non*
co)pliance (ith reasonable an$ non*$iscri)inatory la(s, rules an$ re'ulations pro)ul'ate$ by co)petent authority!
D26
#hus, the reli'ious free$o) $octrines one can $erie fro) 3erona are7 @1A it is incu)bent upon the Court to $eter)ine
(hether a certain ritual is reli'ious or not" @2A reli'ious free$o) (ill not be uphel$ if it clashes (ith the establishe$
106
institutions of society an$ (ith the la( such that (hen a la( of 'eneral applicability @in this case the .epart)ent ?r$erA
inci$entally bur$ens the e5ercise of oneTs reli'ion, oneTs ri'ht to reli'ious free$o) cannot 4ustify e5e)ption fro)
co)pliance (ith the la(! #he 3erona rulin' (as reiterate$ in B8(/%, #& 8. 0. S#-"#&") o1 E'/-&+o%, #& 8.
D2C
Fifteen years after 3erona ca)e the 1976 case of =ictoriano ! Eli+al$e Rope /or0ers >nion!9D2;: &n this unani)ously
$eci$e$ en banc case, =ictoriano (as a )e)ber of the &'lesia ni Cristo (hich prohibits the affiliation of its )e)bers (ith
any labor or'ani+ation! 1e (or0e$ in the Eli+al$e Rope Factory, &nc! an$ (as a )e)ber of the Eli+al$e Rope /or0ers
>nion (hich ha$ (ith the co)pany a close$ shop proision pursuant to Republic Act No! <7C allo(in' close$ shop
arran'e)ents! 2ubse,uently, Republic Act No! DDCB (as enacte$ e5e)ptin' fro) the application an$ coera'e of a
close$ shop a'ree)ent e)ployees belon'in' to any reli'ious sect (hich prohibits affiliation of their )e)bers (ith any
labor or'ani+ation! =ictoriano resi'ne$ fro) the union after Republic Act No! DDCB too0 effect! #he union notifie$ the
co)pany of =ictorianoTs resi'nation, (hich in turn notifie$ =ictoriano that unless he coul$ )a0e a satisfactory
arran'e)ent (ith the union, the co)pany (oul$ be constraine$ to $is)iss hi) fro) the serice! =ictoriano sou'ht to
en4oin the co)pany an$ the union fro) $is)issin' hi)! #he court hain' 'rante$ the in4unction, the union ca)e to this
Court on ,uestions of la(, a)on' (hich (as (hether Republic Act No! DDCB (as unconstitutional for i)pairin' the
obli'ation of contracts an$ for 'rantin' an e5e)ption offensie of the Establish)ent Clause! /ith respect to the first
issue, the Court rule$, )i;7
Reli'ious free$o), althou'h not unli)ite$, is a fun$a)ental personal ri'ht an$ liberty @2chnei$er ! &r'in'ton, DB< >!2!
167, 1;1, <6 %!e$!1CC, 1;6, ;B 2!Ct! 16;A an$ has a preferre$ position in the hierarchy of alues! Contractual ri'hts,
therefore, )ust yiel$ to free$o) of reli'ion! &t is only (here unaoi$ably necessary to preent an i))e$iate an$ 'rae
$an'er to the security an$ (elfare of the co))unity that infrin'e)ent of reli'ious free$o) )ay be 4ustifie$, an$ only to
the s)allest e5tent necessary!
D27
@e)phasis supplie$A
As re'ar$s the Establish)ent Clause issue, the Court after citin' the constitutional proision on establish)ent an$ free
e5ercise of reli'ion, $eclare$, )i;7
#he constitutional proisions not only prohibits le'islation for the support of any reli'ious tenets or the )o$es of (orship
of any sect, thus forestallin' co)pulsion by la( of the acceptance of any cree$ or the practice of any for) of (orship
@>!2! Ballar$, D22 >!2! 7<, << %! e$! 116<, 11CDA, but also assures the free e5ercise of oneTs chosen for) of reli'ion
(ithin li)its of ut)ost a)plitu$e! &t has been sai$ that the reli'ion clauses of the Constitution are all $esi'ne$ to protect
the broa$est possible liberty of conscience, to allo( each )an to beliee as his conscience $irects, to profess his beliefs,
an$ to lie as he beliees he ou'ht to lie, consistent (ith the liberty of others an$ (ith the co))on 'oo$! @footnote
o)itte$A! Any le'islation (hose effect or purpose is to i)pe$e the obserance of one or all reli'ions, or to $iscri)inate
ini$iously bet(een the reli'ions, is inali$, een thou'h the bur$en )ay be characteri+e$ as bein' only in$irect!
@2herbert ! =erner, D76 >!2! D9<, 1B %!e$!2$ 9;C, <D 2! Ct! 197BA But if the state re'ulates con$uct by enactin', (ithin
its po(er, a 'eneral la( (hich has for its purpose an$ effect to a$ance the stateTs secular 'oals, the statute is ali$
$espite its in$irect bur$en on reli'ious obserance, unless the state can acco)plish its purpose (ithout i)posin' such
bur$en! @Braunfel$ ! Bro(n, D;; >!2! C99, ; % e$! 2$! C;D, <1 2! Ct! 166" Mc3o(an ! Marylan$, D;; >!2! 62B, 666*C
an$ 669A
D2<
@e)phasis supplie$A
Wuotin' A28+$) 0. R/+L,
D29
the Court hel$ that S'oern)ent is not preclu$e$ fro) pursuin' ali$ ob4ecties secular in
character een if the inci$ental result (oul$ be faorable to a reli'ion or sect!S &t also cite$ Bo"' o1 E'/-&+o% 0.
A88#%,
DDB
(hich hel$ that in or$er to (ithstan$ the strictures of constitutional prohibition, a statute )ust hae a secular
le'islatie purpose an$ a pri)ary effect that neither a$ances nor inhibits reli'ion! >sin' these criteria in uphol$in'
Republic Act No! DDCB, the Court pointe$ out, )i;7
@Republic Act No! DDCBA (as inten$e$ to sere the secular purpose of a$ancin' the constitutional ri'ht to the free
e5ercise of reli'ion, by aertin' that certain persons be refuse$ (or0, or be $is)isse$ fro) (or0, or be $ispossesse$ of
their ri'ht to (or0 an$ of bein' i)pe$e$ to pursue a )o$est )eans of lielihoo$, by reason of union security a'ree)ents!
! ! ! #he pri)ary effects of the e5e)ption fro) close$ shop a'ree)ents in faor of )e)bers of reli'ious sects that prohibit
their )e)bers fro) affiliatin' (ith a labor or'ani+ation, is the protection of sai$ e)ployees a'ainst the a''re'ate force of
the collectie bar'ainin' a'ree)ent, an$ reliein' certain citi+ens of a bur$en on their reli'ious beliefs, an$ ! ! !
eli)inatin' to a certain e5tent econo)ic insecurity $ue to une)ploy)ent!
DD1
#he Court stresse$ that S@aAlthou'h the e5e)ption )ay benefit those (ho are )e)bers of reli'ious sects that prohibit
their )e)bers fro) 4oinin' labor unions, the benefit upon the reli'ious sects is )erely inci$ental an$ in$irect!S
DD2
&n
enactin' Republic Act No! DDCB, Con'ress )erely reliee$ the e5ercise of reli'ion by certain persons of a bur$en
i)pose$ by union security a'ree)ents (hich Con'ress itself also i)pose$ throu'h the &n$ustrial Peace Act! #he Court
conclu$e$ the issue of e5e)ption by citin' 2herbert (hich lai$ $o(n the rule that (hen 'eneral la(s conflict (ith
scruples of conscience, e5e)ptions ou'ht to be 'rante$ unless so)e Sco)pellin' state interestS interenes! #he Court
then abruptly a$$e$ that S@iAn the instant case, /e see no co)pellin' state interest to (ithhol$ e5e)ption!S
DDD
A close loo0 at =ictoriano (oul$ sho( that the Court )entione$ seeral tests in $eter)inin' (hen reli'ious free$o) )ay
be ali$ly li)ite$! First, the Court )entione$ the test of Si))e$iate an$ 'rae $an'er to the security an$ (elfare of the
co))unityS an$ Sinfrin'e)ent of reli'ious free$o) only to the s)allest e5tent necessaryS to 4ustify li)itation of reli'ious
free$o)! 2econ$, reli'ious e5ercise )ay be in$irectly bur$ene$ by a 'eneral la( (hich has for its purpose an$ effect the
a$ance)ent of the stateTs secular 'oals, proi$e$ that there is no other )eans by (hich the state can acco)plish this
purpose (ithout i)posin' such bur$en! #hir$, the Court referre$ to the Sco)pellin' state interestS test (hich 'rants
e5e)ptions (hen 'eneral la(s conflict (ith reli'ious e5ercise, unless a co)pellin' state interest interenes!
&t is (orth notin', ho(eer, that the first t(o tests (ere )entione$ only for the purpose of hi'hli'htin' the i)portance of
the protection of reli'ious free$o) as the secular purpose of Republic Act No! DDCB! >phol$in' reli'ious free$o) (as a
secular purpose insofar as it reliee$ the bur$en on reli'ious free$o) cause$ by another la(, i!e, the &n$ustrial Peace Act
proi$in' for union shop a'ree)ents! #he first t(o tests (ere only )entione$ in =ictoriano but (ere not applie$ by the
Court to the facts an$ issues of the case! #he thir$, the Sco)pellin' state interestS test (as e)ploye$ by the Court to
107
$eter)ine (hether the e5e)ption proi$e$ by Republic Act No! DDCB (as not unconstitutional! &t uphel$ the e5e)ption,
statin' that there (as no Sco)pellin' state interestS to stri0e it $o(n! 1o(eer, after careful consi$eration of the 2herbert
case fro) (hich =ictoriano borro(e$ this test, the ineitable conclusion is that the Sco)pellin' state interestS test (as not
appropriate an$ coul$ not fin$ application in the =ictoriano case! &n 2herbert, appellant 2herbert ino0e$ reli'ious
free$o) in see0in' e5e)ption fro) the proisions of the 2outh Carolina >ne)ploy)ent Co)pensation Act (hich
$is,ualifie$ her fro) clai)in' une)ploy)ent benefits! &t (as the appellees, )e)bers of the 2outh Carolina E)ploy)ent
Co))ission, a 'oern)ent a'ency, (ho propoun$e$ the state interest to 4ustify oerri$in' 2herbertTs clai) of reli'ious
free$o)! #he >!2! 2upre)e Court, consi$erin' 2herbertTs an$ the Co))issionTs ar'u)ents, foun$ that the state interest
(as not sufficiently co)pellin' to preail oer 2herbertTs free e5ercise clai)! #his situation $i$ not obtain in the =ictoriano
case (here it (as the 'oern)ent itself, throu'h Con'ress, (hich proi$e$ the e5e)ption in Republic Act No! DDCB to
allo( =ictorianoTs e5ercise of reli'ion! #hus, the 'oern)ent coul$ not ar'ue a'ainst the e5e)ption on the basis of a
co)pellin' state interest as it (oul$ be ar'uin' a'ainst itself" (hile =ictoriano (oul$ not see0 e5e)ption fro) the
,uestione$ la( to allo( the free e5ercose of reli'ion as the la( in fact proi$es such an e5e)ption! &n su), althou'h
=ictoriano inole$ a reli'ious belief an$ con$uct, it $i$ not inole a free e5ercise issue (here the Free E5ercise Clause
is ino0e$ to e5e)pt hi) fro) the bur$en i)pose$ by a la( on his reli'ious free$o)!
=ictoriano (as reiterate$ in seeral cases inolin' the &'lesia ni Cristo, na)ely B!, #& 8. 0. F#'#"-+o% O("#" '# 8
I%'/!&"+ T(:/#" ) O&"o! T"(<'o"#! '# F+8+$+%!,
DD6
A%/-#%!+o% 0. N&+o%8 L(o" U%+o%, #& 8.,
DDC
an$
Go%L8#!, #& 8. 0. C#%&"8 AL/-"#" '# T"8- L(o" U%+o%!
DD;
#hen ca)e 3er)an ! Baran'an in 19<C at the hei'ht of the anti*a$)inistration rallies! Petitioners (ere (al0in' to 2t!
-u$e Church (ithin the Malacanan' security area to pray for San en$ to iolenceS (hen they (ere barre$ by the police!
&no0in' their constitutional free$o) of reli'ious (orship an$ loco)otion, they ca)e to the Court on a petition for
)an$a)us to allo( the) to enter an$ pray insi$e the 2t! -u$e Chapel! #he Court (as $ii$e$ on the issue! #he sli)
)a4ority of si5 reco'ni+e$ their free$o) of reli'ion but note$ their absence of 'oo$ faith an$ conclu$e$ that they (ere
usin' their reli'ious liberty to e5press their opposition to the 'oern)ent! Citin' Cant(ell, the Court $istin'uishe$
bet(een free$o) to beliee an$ free$o) to act on )atters of reli'ion, )i;7
! ! ! #hus the @FirstA a)en$)ent e)braces t(o concepts * free$o) to beliee an$ free$o) to act! #he first is absolute, but
in the nature of thin's, the secon$ cannot be!
DD7
#he Court reiterate$ the 3erona rulin', )i;7
&n the case at bar, petitioners are not $enie$ or restraine$ of their free$o) of belief or choice of their reli'ion, but only in
the )anner by (hich they ha$ atte)pte$ to translate the sa)e to action! #his curtail)ent is in accor$ (ith the
pronounce)ent of this Court in 3erona ! 2ecretary of E$ucation @1B; Phil! 2A, thus7
! ! ! But bet(een the free$o) of belief an$ the e5ercise of sai$ belief, there is ,uite a stretch of roa$ to trael! &f the
e5ercise of sai$ reli'ious belief clashes (ith the establishe$ institutions of society an$ (ith the la(, then the for)er )ust
yiel$ an$ 'ie (ay to the latter! #he 'oern)ent steps in an$ either restrains sai$ e5ercise or een prosecutes the one
e5ercisin' it! @italics supplie$A
#he )a4ority foun$ that the restriction i)pose$ upon petitioners (as Snecessary to )aintain the s)ooth functionin' of the
e5ecutie branch of the 'oern)ent, (hich petitionersT )ass action (oul$ certainly $isruptS
DD<
an$ $enie$ the petition!
#hus, (ithout consi$erin' the tests )entione$ in =ictoriano, 3er)an (ent bac0 to the 3erona rule that reli'ious free$o)
(ill not be uphel$ if it clashes (ith the establishe$ institutions of society an$ the la(!
#hen Associate -ustice #eehan0ee re'istere$ a $issent (hich in subse,uent 4urispru$ence (oul$ be cite$ as a test in
reli'ious free$o) cases! 1is $issent state$ in releant part, i+7
A brief restate)ent of the applicable constitutional principles as set forth in the lan$)ar0 case of -!B!%! Reyes !
Ba'atsin' @12C 2CRA CCD919<D:A shoul$ 'ui$e us in resolin' the issues!
1! #he ri'ht to freely e5ercise oneTs reli'ion is 'uarantee$ in 2ection < of our Bill of Ri'hts! @footnote o)itte$A Free$o) of
(orship, alon'si$e (ith free$o) of e5pression an$ speech an$ peaceable asse)bly Salon' (ith the other intellectual
free$o)s, are hi'hly ran0e$ in our sche)e of constitutional alues! &t cannot be too stron'ly stresse$ that on the 4u$iciary
* een )ore so than on the other $epart)ents * rests the 'rae an$ $elicate responsibility of assurin' respect for an$
$eference to such preferre$ ri'hts! No erbal for)ula, no sanctifyin' phrase can, of course, $ispense (ith (hat has been
so felicitously ter)e$ by -ustice 1ol)es Tas the soerei'n prero'atie of 4u$')ent!T Nonetheless, the presu)ption )ust
be to incline the (ei'ht of the scales of 4ustice on the si$e of such ri'hts, en4oyin' as they $o prece$ence an$ pri)acy!T
@-!B!%! Reyes, 12C 2CRA at pp! C;9*C7BA
2! &n the free e5ercise of such preferre$ ri'hts, there is to be no prior restraint althou'h there )ay be subse,uent
punish)ent of any ille'al acts co))itte$ $urin' the e5ercise of such basic ri'hts! #he sole 4ustification for a prior restraint
or li)itation on the e5ercise of these basic ri'hts is the e5istence of a 'rae an$ present $an'er of a character both 'rae
an$ i))inent, of a serious eil to public safety, public )orals, public health or any other le'iti)ate public interest, that the
2tate has a ri'ht @an$ $utyA to preent @&$e), at pp! C;B*C;1A!
DD9
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he -!B!%! Reyes ! Ba'atsin' case fro) (hich this portion of -ustice #eehan0eeTs $issent (as ta0en inole$ the ri'hts
to free speech an$ asse)bly, an$ not the e5ercise of reli'ious free$o)! At issue in that case (as a per)it sou'ht by
retire$ -ustice -!B!%! Reyes, on behalf of the Anti*Bases Coalition, fro) the City of Manila to hol$ a peaceful )arch an$
rally fro) the %uneta to the 'ates of the >!2! E)bassy! Neertheless Ba'atsin' (as use$ by -ustice #eehan0ee in his
$issent (hich ha$ oertones of petitioner 3er)an an$ his co)panionsT ri'ht to asse)ble an$ petition the 'oern)ent for
re$ress of 'rieances!
D6B
108
&n 199D, the issue on the -ehoahTs /itnessesT participation in the fla' cere)ony a'ain ca)e before the Court in
E("8+%2 0. T,# D+0+!+o% S/$#"+%&#%'#%& o1 S-,oo8!!
D61
A unani)ous Court oerturne$ the 3erona rulin' after three
$eca$es! 2i)ilar to 3erona, this case inole$ seeral -ehoahTs /itnesses (ho (ere e5pelle$ fro) school for refusin'
to salute the fla', sin' the national anthe) an$ recite the patriotic ple$'e, in iolation of the A$)inistratie Co$e of 19<7!
&n resolin' the sa)e reli'ious free$o) issue as in 3erona, the Court this ti)e transporte$ the S'rae an$ i))inent
$an'erS test lai$ $o(n in -ustice #eehan0eeTs $issent in 3er)an, )i;7
#he sole 4ustification for a prior restraint or li)itation on the e5ercise of reli'ious free$o) @accor$in' to the late Chief
-ustice Clau$io #eehan0ee in his $issentin' opinion in 3er)an ! Baran'an, 1DC 2CRA C16, C17A is the e5istence of a
'rae an$ present $an'er of a character both 'rae an$ i))inent, of a serious eil to public safety, public )orals, public
health or any other le'iti)ate public interest, that the 2tate has a ri'ht @an$ $utyA to preent! Absent such a threat to
public safety, the e5pulsion of the petitioners fro) the schools is not 4ustifie$!
D62
@e)phasis supplie$A
#he Court a$$e$, i+7
/e are not persua$e$ that by e5e)ptin' the -ehoahTs /itnesses fro) salutin' the fla', sin'in' the national anthe) an$
recitin' the patriotic ple$'e, this reli'ious 'roup (hich a$)itte$ly co)prises a Ts)all portion of the school populationT (ill
sha0e up our part of the 'lobe an$ su$$enly pro$uce a nation Tuntau'ht an$ uninculcate$ in an$ uni)bue$ (ith
reerence for the fla', patriotis), loe of country an$ a$)iration for national heroesT @3erona ! 2ecretary of E$ucation,
1B; Phil! 226A! After all, (hat the petitioners see0 only is e5e)ption fro) the fla' cere)ony, not e5clusion fro) the public
schools (here they )ay stu$y the Constitution, the $e)ocratic (ay of life an$ for) of 'oern)ent, an$ learn not only the
arts, sciences, Philippine history an$ culture but also receie trainin' for a ocation or profession an$ be tau'ht the
irtues of Tpatriotis), respect for hu)an ri'hts, appreciation of national heroes, the ri'hts an$ $uties of citi+enship, an$
)oral an$ spiritual aluesT @2ec! D92:, Art! I&=, 19<7 ConstitutionA as part of the curricula! E5pellin' or bannin' the
petitioners fro) Philippine schools (ill brin' about the ery situation that this Court has feare$ in 3erona! Forcin' a s)all
reli'ious 'roup, throu'h the iron han$ of the la(, to participate in a cere)ony that iolates their reli'ious beliefs, (ill
har$ly be con$ucie to loe of country or respect for $uly constitute$ authorities!
D6D
Barnette also foun$ its (ay to the opinion, i+7
Further)ore, let it be note$ that coerce$ unity an$ loyalty een to the country, 5 5 5* assu)in' that such unity an$ loyalty
can be attaine$ throu'h coercion* is not a 'oal that is constitutionally obtainable at the e5pense of reli'ious liberty! A
$esirable en$ cannot be pro)ote$ by prohibite$ )eans! @Meyer s! Nebras0a, 2;2 >!2! D9B, ;7 %! e$! 1B62, 1B6;A!
D66
#o(ar$s the en$ of the $ecision, the Court also cite$ the =ictoriano case an$ its use of the Sco)pellin' state interestS test
in accor$in' e5e)ption to the -ehoahTs /itnesses, )i;7
&n =ictoriano s! Eli+al$e Rope /or0ersT >nion, C9 2CRA C6, 72*7C, (e uphel$ the e5e)ption of )e)bers of the &'lesia
ni Cristo, fro) the coera'e of a close$ shop a'ree)ent bet(een their e)ployer an$ a union because it (oul$ iolate the
teachin' of their church not to 4oin any 'roup7
T5 5 5 &t is certain that not eery conscience can be acco))o$ate$ by all the la(s of the lan$" but (hen 'eneral la(s
conflict (ith scruples of conscience, e5e)ptions ou'ht to be 'rante$ unless so)e Tco)pellin' state interestT interenes!T
@2herbert s! =erner, D76 >!2! D9<, 1B %! E$! 2$ 9;C, 97B, <D 2!Ct! 179BAT
/e hol$ that a si)ilar e5e)ption )ay be accor$e$ to the -ehoahTs /itnesses (ith re'ar$ to the obserance of the fla'
cere)ony out of respect for their reli'ious beliefs, ho(eer Tbi+arreT those beliefs )ay see) to others!
D6C
#he Court annulle$ the or$ers e5pellin' petitioners fro) school!
#hus, the S'rae an$ i))inent $an'erS test lai$ $o(n in a $issentin' opinion in 3er)an (hich inole$ prior restraint of
reli'ious (orship (ith oertones of the ri'ht to free speech an$ asse)bly, (as transporte$ to Ebralina' (hich $i$ not
inole prior restraint of reli'ious (orship, speech or asse)bly! Althou'h, it )i'ht be obsere$ that the Court faintly
i)plie$ that Ebralina' also inole$ the ri'ht to free speech (hen in its preli)inary re)ar0s, the Court state$ that
co)pellin' petitioners to participate in the fla' cere)ony Sis alien to the conscience of the present 'eneration of Filipinos
(ho cut their teeth on the Bill of Ri'hts (hich 'uarantees their ri'hts to free speech an$ the free e5ercise of reli'ious
profession an$ (orship"S the Court then state$ in a footnote that the Sfla' salute, sin'in' the national anthe) an$ recitin'
the patriotic ple$'e are all for)s of utterances!S
D6;
#he Sco)pellin' state interestS test (as not fully applie$ by the Court in Ebralina'! &n the 2olicitor 3eneralTs consoli$ate$
co))ent, one of the 'roun$s cite$ to $efen$ the e5pulsion or$ers issue$ by the public respon$ents (as that S@tAhe
2tateTs co)pellin' interests bein' pursue$ by the .ECTs la(ful re'ulations in ,uestion $o not (arrant e5e)ption of the
school chil$ren of the -ehoahTs /itnesses fro) the fla' salute cere)onies on the basis of their o(n self*perceie$
reli'ious conictions!S
D67
#he Court, ho(eer, referre$ to the test only to(ar$s the en$ of the $ecision an$ $i$ not een
)ention (hat the 2olicitor 3eneral ar'ue$ as the co)pellin' state interest, )uch less $i$ the Court e5plain (hy the
interest (as not sufficiently co)pellin' to oerri$e petitionersT reli'ious free$o)!
#hree years after Ebralina', the Court $eci$e$ the 199; case of I28#!+ %+ C"+!&o 0. Co/"& o1 A$$#8!, #& 8.
D6<
Althou'h
there (as a $issent (ith respect to the applicability of the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test in this case, the )a4ority
opinion in une,uiocal ter)s applie$ the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test to reli'ious speech! #his case inole$ the
teleision pro'ra), SAn' &'lesia ni Cristo,S re'ularly aire$ oer the teleision! >pon petitioner &'lesia ni CristoTs
sub)ission of the =#R tapes of so)e of its episo$es, respon$ent Boar$ of Reie( for Motion Pictures an$ #eleision
classifie$ these as SIS or not for public ie(in' on the 'roun$ that they Soffen$ an$ constitute an attac0 a'ainst other
reli'ions (hich is e5pressly prohibite$ by la(!S &no0in' reli'ious free$o), petitioner alle'e$ that the Boar$ acte$ (ithout
109
4uris$iction or (ith 'rae abuse of $iscretion in re,uirin' it to sub)it the =#R tapes of its teleision pro'ra) an$ 5*ratin'
the)! /hile uphol$in' the Boar$Ts po(er to reie( the &'lesia teleision sho(, the Court (as e)phatic about the
preferre$ status of reli'ious free$o)! Wuotin' -ustice Cru+T co))entary on the constitution, the Court hel$ that free$o)
to beliee is absolute but free$o) to act on oneTs belief, (here it affects the public, is sub4ect to the authority of the state!
#he co))entary ,uote$ -ustice Fran0furterTs $issent in Barnette (hich (as ,uote$ in 3erona, i+7 S@tAhe constitutional
proision on reli'ious free$o) ter)inate$ $isabilities, it $i$ not create ne( priile'es! &t 'ae reli'ious liberty, not ciil
i))unity! &ts essence is free$o) fro) confor)ity to reli'ious $o')a, not free$o) fro) confor)ity to la( because of
reli'ious $o')a!S
D69
Neertheless, the Court (as ,uic0 to a$$ the criteria by (hich the state can re'ulate the e5ercise of
reli'ious free$o), that is, (hen the e5ercise (ill brin' about the Sclear an$ present $an'er of so)e substantie eil (hich
the 2tate is $uty boun$ to preent, i!e!, serious $etri)ent to the )ore oerri$in' interest of public health, public )orals, or
public (elfare!S
DCB
&n annullin' the 5*ratin' of the sho(s, the Court stresse$ that the Constitution is hostile to all prior restraints on speech,
inclu$in' reli'ious speech an$ the 5*ratin' (as a suppression of petitionerTs free$o) of speech as )uch as it (as an
interference (ith its ri'ht to free e5ercise of reli'ion! Citin' Cant(ell, the Court reco'ni+e$ that the $ifferent reli'ions )ay
critici+e one another an$ their tenets )ay colli$e, but the Establish)ent Clause prohibits the state fro) protectin' any
reli'ion fro) this 0in$ of attac0!
#he Court then calle$ to )in$ the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test first lai$ $o(n in the A)erican Bible 2ociety case an$
the test of Si))e$iate an$ 'rae $an'erS (ith Sinfrin'e)ent only to the s)allest e5tent necessary to aoi$ $an'erS in
=ictoriano an$ pointe$ out that the reie(in' boar$ faile$ to apply the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test! Applyin' the test,
the Court note$, i+7
#he recor$s sho( that the $ecision of the respon$ent Boar$, affir)e$ by the respon$ent appellate court, is co)pletely
bereft of fin$in's of facts to 4ustify the conclusion that the sub4ect i$eo tapes constitute i)per)issible attac0s a'ainst
another reli'ion! #here is no sho(in' (hatsoeer of the type of har) the tapes (ill brin' about especially the 'raity an$
i))inence of the threatene$ har)! Prior restraint on speech, inclu$in' reli'ious speech, cannot be 4ustifie$ by
hypothetical fears but only by the sho(in' of a substantie an$ i))inent eil (hich has ta0en the life of a reality alrea$y
on 'roun$!
Replyin' to the challen'e on the applicability of the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test to the case, the Court ac0no(le$'e$
the per)utations that the test has un$er'one, but stresse$ that the test is still applie$ to four types of speech7 Sspeech
that a$ocates $an'erous i$eas, speech that proo0es a hostile au$ience reaction, out of court conte)pt an$ release of
infor)ation that en$an'ers a fair trialS
DC1
an$ rule$, i+7
! ! ! een allo(in' the $rift of A)erican 4urispru$ence, there is reason to apply the clear an$ present $an'er test to the
case at bar (hich concerns speech that attac0s other reli'ions an$ coul$ rea$ily proo0e hostile au$ience reaction! &t
cannot be $oubte$ that reli'ious truths $isturb an$ $isturb terribly!
DC2
&n &'lesia therefore, the Court (ent bac0 to 3erona insofar as hol$in' that reli'ious free$o) cannot be ino0e$ to see0
e5e)ption fro) co)pliance (ith a la( that bur$ens oneTs reli'ious e5ercise! &t also reiterate$ the Sclear an$ present
$an'erS test in A)erican Bible 2ociety an$ the S'rae an$ i))inent $an'erS in =ictoriano, but this ti)e clearly 4ustifyin'
its applicability an$ sho(in' ho( the test (as applie$ to the case!
&n su), the Philippine 2upre)e Court has a$opte$ a posture of not inali$atin' a la( offensie to reli'ious free$o), but
carin' out an e5ception or uphol$in' an e5ception to acco))o$ate reli'ious e5ercise (here it is 4ustifie$!
DCD
2. E!&(8+!,7#%& C8/!#
&n Philippine 4uris$iction, there is substantial a'ree)ent on the alues sou'ht to be protecte$ by the Establish)ent
Clause, na)ely, oluntaris) an$ insulation of the political process fro) interfaith $issension! #he first, oluntaris), has
both a personal an$ a social $i)ension! As a personal alue, it refers to the iniolability of the hu)an conscience (hich,
as $iscusse$ aboe, is also protecte$ by the free e5ercise clause! Fro) the reli'ious perspectie, reli'ion re,uires
oluntaris) because co)pulsory faith lac0s reli'ious efficacy! Co)pelle$ reli'ion is a contra$iction in ter)s!
DC6
As a social
alue, it )eans that the S'ro(th of a reli'ious sect as a social force )ust co)e fro) the oluntary support of its )e)bers
because of the belief that both spiritual an$ secular society (ill benefit if reli'ions are allo(e$ to co)pete on their o(n
intrinsic )erit (ithout benefit of official patrona'e! 2uch oluntaris) cannot be achiee$ unless the political process is
insulate$ fro) reli'ion an$ unless reli'ion is insulate$ fro) politics!S
DCC
Non*establish)ent thus calls for 'oern)ent
neutrality in reli'ious )atters to uphol$ oluntaris) an$ aoi$ bree$in' interfaith $issension!
DC;
#he neutrality principle (as applie$ in the first si'nificant non*establish)ent case un$er the 19DC Constitution! &n the
19D7 case of A28+$) 0. R/+L,
DC7
the Philippine &n$epen$ent Church challen'e$ the issuance an$ sale of posta'e sta)ps
co))e)oratin' the #hirty*#hir$ &nternational Eucharistic Con'ress of the Catholic Church on the 'roun$ that the
constitutional prohibition a'ainst the use of public )oney for reli'ious purposes has been iolate$! &t appears that the
.irector of Posts issue$ the ,uestione$ sta)ps un$er the proisions of Act No! 6BC2
DC<
(hich appropriate$ a su) for the
cost of plates an$ printin' of posta'e sta)ps (ith ne( $esi'ns an$ authori+e$ the .irector of Posts to $ispose of the
su) in a )anner an$ fre,uency Sa$anta'eous to the 3oern)ent!S #he printin' an$ issuance of the posta'e sta)ps in
,uestion appears to hae been approe$ by authority of the Presi$ent! -ustice %aurel, spea0in' for the Court, too0 pains
e5plainin' reli'ious free$o) an$ the role of reli'ion in society, an$ in conclusion, foun$ no constitutional infir)ity in the
issuance an$ sale of the sta)ps, )i;7
#he prohibition herein e5presse$ is a $irect corollary of the principle of separation of church an$ state! /ithout the
necessity of a$ertin' to the historical bac0'roun$ of this principle in our country, it is sufficient to say that our history, not
to spea0 of the history of )an0in$, has tau'ht us that the union of church an$ state is pre4u$icial to both, for occasions
)i'ht arise (hen the state (ill use the church, an$ the church the state, as a (eapon in the furtherance of their
110
respectie en$s an$ ai)s ! ! ! &t is al)ost trite to say no( that in this country (e en4oy both reli'ious an$ ciil free$o)! All
the officers of the 3oern)ent, fro) the hi'hest to the lo(est, in ta0in' their oath to support an$ $efen$ the Constitution,
bin$ the)seles to reco'ni+e an$ respect the constitutional 'uarantee of reli'ious free$o), (ith its inherent li)itations
an$ reco'ni+e$ i)plications! &t shoul$ be state$ that (hat is 'uarantee$ by our Constitution is reli'ious liberty, not )ere
toleration!
Reli'ious free$o), ho(eer, as a constitutional )an$ate is not an inhibition of profoun$ reerence for reli'ion an$ is not
a $enial of its influence in hu)an affairs! Reli'ion as a profession of faith to an actie po(er that bin$s an$ eleates )an
to his Creator is reco'ni+e$! An$, in so far as it instills into the )in$s the purest principles of )orality, its influence is
$eeply felt an$ hi'hly appreciate$! /hen the Filipino people, in the prea)ble of their Constitution, i)plore$ Sthe ai$ of
.iine Proi$ence, in or$er to establish a 'oern)ent that shall e)bo$y their i$eals, consere an$ $eelop the patri)ony
of the nation, pro)ote the 'eneral (elfare, an$ secure to the)seles an$ their posterity the blessin's of in$epen$ence
un$er a re'i)e of 4ustice, liberty an$ $e)ocracy,S they thereby )anifeste$ their intense reli'ious nature an$ place$
unfalterin' reliance upon 1i) (ho 'ui$es the $estinies of )en an$ nations! #he eleatin' influence of reli'ion in hu)an
society is reco'ni+e$ here as else(here! &n fact, certain 'eneral concessions are in$iscri)inately accor$e$ to reli'ious
sects an$ $eno)inations! ! !
DC9
555 555 555
&t is obious that (hile the issuance an$ sale of the sta)ps in ,uestion )ay be sai$ to be inseparably lin0e$ (ith an
eent of a reli'ious character, the resultin' propa'an$a, if any, receie$ by the Ro)an Catholic Church, (as not the ai)
an$ purpose of the 3oern)ent! /e are of the opinion that the 3oern)ent shoul$ not be e)barrasse$ in its actiities
si)ply because of inci$ental results, )ore or less reli'ious in character, if the purpose ha$ in ie( is one (hich coul$
le'iti)ately be un$erta0en by appropriate le'islation! #he )ain purpose shoul$ not be frustrate$ by its subor$ination to
)ere inci$ental results not conte)plate$! @=i$e Bra$fiel$ s! Roberts, 17C >!2! 29C" 2B 2up! Ct! Rep!, 121" 66 %a(! e$!,
1;<A
D;B
@e)phases supplie$A
&n so $eci$in' the case, the Court, citin' >!2! 4urispru$ence, lai$ $o(n the $octrine that a la( or 'oern)ent action (ith
a le'iti)ate secular purpose $oes not offen$ the Establish)ent Clause een if it inci$entally ai$s a particular reli'ion!
Al)ost forty*fie years after A'lipay ca)e G"-#! 0. E!&#%Lo!
D;1
Althou'h the Court foun$ that the separation of church
an$ state (as not at issue as the controersy (as oer (ho shoul$ hae custo$y of a saintTs i)a'e, it neertheless )a$e
pronounce)ents on the separation of church an$ state alon' the sa)e line as the A'lipay rulin'! #he Court hel$ that
there (as nothin' unconstitutional or ille'al in hol$in' a fiesta an$ hain' a patron saint for the barrio! &t a$here$ to the
barrio resolutions of the baran'ay inole$ in the case statin' that the barrio fiesta is a socio*reli'ious affair, the
celebration of (hich is an Sin'raine$ tra$ition in rural co))unitiesS that Sreliees the )onotony an$ $ru$'ery of the lies
of the )asses!S Corollarily, the Court foun$ nothin' ille'al about any actiity inten$e$ to facilitate the (orship of the
patron saint such as the ac,uisition an$ $isplay of his i)a'e bou'ht (ith fun$s obtaine$ throu'h solicitation fro) the
barrio resi$ents! #he Court pointe$ out that the i)a'e of the patron saint (as Spurchase$ in connection (ith the
celebration of the barrio fiesta honorin' the patron saint, 2an =icente Ferrer, an$ not for the purpose of faorin' any
reli'ion nor interferin' (ith reli'ious )atters or the reli'ious beliefs of the barrio resi$ents!S Citin' the A'lipay rulin', the
Court $eclare$, i+7
Not eery 'oern)ental actiity (hich inoles the e5pen$iture of public fun$s an$ (hich has so)e reli'ious tint is
iolatie of the constitutional proisions re'ar$in' separation of church an$ state, free$o) of (orship an$ bannin' the
use of public )oney or property!
#hen ca)e the 197< case of P7+8 0. T#8#"o%, #& 8.
D;2
(hich presente$ a noel issue inolin' the reli'ion clauses! &n
this case, 2ection 217C of the Reise$ A$)inistratie Co$e of 1917 $is,ualifyin' ecclesiastics fro) appoint)ent or
election as )unicipal officer (as challen'e$! After protracte$ $eliberation, the Court (as sharply $ii$e$ on the issue!
2een )e)bers of the Court, one short of the nu)ber necessary to $eclare a la( unconstitutional, approache$ the
proble) fro) a free e5ercise perspectie an$ consi$ere$ the la( a reli'ious test offensie of the constitution! #hey (ere
-ustices Fernan$o, #eehan0ee, MuUo+*Pal)a, Concepcion, -r!, 2antos, Fernan$e+, an$ 3uerrero! #hen Associate
-ustice Fernan$o, the ponente, state$, i+7 S#he challen'e$ A$)inistratie Co$e proision, certainly insofar as it $eclares
ineli'ible ecclesiastics to any electie or appointie office, is, on its face, inconsistent (ith the reli'ious free$o)
'uarantee$ by the Constitution!S Citin' To"-!o 0. W&A+%!,
D;D
the ponencia hel$, i+7
#orcaso ! /at0ins, an A)erican 2upre)e Court $ecision, has persuasie (ei'ht! /hat (as there inole$ (as the
ali$ity of a proision in the Marylan$ Constitution prescribin' that Tno reli'ious test ou'ht eer to be re,uire$ as a
$is,ualification for any office or profit or trust in this 2tate, other than a $eclaration of belief in the e5istence of 3o$ YYY!T
2uch a constitutional re,uire)ent (as assaile$ as contrary to the First A)en$)ent of the >nite$ 2tates Constitution by
an appointee to the office of notary public in Marylan$, (ho (as refuse$ a co))ission as he (oul$ not $eclare a belief in
3o$! 1e faile$ in the Marylan$ Court of Appeals but preaile$ in the >nite$ 2tates 2upre)e Court, (hich reerse$ the
state court $ecision! &t coul$ not hae been other(ise! As e)phatically $eclare$ by -ustice Blac07 Tthis Marylan$ reli'ious
test for public office unconstitutionally ina$es the appellantTs free$o) of belief an$ reli'ion an$ therefore cannot be
enforce$ a'ainst hi)!
#he analo'y appears to be obious! &n that case, it (as lac0 of belief in 3o$ that (as a $is,ualification! 1ere bein' an
ecclesiastic an$ therefore professin' a reli'ious faith suffices to $is,ualify for a public office! #here is thus an
inco)patibility bet(een the A$)inistratie Co$e proision relie$ upon by petitioner an$ an e5press constitutional
)an$ate!
D;6
?n the other han$, the preailin' fie other )e)bers of the Court * Chief -ustice Castro, -ustices Barre$o, Ma0asiar,
Antonio an$ A,uino * approache$ the case fro) a non*establish)ent perspectie an$ uphel$ the la( as a safe'uar$
a'ainst the constant threat of union of church an$ state that has )ar0e$ Philippine history! -ustice Ma0asiar state$7 S#o
111
allo( an ecclesiastic to hea$ the e5ecutie $epart)ent of a )unicipality is to per)it the erosion of the principle of
separation of Church an$ 2tate an$ thus open the floo$'ates for the iolation of the cherishe$ liberty of reli'ion (hich the
constitutional proision see0s to enforce an$ protect!S Conse,uently, the Court uphel$ the ali$ity of 2ection 217C of the
Reise$ A$)inistratie Co$e an$ $eclare$ respon$ent priest ineli'ible for the office of )unicipal )ayor!
Another type of cases interpretin' the establish)ent clause $eals (ith intra)ural reli'ious $isputes! Fo%-+#" 0. Co/"& o1
A$$#8!
D;C
is the lea$in' case! #he issue therein (as the ri'ht of control oer certain properties of the Philippine
&n$epen$ent Church, the resolution of (hich necessitate$ the $eter)ination of (ho (as the le'iti)ate bishop of the
church! #he Court cite$ A)erican -urispru$ence,
D;;
)i;7
/here, ho(eer, a $ecision of an ecclesiastical court plainly iolates the la( it professes to a$)inister, or is in conflict
(ith the la( of the lan$, it (ill not be follo(e$ by the ciil courts! ! ! &n so)e instances, not only hae the ciil courts the
ri'ht to in,uire into the 4uris$iction of the reli'ious tribunals an$ the re'ularity of their proce$ure, but they hae sub4ecte$
their $ecisions to the test of fairness or to the test furnishe$ by the constitution an$ the la( of the church! ! !
D;7
#he Court then rule$ that petitioner Fonacier (as le'iti)ately ouste$ an$ respon$ent $e los Reyes (as the $uly electe$
hea$ of the Church, base$ on their internal la(s! #o finally $ispose of the property issue, the Court, citin' W&!o% 0.
Jo%#!,
D;<
$eclare$ that the rule in property controersies (ithin reli'ious con're'ations strictly in$epen$ent of any other
superior ecclesiastical association @such as the Philippine &n$epen$ent ChurchA is that the rules for resolin' such
controersies shoul$ be those of any oluntary association! &f the con're'ation a$opts the )a4ority rule then the )a4ority
shoul$ preail" if it a$opts a$herence to $uly constitute$ authorities (ithin the con're'ation, then that shoul$ be follo(e$!
Applyin' these rules, Fonacier lost the case! /hile the Court e5ercise$ 4uris$iction oer the case, it neertheless refuse$
to touch $octrinal an$ $isciplinary $ifferences raise$, )i;7
#he a)en$)ents of the constitution, restate)ent of articles of reli'ion an$ aban$on)ent of faith or ab4uration alle'e$ by
appellant, hain' to $o (ith faith, practice, $octrine, for) of (orship, ecclesiastical la(, custo) an$ rule of a church an$
hain' reference to the po(er of e5clu$in' fro) the church those alle'e$ly un(orthy of )e)bership, are un,uestionably
ecclesiastical )atters (hich are outsi$e the proince of the ciil courts!
D;9
VIII. F"## E.#"-+!# C8/!# 0+!-V-0+! E!&(8+!,7#%& C8/!#
&n both Philippine an$ >!2! 4uris$iction, it is reco'ni+e$ that there is a tension bet(een the Free E5ercise Clause an$ the
Establish)ent Clause in their application! #here is a natural anta'onis) bet(een a co))an$ not to establish reli'ion
an$ a co))an$ not to inhibit its practice" this tension bet(een the reli'ion clauses often leaes the courts (ith a choice
bet(een co)petin' alues in reli'ion cases!
D7B
?ne set of facts, for instance, can be $ifferently ie(e$ fro) the Establish)ent Clause perspectie an$ the Free E5ercise
Clause point of ie(, an$ $eci$e$ in opposite $irections! &n Pa)il, the )a4ority 'ae )ore (ei'ht to the reli'ious liberty of
the priest in hol$in' that the prohibition of ecclesiastics to assu)e electie or appointie 'oern)ent positions (as
iolatie of the Free E5ercise Clause! ?n the other han$, the preailin' fie 4ustices 'ae i)portance to the
Establish)ent Clause in statin' that the principle of separation of church an$ state 4ustifie$ the prohibition!
#ension is also apparent (hen a case is $eci$e$ to uphol$ the Free E5ercise Clause an$ conse,uently e5e)ptions fro)
a la( of 'eneral applicability are affor$e$ by the Court to the person clai)in' reli'ious free$o)" the ,uestion arises
(hether the e5e)ption $oes not a)ount to support of the reli'ion in iolation of the Establish)ent Clause! #his (as the
case in the Free E5ercise Clause case of 2herbert (here the >!2! 2upre)e Court rule$, )i;7
&n hol$in' as (e $o, plainly (e are not fosterin' the Sestablish)entS of the 2eenth*$ay A$entist reli'ion in 2outh
Carolina, for the e5tension of une)ploy)ent benefits to 2abbatarians in co))on (ith 2un$ay (orshippers reflects
nothin' )ore than the 'oern)ental obli'ation of neutrality in the face of reli'ious $ifferences, an$ $oes not represent
that inole)ent of reli'ious (ith secular institutions (hich it is the ob4ect of the Establish)ent Clause to forestall!
D71
@e)phasis supplie$A
#ension also e5ists (hen a la( of 'eneral application proi$es e5e)ption in or$er to uphol$ free e5ercise as in the /al+
case (here the appellant ar'ue$ that the e5e)ption 'rante$ to reli'ious or'ani+ations, in effect, re,uire$ hi) to
contribute to reli'ious bo$ies in iolation of the Establish)ent Clause! But the Court hel$ that the e5e)ption (as not a
case of establishin' reli'ion but )erely uphol$in' the Free E5ercise Clause by Ssparin' the e5ercise of reli'ion fro) the
bur$en of property ta5ation leie$ on priate profit institutions!S -ustice Bur'er (rote, )i;7
@tAhe Court has stru''le$ to fin$ a neutral course bet(een the t(o reli'ion clauses, both of (hich are cast in absolute
ter)s, an$ either of (hich, if e5pan$e$ to a lo'ical e5tre)e, (oul$ ten$ to clash (ith the other!
D72
2i)ilarly, the Philippine 2upre)e Court in the =ictoriano case hel$ that the e5e)ption affor$e$ by la( to reli'ious sects
(ho prohibit their )e)bers fro) 4oinin' unions $i$ not offen$ the Establish)ent Clause! /e rule$, )i;7
/e beliee that in enactin' Republic Act No! DDCB, Con'ress acte$ consistently (ith the spirit of the constitutional
proision! &t acte$ )erely to reliee the e5ercise of reli'ion, by certain persons, of a bur$en that is i)pose$ by union
security a'ree)ents!
D7D
@e)phasis supplie$A
Finally, in so)e cases, a practice is obiously iolatie of the Establish)ent Clause but the Court neertheless uphol$s it!
&n 2che)pp, -ustice Brennan state$7 S@tAhere are certain practices, conceiably iolatie of the Establish)ent Clause, the
stri0in' $o(n of (hich )i'ht seriously interfere (ith certain reli'ious liberties also protecte$ by the First A)en$)ent!S
1o( the tension bet(een the Establish)ent Clause an$ the Free E5ercise Clause (ill be resole$ is a ,uestion for
112
$eter)ination in the actual cases that co)e to the Court! &n cases inolin' both the Establish)ent Clause an$ the Free
E5ercise Clause, the t(o clauses shoul$ be balance$ a'ainst each other! #he courts )ust reie( all the releant facts
an$ $eter)ine (hether there is a sufficiently stron' free e5ercise ri'ht that shoul$ preail oer the Establish)ent Clause
proble)! &n the >nite$ 2tates, it has been propose$ that in balancin', the free e5ercise clai) )ust be 'ien an e$'e not
only because of abun$ant historical ei$ence in the colonial an$ early national perio$ of the >nite$ 2tates that the free
e5ercise principle lon' ante$ate$ any broa$*base$ support of $isestablish)ent, but also because an Establish)ent
Clause concern raise$ by )erely acco))o$atin' a citi+enTs free e5ercise of reli'ion see)s far less $an'erous to the
republic than pure establish)ent cases! Each ti)e the courts si$e (ith the Establish)ent Clause in cases inolin'
tension bet(een the t(o reli'ion clauses, the courts coney a )essa'e of hostility to the reli'ion that in that case cannot
be freely e5ercise$!
D76
A)erican professor of constitutional la(, %aurence #ribe, si)ilarly su''ests that the free e5ercise
principle Sshoul$ be $o)inant in any conflict (ith the anti*establish)ent principle!S #his $o)inance (oul$ be the result of
co))it)ent to reli'ious tolerance instea$ of Sth(artin' at all costs een the faintest appearance of establish)ent!S
D7C
&n
our 4uris$iction, Fr! -oa,uin Bernas, 2!-! asserts that a literal interpretation of the reli'ion clauses $oes not suffice!
Mo$ern society is characteri+e$ by the e5pan$in' re'ulatory ar) of 'oern)ent that reaches a ariety of areas of hu)an
con$uct an$ an e5pan$in' concept of reli'ion! #o a$e,uately )eet the $e)an$s of this )o$ern society, the societal
alues the reli'ion clauses are inten$e$ to protect )ust be consi$ere$ in their interpretation an$ resolution of the tension!
#his, in fact, has been the approach follo(e$ by the Philippine Court!
D7;
IH. P,+8+$$+%# R#8+2+o% C8/!#!6 N&/"#, P/"$o!#, T#!&! B!#' o% P,+8+$$+%# %' A7#"+-% R#8+2+o% C8/!#
H+!&o"), L; %' J/"+!$"/'#%-#
#he history of the reli'ion clauses in the 19<7 Constitution sho(s that these clauses (ere lar'ely a$opte$ fro) the First
A)en$)ent of the >!2! Constitution! #he reli'ion clauses in the First A)en$)ent (ere containe$ in eery or'anic Act of
the Philippines un$er the A)erican re'i)e! /hen the $ele'ates of the 19D6 Constitutional Conention a$opte$ a Bill of
Ri'hts in the 19DC Constitution, they purposely retaine$ the phraseolo'y of the reli'ion clauses in the First A)en$)ent
as containe$ in the -ones %a( in or$er to a$opt its historical bac0'roun$, nature, e5tent an$ li)itations! At that ti)e,
there (ere not too )any reli'ion clause cases in the >nite$ 2tates as the >!2! 2upre)e Court $eci$e$ an Establish)ent
Clause issue only in the 1967 Eerson case! #he Free E5ercise Clause cases (ere also scarce then! ?er the years,
ho(eer, (ith the e5pan$in' reach of 'oern)ent re'ulation to a (hole 'a)ut of hu)an actions an$ the 'ro(in' plurality
an$ actiities of reli'ions, the nu)ber of reli'ion clause cases in the >!2! e5ponentially increase$! /ith this increase
ca)e an e5pansion of the interpretation of the reli'ion clauses, at ti)es reinforcin' preailin' case la(, at other ti)es
)o$ifyin' it, an$ still at other ti)es creatin' contra$ictions so that t(o )ain strea)s of 4urispru$ence ha$ beco)e
i$entifiable! #he first strea) e)ploys separation (hile the secon$ e)ploys beneolent neutrality in interpretin' the
reli'ious clauses! Alon'si$e this chan'e in the lan$scape of >!2! reli'ion clause 4urispru$ence, the Philippines continue$
to a$opt the 19DC Constitution reli'ion clauses in the 197D Constitution an$ later, the 19<7 Constitution! Philippine
4urispru$ence an$ co))entaries on the reli'ious clauses also continue$ to borro( authorities fro) >!2! 4urispru$ence
(ithout articulatin' the star0 $istinction bet(een the t(o strea)s of >!2! 4urispru$ence! ?ne )i'ht si)ply conclu$e that
the Philippine Constitutions an$ 4urispru$ence also inherite$ the $isarray of >!2! reli'ion clause 4urispru$ence an$ the
t(o i$entifiable strea)s" thus, (hen a reli'ion clause case co)es before the Court, a separationist approach or a
beneolent neutrality approach )i'ht be a$opte$ an$ each (ill hae >!2! authorities to support it! ?r, one )i'ht conclu$e
that as the history of the First A)en$)ent as narrate$ by the Court in Eerson supports the separationist approach,
Philippine 4urispru$ence shoul$ also follo( this approach in li'ht of the Philippine reli'ion clausesT history! As a result, in a
case (here the party clai)s reli'ious liberty in the face of a 'eneral la( that ina$ertently bur$ens his reli'ious e5ercise,
he faces an al)ost insur)ountable (all in conincin' the Court that the (all of separation (oul$ not be breache$ if the
Court 'rants hi) an e5e)ption! #hese conclusions, ho(eer, are not an$ (ere neer (arrante$ by the 19<7, 197D an$
19DC Constitutions as sho(n by other proisions on reli'ion in all three constitutions! &t is a car$inal rule in constitutional
construction that the constitution )ust be interprete$ as a (hole an$ apparently conflictin' proisions shoul$ be
reconcile$ an$ har)oni+e$ in a )anner that (ill 'ie to all of the) full force an$ effect!
D77
Fro) this construction, it (ill be
ascertaine$ that the intent of the fra)ers (as to a$opt a beneolent neutrality approach in interpretin' the reli'ious
clauses in the Philippine constitutions, an$ the enforce)ent of this intent is the 'oal of construin' the constitution!
D7<
/e first apply the her)eneutical scalpel to $issect the 19DC Constitution! At the sa)e ti)e that the 19DC Constitution
proi$e$ for an Establish)ent Clause, it also proi$e$ for ta5 e5e)ption of church property in Article =&, 2ection 22, par!
D@bA, )i;7
@DA Ce)eteries, churches, an$ parsona'es or conents, appurtenant thereto, an$ all lan$s, buil$in's, an$ i)proe)ents
use$ e5clusiely for reli'ious, charitable, or e$ucational purposes shall be e5e)pt fro) ta5ation!
Before the a$ent of the 19DC Constitution, 2ection D66 of the A$)inistratie Co$e proi$e$ for a si)ilar e5e)ption! #o
the sa)e effect, the #y$in's*Mc.uffie %a( containe$ a li)itation on the ta5in' po(er of the Philippine 'oern)ent $urin'
the Co))on(ealth perio$!
D79
#he ori'inal $raft of the Constitution place$ this proision in an or$inance to be appen$e$
to the Constitution because this (as a)on' the proisions prescribe$ by the #y$in's*Mc.uffie %a(! 1o(eer, in or$er to
hae a constitutional 'uarantee for such an e5e)ption een beyon$ the Co))on(ealth perio$, the proision (as
intro$uce$ in the bo$y of the Constitution on the rationale that Sif churches, conents 9rectories or parsona'es: an$ their
accessories are al(ays necessary for facilitatin' the e5ercise of such 9reli'ious: free$o), it (oul$ also be natural that
their e5istence be also 'uarantee$ by e5e)ptin' the) fro) ta5ation!S
D<B
#he a)en$)ent (as rea$ily approe$ (ith <D
affir)atie otes a'ainst 1C ne'atie otes!
D<1
#he Philippine constitutional proision on ta5 e5e)ption is not foun$ in the >!2! Constitution! &n the >!2! case of /al+,
the Court stru''le$ to 4ustify this 0in$ of e5e)ption to (ithstan$ Establish)ent Clause scrutiny by statin' that church
property (as not sin'le$ out but (as e5e)pt alon' (ith property o(ne$ by non*profit, ,uasi*public corporations because
the state uphel$ the secular policy Sthat consi$ers these 'roups as beneficial an$ stabili+in' influences in co))unity life
an$ fin$s this classification useful, $esirable, an$ in the public interest!S #he Court also state$ that the e5e)ption (as
)eant to reliee the bur$en on free e5ercise i)pose$ by property ta5ation! At the sa)e ti)e, ho(eer, the Court
ac0no(le$'e$ that the e5e)ption (as an e5ercise of beneolent neutrality to acco))o$ate a lon'*stan$in' tra$ition of
e5e)ption! /ith the inclusion of the church property ta5 e5e)ption in the bo$y of the 19DC Constitution an$ not )erely
as an or$inance appen$e$ to the Constitution, the beneolent neutrality referre$ to in the /al+ case (as 'ien
113
constitutional i)pri)atur un$er the re'i)e of the 19DC Constitution! #he proision, as state$ in the $eliberations, (as an
ac0no(le$')ent of the necessity of the e5e)pt institutions to the e5ercise of reli'ious liberty, thereby eincin'
beneolence to(ar$s reli'ious e5ercise!
2i)ilarly, the 19DC Constitution proi$es in Article =&, 2ection 2D@DA, )i;7
@DA No public )oney, or property shall eer be appropriate$, applie$, or use$, $irectly or in$irectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, $eno)ination, sectarian institution or syste) of reli'ion, for the use, benefit or support of any
priest, preacher, )inisters or other reli'ious teacher or $i'nitary as such, e5cept (hen such priest, preacher, )inister, or
$i'nitary is assi'ne$ to the ar)e$ forces or to any penal institution, orphana'e, or leprosariu)! @e)phasis supplie$A
#he ori'inal $raft of this proision (as a repro$uction of a portion of section D of the -ones %a( (hich $i$ not contain the
aboe e5ception, )i;7
No public )oney or property shall eer be appropriate$, applie$, or use$, $irectly or in$irectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church $eno)ination, sectarian institution, or syste) of reli'ion, or for the use, benefit or support of
any priest, preacher, )inister, or $i'nitary as such[
D<2
&n the $eliberations of this $raft proision, an a)en$)ent (as propose$ to stri0e $o(n eerythin' after Schurch
$eno)ination!S
D<D
#he proposal inten$e$ to i)itate the silence of the >!2! Constitution on the sub4ect of support for priests
an$ )inisters! &t (as also an i)itation of the silence of the Malolos Constitution to restore the situation un$er the Malolos
Constitution an$ prior to the -ones %a(, (hen chaplains of the reolutionary ar)y receie$ pay fro) public fun$s (ith no
$oubt about its le'ality! &t (as pointe$ out, ho(eer, that een (ith the prohibition un$er the -ones %a(, appropriations
(ere )a$e to chaplains of the national penitentiary an$ the Au$itor 3eneral uphel$ its ali$ity on the basis of a si)ilar
>nite$ 2tates practice! But it (as also pointe$ out that the >!2! Constitution $i$ not contain a prohibition on
appropriations si)ilar to the -ones %a(!
D<6
#o settle the ,uestion on the constitutionality of pay)ent of salaries of reli'ious
officers in certain 'oern)ent institutions an$ to aoi$ the feare$ situation (here the enu)erate$ 'oern)ent institutions
coul$ not e)ploy reli'ious officials (ith co)pensation, the e5ception in the 19DC proision (as intro$uce$ an$ approe$!
#he proision 'arnere$ 76 affir)atie otes a'ainst D6 ne'atie otes!
D<C
As pointe$ out in the $eliberations, the >!2!
Constitution $oes not proi$e for this e5e)ption! 1o(eer, the >!2! 2upre)e Court in Cru+ ! Beto, apparently ta0in' a
beneolent neutrality approach, i)plicitly approe$ the state of #e5asT pay)ent of prison chaplainsT salaries as
reasonably necessary to per)it in)ates to practice their reli'ion! Also, in the Marsh case, the >!2! 2upre)e Court
uphel$ the lon'*stan$in' tra$ition of be'innin' le'islatie sessions (ith prayers offere$ by le'islatie chaplains retaine$
at ta5payersT e5pense! #he constitutional proision e5e)ptin' reli'ious officers in 'oern)ent institutions affir)s the
$eparture of the Philippine Constitution fro) the >!2! Constitution in its a$option of beneolent neutrality in Philippine
4uris$iction! /hile the proision prohibitin' ai$ to reli'ion protects the (all of separation bet(een church an$ state, the
proision at the sa)e ti)e 'ies constitutional sanction to a breach in the (all!
#o further buttress the thesis that beneolent neutrality is conte)plate$ in the Philippine Establish)ent Clause, the 19DC
Constitution proi$es for optional reli'ious instruction in public schools in Article I&&&, 2ection C, )i;7
! ! ! ?ptional reli'ious instruction shall be )aintaine$ in the public schools as no( authori+e$ by la(! ! !
#he la( then applicable (as 2ection 92< of the A$)inistratie Co$e, )i;7
&t shall be la(ful, ho(eer, for the priest or )inister of any church establishe$ in the to(n (here a public school is
situate$, either in person or by a $esi'nate$ teacher of reli'ion, to teach reli'ion for one*half hour three ti)es a (ee0, in
the school buil$in', to those public*school pupils (hose parents or 'uar$ians $esire it an$ e5press their $esire therefor in
(ritin' file$ (ith the principal of the school ! ! !
.urin' the $ebates of the Constitutional Conention, there (ere three positions on the issue of reli'ious instruction in
public schools! #he first hel$ that the teachin' of reli'ion in public schools shoul$ be prohibite$ as this (as a iolation of
the principle of separation of church an$ state an$ the prohibition a'ainst the use of public fun$s for reli'ious purposes!
#he secon$ faore$ the propose$ optional reli'ious instruction as authori+e$ by the A$)inistratie Co$e an$ reco'ni+e$
that the actual practice of allo(in' reli'ious instruction in the public schools (as sufficient proof that reli'ious instruction
(as not an$ (oul$ not be a source of reli'ious $iscor$ in the schools!
D<;
#he thir$ (ante$ reli'ion to be inclu$e$ as a
course in the curriculu) of the public schools but (oul$ only be ta0en by pupils at the option of their parents or
'uar$ians! After seeral roun$s of $ebate, the secon$ ca)p preaile$, thus raisin' to constitutional stature the optional
teachin' of reli'ion in public schools, $espite the opposition to the proision on the 'roun$ of separation of church an$
state!
D<7
As in the proisions on church property ta5 e5e)ption an$ co)pensation of reli'ious officers in 'oern)ent
institutions, the >!2! Constitution $oes not proi$e for optional reli'ious instruction in public schools! &n fact, in the
McCollu) case, the Court, usin' strict neutrality, prohibite$ this 0in$ of reli'ious instruction (here the reli'ion teachers
(oul$ con$uct class (ithin the school pre)ises! #he constitutional proision on optional reli'ious instruction sho(s that
Philippine 4uris$iction re4ects the strict neutrality approach (hich $oes not allo( such acco))o$ation of reli'ion!
Finally, to )a0e certain the ConstitutionTs beneolence to reli'ion, the Filipino people Si)plore$ @in'A the ai$ of .iine
Proi$ence @,A in or$er to establish a 'oern)ent that shall e)bo$y their i$eals, consere an$ $eelop the patri)ony of
the nation, pro)ote the 'eneral (elfare, an$ secure to the)seles an$ their posterity the blessin's of in$epen$ence
un$er a re'i)e of 4ustice, liberty, an$ $e)ocracy, @inA or$ain@in'A an$ pro)ul'at@in'A this Constitution!S A prea)ble is a
S0ey to open the )in$ of the authors of the constitution as to the eil sou'ht to be preente$ an$ the ob4ects sou'ht to be
acco)plishe$ by the proisions thereof!S
D<<
#here (as no $ebate on the inclusion of a S.iine Proi$enceS in the
prea)ble! &n A'lipay, -ustice %aurel note$ that (hen the Filipino people i)plore$ the ai$ of .iine Proi$ence, S@tAhey
thereby )anifeste$ their intense reli'ious nature an$ place$ unfalterin' reliance upon 1i) (ho 'ui$es the $estinies of
)en an$ nations!S
D<9
#he 19DC ConstitutionTs reli'ion clauses, un$erstoo$ alon'si$e the other proisions on reli'ion in the
Constitution, in$ubitably sho(s not hostility, but beneolence, to reli'ion!
D9B
114
#he 197D Constitution containe$ in Article =&, 2ection 22@DA a proision si)ilar to Article =&, 2ection 22, par! D@bA of the
19DC Constitution on e5e)ption of church property fro) ta5ation, (ith the )o$ification that the property shoul$ not only
be use$ $irectly, but also actually an$ e5clusiely for reli'ious or charitable purposes! Parallel to Article =&, 2ection 2D@DA
of the 19DC Constitution, the 197D Constitution also containe$ a si)ilar proision on salaries of reli'ious officials
e)ploye$ in the enu)erate$ 'oern)ent institutions! Article I&&&, 2ection C of the 19DC Constitution on optional reli'ious
instruction (as also carrie$ to the 197D Constitution in Article I=, 2ection <@<A (ith the )o$ification that optional reli'ious
instruction shall be con$ucte$ Sas )ay be proi$e$ by la(S an$ not Sas no( authori+e$ by la(S as state$ in the 19DC
Constitution! #he 197D counterpart, ho(eer, )a$e e5plicit in the constitution that the reli'ious instruction in public
ele)entary an$ hi'h schools shall be $one S@aAt the option e5presse$ in (ritin' by the parents or 'uar$ians, an$ (ithout
cost to the) an$ the 'oern)ent!S /ith the a$option of these proisions in the 197D Constitution, the beneolent
neutrality approach continue$ to en4oy constitutional sanction! &n Article I=, 2ection 1C of the 3eneral Proisions of the
197D Constitution this proision )a$e its )ai$en appearance7 S@tAhe separation of church an$ state shall be iniolable!S
#he 197D Constitution retaine$ the portion of the prea)ble Si)plorin' the ai$ of .iine Proi$ence!S
&n the Report of the A$ 1oc 2ub*Co))ittee on 3oals, Principles an$ Proble)s of the Co))ittee on Church an$ 2tate of
the 1971 Constitutional Conention, the ,uestion arose as to (hether the SabsoluteS separation of Church an$ 2tate as
enunciate$ in the Eerson case an$ reiterate$ in 2che)pp * i!e!, neutrality not only as bet(een one reli'ion an$ another
but een as bet(een reli'ion an$ non*reli'ion * is e)bo$ie$ in the Philippine Constitution! #he sub*co))itteeTs ans(er
(as that it $i$ not see) so! Citin' the A'lipay case (here -ustice %aurel reco'ni+e$ the Seleatin' influence of reli'ion in
hu)an societyS an$ the FilipinosT i)plorin' of .iine Proi$ence in the 19DC Constitution, the sub*co))ittee asserte$
that the state )ay not prefer or ai$ one reli'ion oer another, but )ay ai$ all reli'ions e,ually or the cause of reli'ion in
'eneral!
D91
A)on' the position papers sub)itte$ to the Co))ittee on Church on 2tate (as a bac0'roun$ paper for
reconsi$eration of the reli'ion proisions of the constitution by Fr! Bernas, 2!-! 1e state$ therein that the Philippine
Constitution is not hostile to reli'ion an$ in fact reco'ni+es the alue of reli'ion an$ acco))o$ates reli'ious alues!
D92
2tate$ other(ise, the Establish)ent Clause conte)plates not a strict neutrality but beneolent neutrality! /hile the
Co))ittee intro$uce$ the proision on separation of church an$ state in the 3eneral Proisions of the 197D Constitution,
this (as nothin' ne( as accor$in' to it, this principle (as i)plie$ in the 19DC Constitution een in the absence of a
si)ilar proision!
D9D
#hen ca)e the 19<7 Constitution! #he 197D Constitutional proision on ta5 e5e)ption of church property (as retaine$
(ith )inor )o$ification in Article =&, 2ection 2<@DA of the 19<7 Constitution! #he sa)e is true (ith respect to the
prohibition on the use of public )oney an$ property for reli'ious purposes an$ the salaries of reli'ious officers serin' in
the enu)erate$ 'oern)ent institutions, no( containe$ in Article =&, 2ection 29@2A! Co))issioner Bacani, ho(eer,
probe$ into the possibility of allo(in' the 'oern)ent to spen$ public )oney for purposes (hich )i'ht hae reli'ious
connections but (hich (oul$ benefit the public 'enerally! Citin' the A'lipay case, Co))issioner Ro$ri'o e5plaine$ that if
a public e5pen$iture (oul$ benefit the 'oern)ent $irectly, such e5pense (oul$ be constitutional een if it results to an
inci$ental benefit to reli'ion! /ith that e5planation, Co))issioner Bacani no lon'er pursue$ his proposal!
D96
#he proision on optional reli'ious instruction (as also a$opte$ in the 19<7 Constitution in Article I&=, 2ection D@DA (ith
the )o$ification that it (as e5pressly proi$e$ that optional instruction shall be con$ucte$ S(ithin the re'ular class hoursS
an$ S(ithout a$$itional cost to the 'oern)entS! #here (ere protracte$ $ebates on (hat a$$itional cost )eant, i!e!, cost
oer an$ aboe (hat is nee$e$ for nor)al operations such as (ear an$ tear, electricity, 4anitorial serices,
D9C
an$ (hen
$urin' the $ay instruction (oul$ be con$ucte$!
D9;
&n $eliberatin' on the phrase S(ithin the re'ular class hours,S
Co))issioner A,uino e5presse$ her reserations to this proposal as this (oul$ iolate the ti)e*honore$ principle of
separation of church an$ state! 2he cite$ the McCullo) case (here reli'ious instruction $urin' re'ular school hours (as
stric0en $o(n as unconstitutional an$ also cite$ (hat she consi$ere$ the )ost liberal interpretation of separation of
church an$ state in 2urach ! Clauson (here the >!2! 2upre)e Court allo(e$ only release ti)e for reli'ious instruction!
Fr! Bernas replie$, )i;7
! ! ! the (hole purpose of the proision (as to proi$e for an e5ception to the rule on non*establish)ent of reli'ion,
because if it (ere not necessary to )a0e this e5ception for purposes of allo(in' reli'ious instruction, then (e coul$ 4ust
$rop the a)en$)ent! But, as a )atter of fact, this is necessary because (e are tryin' to intro$uce so)ethin' here (hich
is contrary to A)erican practices!
D97
@e)phasis supplie$A
S@/Aithin re'ular class hoursS (as approe$!
he proision on the separation of church an$ state (as retaine$ but place$ un$er the Principles in the .eclaration of
Principles an$ 2tate Policies in Article &&, 2ection ;! &n optin' to retain the (or$in' of the proision, Fr! Bernas state$, i+7
! ! ! &t is true, & )aintain, that as a le'al state)ent the sentence T#he separation of Church an$ 2tate is iniolable,T is
al)ost a useless state)ent" but at the sa)e ti)e it is a har)less state)ent! 1ence, & a) (illin' to tolerate it there,
because, in the en$, if (e loo0 at the 4urispru$ence on Church an$ 2tate, ar'u)ents are base$ not on the state)ent of
separation of church an$ state but on the non*establish)ent clause in the Bill of Ri'hts!
D9<
#he prea)ble chan'e$ S.iine Proi$enceS in the 19DC an$ 197D Constitutions to SAl)i'hty 3o$!S #here (as
consi$erable $ebate on (hether to use SAl)i'hty 3o$S (hich Co))issioner Bacani sai$ (as )ore reflectie of Filipino
reli'iosity, but Co))issioner Ro$ri'o recalle$ that a nu)ber of atheistic $ele'ates in the 1971 Constitutional Conention
ob4ecte$ to reference to a personal 3o$!
D99
S3o$ of 1istoryS, S%or$ of 1istoryS an$ S3o$S (ere also propose$, but the
phrase SAl)i'hty 3o$S preaile$! 2i)ilar to the 19DC an$ 1971 Constitutions, it is obious that the 19<7 Constitution is
not hostile nor in$ifferent to reli'ion"
6BB
its (all of separation is not a (all of hostility or in$ifference!
6B1
#he proisions of the 19DC, 197D an$ 19<7 constitutions on ta5 e5e)ption of church property, salary of reli'ious officers
in 'oern)ent institutions, optional reli'ious instruction an$ the prea)ble all reeal (ithout $oubt that the Filipino people,
in a$optin' these constitutions, $i$ not inten$ to erect a hi'h an$ i)pre'nable (all of separation bet(een the church an$
state!
6B2
#he strict neutrality approach (hich e5a)ines only (hether 'oern)ent action is for a secular purpose an$ $oes
not consi$er ina$ertent bur$en on reli'ious e5ercise protects such a ri'i$ barrier! By a$optin' the aboe constitutional
115
proisions on reli'ion, the Filipinos )anifeste$ their a$herence to the beneolent neutrality approach in interpretin' the
reli'ion clauses, an approach that loo0s further than the secular purposes of 'oern)ent action an$ e5a)ines the effect
of these actions on reli'ious e5ercise! Beneolent neutrality reco'ni+es the reli'ious nature of the Filipino people an$ the
eleatin' influence of reli'ion in society" at the sa)e ti)e, it ac0no(le$'es that 'oern)ent )ust pursue its secular
'oals! &n pursuin' these 'oals, ho(eer, 'oern)ent )i'ht a$opt la(s or actions of 'eneral applicability (hich
ina$ertently bur$en reli'ious e5ercise! Beneolent neutrality 'ies roo) for acco))o$ation of these reli'ious e5ercises
as re,uire$ by the Free E5ercise Clause! &t allo(s these breaches in the (all of separation to uphol$ reli'ious liberty,
(hich after all is the inte'ral purpose of the reli'ion clauses! #he case at bar inoles this first type of acco))o$ation
(here an e5e)ption is sou'ht fro) a la( of 'eneral applicability that ina$ertently bur$ens reli'ious e5ercise!
Althou'h our constitutional history an$ interpretation )an$ate beneolent neutrality, beneolent neutrality $oes not )ean
that the Court ou'ht to 'rant e5e)ptions eery ti)e a free e5ercise clai) co)es before it! But it $oes )ean that the
Court (ill not loo0 (ith hostility or act in$ifferently to(ar$s reli'ious beliefs an$ practices an$ that it (ill strie to
acco))o$ate the) (hen it can (ithin fle5ible constitutional li)its" it $oes )ean that the Court (ill not si)ply $is)iss a
clai) un$er the Free E5ercise Clause because the con$uct in ,uestion offen$s a la( or the ortho$o5 ie( for this
precisely is the protection affor$e$ by the reli'ion clauses of the Constitution, i!e!, that in the absence of le'islation
'rantin' e5e)ption fro) a la( of 'eneral applicability, the Court can care out an e5ception (hen the reli'ion clauses
4ustify it! /hile the Court cannot a$opt a $octrinal for)ulation that can eli)inate the $ifficult ,uestions of 4u$')ent in
$eter)inin' the $e'ree of bur$en on reli'ious practice or i)portance of the state interest or the sufficiency of the )eans
a$opte$ by the state to pursue its interest, the Court can set a $octrine on the i$eal to(ar$s (hich reli'ious clause
4urispru$ence shoul$ be $irecte$!
6BD
/e here lay $o(n the $octrine that in Philippine 4uris$iction, (e a$opt the beneolent
neutrality approach not only because of its )erits as $iscusse$ aboe, but )ore i)portantly, because our constitutional
history an$ interpretation in$ubitably sho( that beneolent neutrality is the launchin' pa$ fro) (hich the Court shoul$
ta0e off in interpretin' reli'ion clause cases! #he i$eal to(ar$s (hich this approach is $irecte$ is the protection of
reli'ious liberty Snot only for a )inority, ho(eer s)all* not only for a )a4ority, ho(eer lar'e* but for each of usS to the
'reatest e5tent possible (ithin fle5ible constitutional li)its!
Beneolent neutrality is )anifest not only in the Constitution but has also been reco'ni+e$ in Philippine 4urispru$ence,
albeit not e5pressly calle$ Sbeneolent neutralityS or Sacco))o$ationS! &n A'lipay, the Court not only stresse$ the
Seleatin' influence of reli'ion in hu)an societyS but ac0no(le$'e$ the Constitutional proisions on e5e)ption fro) ta5
of church property, salary of reli'ious officers in 'oern)ent institutions, an$ optional reli'ious instruction as (ell as the
proisions of the A$)inistratie Co$e )a0in' #hurs$ay an$ Fri$ay of the 1oly /ee0, Christ)as .ay an$ 2un$ays le'al
holi$ays! &n 3arces, the Court not only reco'ni+e$ the Constitutional proisions in$iscri)inately 'rantin' concessions to
reli'ious sects an$ $eno)inations, but also ac0no(le$'e$ that 'oern)ent participation in lon'*stan$in' tra$itions (hich
hae ac,uire$ a social character * Sthe barrio fiesta is a socio*reli'ious affairS * $oes not offen$ the Establish)ent Clause!
&n =ictoriano, the Court uphel$ the e5e)ption fro) close$ shop proisions of )e)bers of reli'ious sects (ho prohibite$
their )e)bers fro) 4oinin' unions upon the 4ustification that the e5e)ption (as not a iolation of the Establish)ent
Clause but (as only )eant to reliee the bur$en on free e5ercise of reli'ion! &n Ebralina', )e)bers of the -ehoahTs
/itnesses (ere e5e)pt fro) salutin' the fla' as re,uire$ by la(, on the basis not of a statute 'rantin' e5e)ption but of
the Free E5ercise Clause (ithout offen$in' the Establish)ent Clause!
/hile the >!2! an$ Philippine reli'ion clauses are si)ilar in for) an$ ori'in, Philippine constitutional la( has $eparte$
fro) the >!2! 4urispru$ence of e)ployin' a separationist or strict neutrality approach! #he Philippine reli'ion clauses
hae ta0en a life of their o(n, breathin' the air of beneolent neutrality an$ acco))o$ation! #hus, the (all of separation
in Philippine 4uris$iction is not as hi'h an$ i)pre'nable as the (all create$ by the >!2! 2upre)e Court in Eerson!
6B6
/hile the reli'ion clauses are a uni,ue A)erican e5peri)ent (hich un$erstan$ably ca)e about as a result of A)ericaTs
En'lish bac0'roun$ an$ coloni+ation, the life that these clauses hae ta0en in this 4uris$iction is the PhilippinesT o(n
e5peri)ent, reflectie of the FilipinosT o(n national soul, history an$ tra$ition! After all, Sthe life of the la(! ! ! has been
e5perience!S
But (hile history, constitutional construction, an$ earlier 4urispru$ence un)ista0ably sho( that beneolent neutrality is the
lens (ith (hich the Court ou'ht to ie( reli'ion clause cases, it )ust be stresse$ that the interest of the state shoul$ also
be affor$e$ ut)ost protection! #o $o this, a test )ust be applie$ to $ra( the line bet(een per)issible an$ forbi$$en
reli'ious e5ercise! &t is ,uite para$o5ical that in or$er for the )e)bers of a society to e5ercise their free$o)s, inclu$in'
their reli'ious liberty, the la( )ust set a li)it (hen their e5ercise offen$s the hi'her interest of the state! #o $o other(ise
is self*$efeatin' for unli)ite$ free$o) (oul$ ero$e or$er in the state an$ fo)ent anarchy, eentually $estroyin' the ery
state its )e)bers establishe$ to protect their free$o)s! #he ery purpose of the social contract by (hich people
establish the state is for the state to protect their liberties" for this purpose, they 'ie up a portion of these free$o)s *
inclu$in' the natural ri'ht to free e5ercise * to the state! &t (as certainly not the intention of the authors of the constitution
that free e5ercise coul$ be use$ to countenance actions that (oul$ un$o the constitutional or$er that 'uarantees free
e5ercise!
6BC
#he all i)portant ,uestion then is the test that shoul$ be use$ in ascertainin' the li)its of the e5ercise of reli'ious
free$o)! Philippine 4urispru$ence articulates seeral tests to $eter)ine these li)its! Be'innin' (ith the first case on the
Free E5ercise Clause, A)erican Bible 2ociety, the Court )entione$ the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test but $i$ not
e)ploy it! Neertheless, this test continue$ to be cite$ in subse,uent cases on reli'ious liberty! #he 3erona case then
pronounce$ that the test of per)issibility of reli'ious free$o) is (hether it iolates the establishe$ institutions of society
an$ la(! #he =ictoriano case )entione$ the Si))e$iate an$ 'rae $an'erS test as (ell as the $octrine that a la( of
'eneral applicability )ay bur$en reli'ious e5ercise proi$e$ the la( is the least restrictie )eans to acco)plish the 'oal
of the la(! #he case also use$, albeit inappropriately, the Sco)pellin' state interestS test! After =ictoriano, 3er)an (ent
bac0 to the 3erona rule! Ebralina' then e)ploye$ the S'rae an$ i))e$iate $an'erS test an$ oerrule$ the 3erona test!
#he fairly recent case of &'lesia ni Cristo (ent bac0 to the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test in the )ai$en case of A)erican
Bible 2ociety! Not surprisin'ly, all the cases (hich e)ploye$ the Sclear an$ present $an'erS or S'rae an$ i))e$iate
$an'erS test inole$, in one for) or another, reli'ious speech as this test is often use$ in cases on free$o) of
e5pression! ?n the other han$, the 3erona an$ 3er)an cases set the rule that reli'ious free$o) (ill not preail oer
establishe$ institutions of society an$ la(! 3erona, ho(eer, (hich (as the authority cite$ by 3er)an has been
oerrule$ by Ebralina' (hich e)ploye$ the S'rae an$ i))e$iate $an'erS test! =ictoriano (as the only case that
116
e)ploye$ the Sco)pellin' state interestS test, but as e5plaine$ preiously, the use of the test (as inappropriate to the
facts of the case!
#he case at bar $oes not inole speech as in A)erican Bible 2ociety, Ebralina' an$ &'lesia ni Cristo (here the Sclear
an$ present $an'erS an$ S'rae an$ i))e$iate $an'erS tests (ere appropriate as speech has easily $iscernible or
i))e$iate effects! #he 3erona an$ 3er)an $octrine, asi$e fro) hain' been oerrule$, is not con'ruent (ith the
beneolent neutrality approach, thus not appropriate in this 4uris$iction! 2i)ilar to =ictoriano, the present case inoles
purely con$uct arisin' fro) reli'ious belief! #he Sco)pellin' state interestS test is proper (here con$uct is inole$ for the
(hole 'a)ut of hu)an con$uct has $ifferent effects on the stateTs interests7 so)e effects )ay be i))e$iate an$ short*
ter) (hile others $elaye$ an$ far*reachin'! A test that (oul$ protect the interests of the state in preentin' a substantie
eil, (hether i))e$iate or $elaye$, is therefore necessary! 1o(eer, not any interest of the state (oul$ suffice to preail
oer the ri'ht to reli'ious free$o) as this is a fun$a)ental ri'ht that en4oys a preferre$ position in the hierarchy of ri'hts *
Sthe )ost inalienable an$ sacre$ of all hu)an ri'htsS, in the (or$s of -efferson!
6B;
#his ri'ht is sacre$ for an inocation of
the Free E5ercise Clause is an appeal to a hi'her soerei'nty! #he entire constitutional or$er of li)ite$ 'oern)ent is
pre)ise$ upon an ac0no(le$')ent of such hi'her soerei'nty,
6B7
thus the Filipinos i)plore the Sai$ of Al)i'hty 3o$ in
or$er to buil$ a 4ust an$ hu)ane society an$ establish a 'oern)ent!S As hel$ in 2herbert, only the 'raest abuses,
en$an'erin' para)ount interests can li)it this fun$a)ental ri'ht! A )ere balancin' of interests (hich balances a ri'ht
(ith 4ust a colorable state interest is therefore not appropriate! &nstea$, only a co)pellin' interest of the state can preail
oer the fun$a)ental ri'ht to reli'ious liberty! #he test re,uires the state to carry a heay bur$en, a co)pellin' one, for to
$o other(ise (oul$ allo( the state to batter reli'ion, especially the less po(erful ones until they are $estroye$!
6B<
&n
$eter)inin' (hich shall preail bet(een the stateTs interest an$ reli'ious liberty, reasonableness shall be the 'ui$e!
6B9
#he Sco)pellin' state interestS seres the purpose of reerin' reli'ious liberty (hile at the sa)e ti)e affor$in' protection
to the para)ount interests of the state! #his (as the test use$ in 2herbert (hich inole$ con$uct, i!e! refusal to (or0 on
2atur$ays! &n the en$, the Sco)pellin' state interestS test, by uphol$in' the para)ount interests of the state, see0s to
protect the ery state, (ithout (hich, reli'ious liberty (ill not be presere$!
H. A$$8+-&+o% o1 &,# R#8+2+o% C8/!#! &o &,# C!# & B"
A. T,# R#8+2+o% C8/!#! %' Mo"8+&)
&n a catena of cases, the Court has rule$ that 'oern)ent e)ployees en'a'e$ in illicit relations are 'uilty of S$is'raceful
an$ i))oral con$uctS for (hich heHshe )ay be hel$ a$)inistratiely liable!
61B
&n these cases, there (as not one $issent
to the )a4orityTs rulin' that their con$uct (as i))oral! #he respon$ents the)seles $i$ not foist the $efense that their
con$uct (as not i))oral, but instea$ sou'ht to proe that they $i$ not co))it the alle'e$ act or hae abate$ fro)
co))ittin' the act! #he facts of the 197C case of D# D+o! 0. A8#<o
611
an$ the 1999 case of M2/' 0. D# G/L7%,
612
are
si)ilar to the case at bar * i!e!, the co)plainant is a )ere stran'er an$ the le'al (ife has not re'istere$ any ob4ection to
the illicit relation, there is no proof of scan$al or offense to the )oral sensibilities of the co))unity in (hich the
respon$ent an$ the partner lie an$ (or0, an$ the 'oern)ent e)ployee is capacitate$ to )arry (hile the partner is not
capacitate$ but has lon' been separate$ in fact! 2till, the Court foun$ the 'oern)ent e)ployees a$)inistratiely liable
for S$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uctS an$ only consi$ere$ the fore'oin' circu)stances to )iti'ate the penalty!
Respon$ent Escritor $oes not clai) that there is error in the settle$ 4urispru$ence that an illicit relation constitutes
$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uct for (hich a 'oern)ent e)ployee is hel$ liable! Nor is there an alle'ation that the
nor)s of )orality (ith respect to illicit relations hae shifte$ to(ar$s leniency fro) the ti)e these prece$ent cases (ere
$eci$e$! #he Court fin$s that there is no such error or shift, thus (e fin$ no reason to $eiate fro) these rulin's that such
illicit relationship constitutes S$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uctS punishable un$er the Ciil 2erice %a(! Respon$ent
hain' a$)itte$ the alle'e$ i))oral con$uct, she, li0e the respon$ents in the aboe*cite$ cases, coul$ be hel$
a$)inistratiely liable! 1o(eer, there is a $istin'uishin' factor that sets the case at bar apart fro) the cite$ prece$ents,
i!e!, as a $efense, respon$ent ino0es reli'ious free$o) since her reli'ion, the -ehoahTs /itnesses, has, after thorou'h
inesti'ation, allo(e$ her con4u'al arran'e)ent (ith Wuilapio base$ on the churchTs reli'ious beliefs an$ practices! #his
$istin'uishin' factor co)pels the Court to apply the reli'ious clauses to the case at bar!
/ithout hol$in' that reli'ious free$o) is not in issue in the case at bar, both the $issentin' opinion of M)e! -ustice
Nnares*2antia'o an$ the separate opinion of Mr! -ustice =itu' $(ell )ore on the stan$ar$s of )orality than on the
reli'ion clauses in $eci$in' the instant case! A $iscussion on )orality is in or$er!
At base, )orality refers to, in 2ocratesT (or$s, Sho( (e ou'ht to lieS an$ (hy! Any $efinition of )orality beyon$
2ocratesT si)ple for)ulation is boun$ to offen$ one or another of the )any rial theories re'ar$in' (hat it )eans to lie
)orally!
61D
#he ans(er to the ,uestion of ho( (e ou'ht to lie necessarily consi$ers that )an $oes not lie in isolation,
but in society! .elin posits that a society is hel$ to'ether by a co))unity of i$eas, )a$e up not only of political i$eas but
also of i$eas about the )anner its )e)bers shoul$ behae an$ 'oern their lies! #he latter are their )orals" they
constitute the public )orality! Each )e)ber of society has i$eas about (hat is 'oo$ an$ (hat is eil! &f people try to
create a society (herein there is no fun$a)ental a'ree)ent about 'oo$ an$ eil, they (ill fail" if hain' establishe$ the
society on co))on a'ree)ent, the a'ree)ent collapses, the society (ill $isinte'rate! 2ociety is 0ept to'ether by the
inisible bon$s of co))on thou'ht so that if the bon$s are too loose, the )e)bers (oul$ $rift apart! A co))on )orality
is part of the bon$a'e an$ the bon$a'e is part of the price of society" an$ )an0in$, (hich nee$s society, )ust pay its
price!
616
#his $esi'n is parallel (ith the social contract in the real) of politics7 people 'ie up a portion of their liberties to
the state to allo( the state to protect their liberties! &n a constitutional or$er, people )a0e a fun$a)ental a'ree)ent about
the po(ers of 'oern)ent an$ their liberties an$ e)bo$y this a'ree)ent in a constitution, hence referre$ to as the
fun$a)ental la( of the lan$! A co)plete brea0 of this fun$a)ental a'ree)ent such as by reolution $estroys the ol$
or$er an$ creates a ne( one!
61C
2i)ilarly, in the real) of )orality, the brea0$o(n of the fun$a)ental a'ree)ent about
the )anner a societyTs )e)bers shoul$ behae an$ 'oern their lies (oul$ $isinte'rate society! #hus, society is
4ustifie$ in ta0in' steps to presere its )oral co$e by la( as it $oes to presere its 'oern)ent an$ other essential
institutions!
61;
Fro) these propositions of .elin, one cannot conclu$e that .elin ne'ates $iersity in society for he is
)erely sayin' that in the )i$st of this $iersity, there shoul$ neertheless be a Sfun$a)ental a'ree)ent about 'oo$ an$
eilS that (ill 'oern ho( people in a society ou'ht to lie! 1is propositions, in fact, presuppose $iersity hence the nee$
to co)e to an a'ree)ent" his position also allo(s for chan'e of )orality fro) ti)e to ti)e (hich )ay be brou'ht about by
this $iersity! &n the sa)e ein, a pluralistic society lays $o(n fun$a)ental ri'hts an$ principles in their constitution in
117
establishin' an$ )aintainin' their society, an$ these fun$a)ental alues an$ principles are translate$ into le'islation that
'oerns the or$er of society, la(s that )ay be a)en$e$ fro) ti)e to ti)e! 1artTs ar'u)ent propoun$e$ in Mr! -ustice
=itu'Ts separate opinion that, S.elinTs ie( of people liin' in a sin'le society as hain' co))on )oral foun$ation @isA
oerly si)plisticS because Ssocieties hae al(ays been $ierseS fails to reco'ni+e the necessity of .elinTs proposition in
a $e)ocracy! /ithout fun$a)ental a'ree)ent on political an$ )oral i$eas, society (ill fall into anarchy" the a'ree)ent is
necessary to the e5istence an$ pro'ress of society!
&n a $e)ocracy, this co))on a'ree)ent on political an$ )oral i$eas is $istille$ in the public s,uare! /here citi+ens are
free, eery opinion, eery pre4u$ice, eery aspiration, an$ eery )oral $iscern)ent has access to the public s,uare
(here people $eliberate the or$er of their life to'ether! Citi+ens are the bearers of opinion, inclu$in' opinion shape$ by,
or espousin' reli'ious belief, an$ these citi+ens hae e,ual access to the public s,uare! &n this representatie
$e)ocracy, the state is prohibite$ fro) $eter)inin' (hich conictions an$ )oral 4u$')ents )ay be propose$ for public
$eliberation! #hrou'h a constitutionally $esi'ne$ process, the people $eliberate an$ $eci$e! Ma4ority rule is a necessary
principle in this $e)ocratic 'oernance!
617
#hus, (hen public $eliberation on )oral 4u$')ents is finally crystalli+e$ into
la(, the la(s (ill lar'ely reflect the beliefs an$ preferences of the )a4ority, i!e!, the )ainstrea) or )e$ian 'roups!
61<
Neertheless, in the ery act of a$optin' an$ acceptin' a constitution an$ the li)its it specifies ** inclu$in' protection of
reli'ious free$o) Snot only for a )inority, ho(eer s)all* not only for a )a4ority, ho(eer lar'e* but for each of usS ** the
)a4ority i)poses upon itself a self*$enyin' or$inance! &t pro)ises not to $o (hat it other(ise coul$ $o7 to ri$e rou'hsho$
oer the $issentin' )inorities!
619
&n the real) of reli'ious e5ercise, beneolent neutrality that 'ies roo) for
acco))o$ation carries out this pro)ise, proi$e$ the co)pellin' interests of the state are not ero$e$ for the
preseration of the state is necessary to the preseration of reli'ious liberty! #hat is (hy beneolent neutrality is
necessary in a pluralistic society such as the >nite$ 2tates an$ the Philippines to acco))o$ate those )inority reli'ions
(hich are politically po(erless! &t is not surprisin' that 2)ith is )uch critici+e$ for it bloc0s the 4u$icial recourse of the
)inority for reli'ious acco))o$ations!
#he la(s enacte$ beco)e e5pressions of public )orality! As -ustice 1ol)es put it, S@tAhe la( is the (itness an$ $eposit
of our )oral life!S
62B
S&n a liberal $e)ocracy, the la( reflects social )orality oer a perio$ of ti)e!S
621
?ccasionally thou'h,
a $isproportionate political influence )i'ht cause a la( to be enacte$ at o$$s (ith public )orality or le'islature )i'ht fail
to repeal la(s e)bo$yin' out$ate$ tra$itional )oral ie(s!
622
%a( has also been $efine$ as Sso)ethin' )en create in
their best )o)ents to protect the)seles in their (orst )o)ents!S
62D
Een then, la(s are sub4ect to a)en$)ent or repeal
4ust as 4u$icial pronounce)ents are sub4ect to )o$ification an$ reersal to better reflect the public )orals of a society at
a 'ien ti)e! After all, Sthe life of the la(!!!has been e5perience,S in the (or$s of -ustice 1ol)es! #his is not to say thou'h
that la( is all of )orality! %a( $eals (ith the )ini)u) stan$ar$s of hu)an con$uct (hile )orality is concerne$ (ith the
)a5i)u)! A person (ho re'ulates his con$uct (ith the sole ob4ect of aoi$in' punish)ent un$er the la( $oes not )eet
the hi'her )oral stan$ar$s set by society for hi) to be calle$ a )orally upri'ht person!
626
%a( also seres as Sa helpful
startin' point for thin0in' about a proper or i$eal public )orality for a societyS
62C
in pursuit of )oral pro'ress!
&n M2%o 0. Co/"& o1 A$$#8!, #& 8.,
62;
(e articulate$ the relationship bet(een la( an$ public )orality! /e hel$ that
un$er the utilitarian theory, the Sprotectie theoryS in cri)inal la(, Scri)inal la( is foun$e$ upon the )oral $isapprobation
5 5 5 of actions (hich are i))oral, i!e!, (hich are $etri)ental @or $an'erousA to those con$itions upon (hich $epen$ the
e5istence an$ pro'ress of hu)an society! #his $isapprobation is ineitable to the e5tent that )orality is 'enerally foun$e$
an$ built upon a certain concurrence in the )oral opinions of all! 5 5 5 #hat (hich (e call punish)ent is only an e5ternal
)eans of e)phasi+in' )oral $isapprobation7 the )etho$ of punish)ent is in reality the a)ount of punish)ent!S
627
2tate$
other(ise, there are certain stan$ar$s of behaior or )oral principles (hich society re,uires to be obsere$ an$ these
for) the bases of cri)inal la(! #heir breach is an offense not only a'ainst the person in4ure$ but a'ainst society as a
(hole!
62<
#hus, een if all inole$ in the )is$ee$ are consentin' parties, such as in the case at bar, the in4ury $one is to
the public )orals an$ the public interest in the )oral or$er!
629
Mr! -ustice =itu' e5presses concern on this point in his
separate opinion! 1e obseres that certain i))oral acts (hich appear priate an$ not har)ful to society such as se5ual
con'ress Sbet(een a )an an$ a prostitute, thou'h consensual an$ priate, an$ (ith no in4ure$ thir$ party, re)ains ille'al
in this country!S 1is opinion as0s (hether these la(s on priate )orality are 4ustifie$ or they constitute i)pin'e)ent on
oneTs free$o) of belief! .iscussion on priate )orality, ho(eer, is not )aterial to the case at bar for (hether
respon$entTs con$uct, (hich constitutes concubina'e,
6DB
is priate in the sense that there is no in4ure$ party or the
offen$e$ spouse consents to the concubina'e, the inescapable fact is that the le'islature has ta0en concubina'e out of
the sphere of priate )orals! #he le'islature inclu$e$ concubina'e as a cri)e un$er the Reise$ Penal Co$e an$ the
constitutionality of this la( is not bein' raise$ in the case at bar! &n the $efinition of the cri)e of concubina'e, consent of
the in4ure$ party, i!e!, the le'al spouse, $oes not alter or ne'ate the cri)e unli0e in rape
6D1
(here consent of the
suppose$ icti) ne'ates the cri)e! &f at all, the consent or par$on of the offen$e$ spouse in concubina'e ne'ates the
prosecution of the action,
6D2
but $oes not alter the le'islatureTs characteri+ation of the act as a )oral $isapprobation
punishable by la(! #he separate opinion states that, S@tAhe ponencia has ta0en pains to $istin'uish bet(een secular an$
priate )orality, an$ reache$ the conclusion that the la(, as an instru)ent of the secular 2tate shoul$ only concern itself
(ith secular )orality!S #he Court $oes not $ra( this $istinction in the case at bar! #he $istinction releant to the case is
not, as aerre$ an$ $iscusse$ by the separate opinion, Sbet(een secular an$ priate )orality,S but bet(een public an$
secular )orality on the one han$, an$ reli'ious )orality on the other, (hich (ill be subse,uently $iscusse$!
Not eery )oral (ron' is foreseen an$ punishe$ by la(, cri)inal or other(ise! /e reco'ni+e$ this reality in =elayo, et al!
! 2hell Co! of the Philippine &slan$s, et al!, (here (e e5plaine$ that for those (ron's (hich are not punishable by la(,
Articles 19 an$ 21 in Chapter 2 of the Preli)inary #itle of the Ne( Ciil Co$e, $ealin' (ith 1u)an Relations, proi$e for
the reco'nition of the (ron' an$ the conco)itant punish)ent in the for) of $a)a'es! Articles 19 an$ 21 proi$e, i+7
Art! 19! Any person )ust, in the e5ercise of his ri'hts an$ in the perfor)ance of his $uties, act (ith 4ustice, 'ie eeryone
his $ue an$ obsere honesty an$ 'oo$ faith!
555 555 555
Art! 21! Any person (ho (illfully causes loss or in4ury to another in a )anner that is contrary to )orals, 'oo$ custo)s or
public policy shall co)pensate the latter for the $a)a'e! @e)phasis supplie$A
118
/e then cite$ in =elayo the Co$e Co))issionTs co))ent on Article 217
#hus at one stro0e, the le'islator, if the fore'oin' rule is approe$ @as it (as approe$A, (oul$ ouchsafe a$e,uate le'al
re)e$y for that untol$ nu)bers of )oral (ron's (hich is i)possible for hu)an foresi'ht to proi$e for specifically in the
statutes!
But, it )ay be as0e$, (oul$ this propose$ article obliterate the boun$ary line bet(een )orality an$ la(K #he ans(er is
that, in the last analysis, eery 'oo$ la( $ra(s its breath of life fro) )orals, fro) those principles (hich are (ritten (ith
(or$s of fire in the conscience of )an! &f this pre)ise is a$)itte$, then the propose$ rule is a pru$ent earnest of 4ustice in
the face of the i)possibility of enu)eratin', one by one, all (ron's (hich cause $a)a'es! /hen it is reflecte$ that (hile
co$es of la( an$ statutes hae chan'e$ fro) a'e to a'e, the conscience of )an has re)aine$ fi5e$ to its ancient
)oorin's, one can not but feel that it is safe an$ salutary to trans)ute, as far as )ay be, )oral nor)s into le'al rules,
thus i)partin' to eery le'al syste) that en$urin' ,uality (hich ou'ht to be one of its superlatie attributes!
Further)ore, there is no belief of )ore baneful conse,uence upon the social or$er than that a person )ay (ith i)punity
cause $a)a'e to his fello(*)en so lon' as he $oes not brea0 any la( of the 2tate, thou'h he )ay be $efyin' the )ost
sacre$ postulates of )orality! /hat is )ore, the icti) loses faith in the ability of the 'oern)ent to affor$ hi) protection
or relief!
A proision si)ilar to the one un$er consi$eration is e)bo$ie$ in article <2; of the 3er)an Ciil Co$e!
6DD
@e)phases
supplie$A
#he public )orality e5presse$ in the la( is necessarily secular for in our constitutional or$er, the reli'ion clauses prohibit
the state fro) establishin' a reli'ion, inclu$in' the )orality it sanctions! Reli'ious )orality procee$s fro) a personTs
Sie(s of his relations to 1is Creator an$ to the obli'ations they i)pose of reerence to 1is bein' an$ character an$
obe$ience to 1is /ill,S in accor$ance (ith this CourtTs $efinition of reli'ion in A)erican Bible 2ociety citin' .ais!
Reli'ion also $ictates Sho( (e ou'ht to lieS for the nature of reli'ion is not 4ust to 0no(, but often, to act in accor$ance
(ith )anTs Sie(s of his relations to 1is Creator!S
6D6
But the Establish)ent Clause puts a ne'atie bar a'ainst
establish)ent of this )orality arisin' fro) one reli'ion or the other, an$ i)plies the affir)atie Sestablish)entS of a ciil
or$er for the resolution of public )oral $isputes! #his a'ree)ent on a secular )echanis) is the price of en$in' the S(ar
of all sects a'ainst allS" the establish)ent of a secular public )oral or$er is the social contract pro$uce$ by reli'ious
truce!
6DC
#hus, (hen the la( spea0s of Si))oralityS in the Ciil 2erice %a( or Si))oralS in the Co$e of Professional
Responsibility for la(yers
6D;
, or Spublic )oralsS in the Reise$ Penal Co$e,
6D7
or S)oralsS in the Ne( Ciil Co$e,
6D<
or
S)oral characterS in the Constitution,
6D9
the $istinction bet(een public an$ secular )orality on the one han$, an$ reli'ious
)orality, on the other, shoul$ be 0ept in )in$!
66B
#he )orality referre$ to in the la( is public an$ necessarily secular, not
reli'ious as the $issent of Mr! -ustice Carpio hol$s! SReli'ious teachin's as e5presse$ in public $ebate )ay influence the
ciil public or$er but public )oral $isputes )ay be resole$ only on 'roun$s articulable in secular ter)s!S
661
?ther(ise, if
'oern)ent relies upon reli'ious beliefs in for)ulatin' public policies an$ )orals, the resultin' policies an$ )orals (oul$
re,uire confor)ity to (hat so)e )i'ht re'ar$ as reli'ious pro'ra)s or a'en$a! #he non*belieers (oul$ therefore be
co)pelle$ to confor) to a stan$ar$ of con$uct buttresse$ by a reli'ious belief, i!e!, to a Sco)pelle$ reli'ion,S anathe)a to
reli'ious free$o)! %i0e(ise, if 'oern)ent base$ its actions upon reli'ious beliefs, it (oul$ tacitly approe or en$orse
that belief an$ thereby also tacitly $isapproe contrary reli'ious or non*reli'ious ie(s that (oul$ not support the policy!
As a result, 'oern)ent (ill not proi$e full reli'ious free$o) for all its citi+ens, or een )a0e it appear that those (hose
beliefs are $isapproe$ are secon$*class citi+ens! E5pansie reli'ious free$o) therefore re,uires that 'oern)ent be
neutral in )atters of reli'ion" 'oern)ental reliance upon reli'ious 4ustification is inconsistent (ith this policy of
neutrality!
662
&n other (or$s, 'oern)ent action, inclu$in' its proscription of i))orality as e5presse$ in cri)inal la( li0e concubina'e,
)ust hae a secular purpose! #hat is, the 'oern)ent proscribes this con$uct because it is S$etri)ental @or $an'erousA
to those con$itions upon (hich $epen$ the e5istence an$ pro'ress of hu)an societyS an$ not because the con$uct is
proscribe$ by the beliefs of one reli'ion or the other! Althou'h a$)itte$ly, )oral 4u$')ents base$ on reli'ion )i'ht hae
a co)pellin' influence on those en'a'e$ in public $eliberations oer (hat actions (oul$ be consi$ere$ a )oral
$isapprobation punishable by la(! After all, they )i'ht also be a$herents of a reli'ion an$ thus hae reli'ious opinions
an$ )oral co$es (ith a co)pellin' influence on the)" the hu)an )in$ en$eaors to re'ulate the te)poral an$ spiritual
institutions of society in a unifor) )anner, har)oni+in' earth (ith heaen!
66D
2uccinctly put, a la( coul$ be reli'ious or
Lantian or A,uinian or utilitarian in its $eepest roots, but it )ust hae an articulable an$ $iscernible secular purpose an$
4ustification to pass scrutiny of the reli'ion clauses! ?ther(ise, if a la( has an apparent secular purpose but upon closer
e5a)ination sho(s a $iscri)inatory an$ prohibitory reli'ious purpose, the la( (ill be struc0 $o(n for bein' offensie of
the reli'ion clauses as in Church of the %u0u)i Babalu Aye, &nc! (here the >!2! 2upre)e Court inali$ate$ an or$inance
prohibitin' ani)al sacrifice of the 2anteria! Reco'ni+in' the reli'ious nature of the Filipinos an$ the eleatin' influence of
reli'ion in society, ho(eer, the Philippine constitutionTs reli'ion clauses prescribe not a strict but a beneolent neutrality!
Beneolent neutrality reco'ni+es that 'oern)ent )ust pursue its secular 'oals an$ interests but at the sa)e ti)e
stries to uphol$ reli'ious liberty to the 'reatest e5tent possible (ithin fle5ible constitutional li)its! #hus, althou'h the
)orality conte)plate$ by la(s is secular, beneolent neutrality coul$ allo( for acco))o$ation of )orality base$ on
reli'ion, proi$e$ it $oes not offen$ co)pellin' state interests!
Mr! -ustice =itu'Ts separate opinion e)braces the beneolent neutrality approach (hen it states that in $eci$in' the case
at bar, the approach shoul$ consi$er that, S@aAs a rule ! ! ! )oral la(s are 4ustifie$ only to the e5tent that they $irectly or
in$irectly sere to protect the interests of the lar'er society! &t is only (here their ri'i$ application (oul$ sere to obliterate
the alue (hich society see0s to uphol$, or $efeat the purpose for (hich they are enacte$ (oul$, a $eparture be
4ustifie$!S &n reli'ion clause parlance, the separate opinion hol$s that la(s of 'eneral applicability 'oernin' )orals
shoul$ hae a secular purpose of $irectly or in$irectly protectin' the interests of the state! &f the strict application of these
la(s @(hich are the Ciil 2erice %a( an$ the la(s on )arria'eA (oul$ ero$e the secular purposes of the la( @(hich the
separate opinion i$entifies as uphol$in' the sanctity of )arria'e an$ the fa)ilyA, then in a beneolent neutrality
119
fra)e(or0, an acco))o$ation of the unconentional reli'ious belief an$ practice @(hich the separate opinion hol$s
shoul$ be respecte$ on the 'roun$ of free$o) of beliefA that (oul$ pro)ote the ery sa)e secular purpose of uphol$in'
the sanctity of )arria'e an$ fa)ily throu'h the .eclaration Ple$'in' Faithfulness that )a0es the union bin$in' an$
honorable before 3o$ an$ )en, is re,uire$ by the Free E5ercise Clause! #he separate opinion then )a0es a preli)inary
$iscussion of the alues society see0s to protect in a$herin' to )ono'a)ous )arria'e, but conclu$es that these alues
an$ the purposes of the applicable la(s shoul$ be thorou'hly e5a)ine$ an$ ei$ence in relation thereto presente$ in the
?CA! #he acco))o$ation approach in the case at bar (oul$ also re,uire a si)ilar $iscussion of these alues an$
presentation of ei$ence before the ?CA by the state that see0s to protect its interest on )arria'e an$ opposes the
acco))o$ation of the unconentional reli'ious belief an$ practice re'ar$in' )arria'e!
#he $istinction bet(een public an$ secular )orality as e5presse$ * albeit not e5clusiely * in the la(, on the one han$,
an$ reli'ious )orality, on the other, is i)portant because the 4uris$iction of the Court e5ten$s only to public an$ secular
)orality! /hateer pronounce)ent the Court )a0es in the case at bar shoul$ be un$erstoo$ only in this real) (here it
has authority! More concretely, shoul$ the Court $eclare respon$entTs con$uct as i))oral an$ hol$ her a$)inistratiely
liable, the Court (ill be hol$in' that in the real) of public )orality, her con$uct is reprehensible or there are state
interests oerri$in' her reli'ious free$o)! For as lon' as her con$uct is bein' 4u$'e$ (ithin this real), she (ill be
accountable to the state! But in so rulin', the Court $oes not an$ cannot say that her con$uct shoul$ be )a$e
reprehensible in the real) of her church (here it is presently sanctione$ an$ that she is ans(erable for her i))orality to
her -ehoah 3o$ nor that other reli'ions prohibitin' her con$uct are correct! ?n the other han$, shoul$ the Court $eclare
her con$uct per)issible, the Court (ill be hol$in' that un$er her uni,ue circu)stances, public )orality is not offen$e$ or
that uphol$in' her reli'ious free$o) is an interest hi'her than uphol$in' public )orality thus her con$uct shoul$ not be
penali+e$! But the Court is not rulin' that the tenets an$ practice of her reli'ion are correct nor that other churches (hich
$o not allo( respon$entTs con4u'al arran'e)ent shoul$ li0e(ise allo( such con4u'al arran'e)ent or shoul$ not fin$
anythin' i))oral about it an$ therefore )e)bers of these churches are not ans(erable for i))orality to their 2upre)e
Bein'! #he Court cannot spea0 )ore than (hat it has authority to say! &n Ballar$, the >!2! 2upre)e Court hel$ that
courts cannot in,uire about the truth of reli'ious beliefs! 2i)ilarly, in Fonacier, this Court $eclare$ that )atters $ealin'
(ith Sfaith, practice, $octrine, for) of (orship, ecclesiastical la(, custo) an$ rule of a church[are un,uestionably
ecclesiastical )atters (hich are outsi$e the proince of the ciil courts!S
666
But (hile the state, inclu$in' the Court,
accor$s such $eference to reli'ious belief an$ e5ercise (hich en4oy protection un$er the reli'ious clauses, the social
contract an$ the constitutional or$er are $esi'ne$ in such a (ay that (hen reli'ious belief flo(s into speech an$ con$uct
that step out of the reli'ious sphere an$ oerlap (ith the secular an$ public real), the state has the po(er to re'ulate,
prohibit an$ penali+e these e5pressions an$ e)bo$i)ents of belief insofar as they affect the interests of the state! #he
stateTs inroa$ on reli'ion e5ercise in e5cess of this constitutional $esi'n is prohibite$ by the reli'ion clauses" the ?l$
/orl$, European an$ A)erican history narrate$ aboe bears out the (is$o) of this proscription!
1ain' $istin'uishe$ bet(een public an$ secular )orality an$ reli'ious )orality, the )ore $ifficult tas0 is $eter)inin'
(hich i))oral acts un$er this public an$ secular )orality fall un$er the phrase S$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uctS for
(hich a 'oern)ent e)ployee )ay be hel$ a$)inistratiely liable! #he line is not easy to $ra( for it is li0e Sa line that
$ii$es lan$ an$ sea, a coastline of irre'ularities an$ in$entations!S
66C
But the case at bar $oes not re,uire us to
co)prehensiely $elineate bet(een those i))oral acts for (hich one )ay be hel$ a$)inistratiely liable an$ those to
(hich a$)inistratie liability $oes not attach! /e nee$ not concern ourseles in this case therefore (hether Sla+iness,
'luttony, anity, selfishness, aarice an$ co(ar$iceS are i))oral acts (hich constitute 'roun$s for a$)inistratie liability!
Nor nee$ (e e5pen$ too )uch ener'y 'rapplin' (ith the propositions that not all i))oral acts are ille'al or not all ille'al
acts are i))oral, or $ifferent 4uris$ictions hae $ifferent stan$ar$s of )orality as $iscusse$ by the $issents an$ separate
opinions, althou'h these obserations an$ propositions are true an$ correct! &t is certainly a fallacious ar'u)ent that
because there are e5ceptions to the 'eneral rule that the Sla( is the (itness an$ $eposit of our )oral life,S then the rule is
not true" in fact, that there are e5ceptions only affir)s the truth of the rule! %i0e(ise, the obseration that )orality is
relatie in $ifferent 4uris$ictions only affir)s the truth that there is )orality in a particular 4uris$iction" (ithout, ho(eer,
$iscountin' the truth that un$erneath the )oral relatiis) are certain )oral absolutes such as respect for life an$ truth*
tellin', (ithout (hich no society (ill surie! ?nly one con$uct is in ,uestion before this Court, i!e!, the con4u'al
arran'e)ent of a 'oern)ent e)ployee (hose partner is le'ally )arrie$ to another (hich Philippine la( an$
4urispru$ence consi$er both i))oral an$ ille'al! %est the Court inappropriately en'a'e in the i)possible tas0 of
prescribin' co)prehensiely ho( one ou'ht to lie, the Court )ust focus its attention upon the sole con$uct in ,uestion
before us!
&n interpretin' S$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uct,S the $issentin' opinion of M)e! -ustice Nnares*2antia'o 'rope$ for
stan$ar$s of )orality an$ state$ that the Sascertain)ent of (hat is )oral or i))oral calls for the $iscoery of
conte)porary co))unity stan$ar$sS but $i$ not articulate ho( these stan$ar$s are to be ascertaine$! &nstea$, it hel$
that, S@fAor those in the serice of the 3oern)ent, proisions of la( an$ court prece$ents ! ! ! hae to be consi$ere$!S &t
i$entifie$ the Ciil 2erice %a( an$ the la(s on a$ultery an$ concubina'e as la(s (hich respon$entTs con$uct has
offen$e$ an$ cite$ a strin' of prece$ents (here a 'oern)ent e)ployee (as foun$ 'uilty of co))ittin' a S$is'raceful
an$ i))oral con$uctS for )aintainin' illicit relations an$ (as thereby penali+e$! As state$ aboe, there is no $ispute that
un$er settle$ 4urispru$ence, respon$entTs con$uct constitutes S$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uct!S 1o(eer, the cases
cite$ by the $issent $o not inole the $efense of reli'ious free$o) (hich respon$ent in the case at bar ino0es! #hose
cite$ cases cannot therefore sere as prece$ents in settlin' the issue in the case at bar!
M)e! -ustice Nnares*2antia'oTs $issent also cites C8#0#8%' 0. U%+&#' S&&#!
66;
in layin' $o(n the stan$ar$ of )orality,
i+7 S@(Ahether an act is i))oral (ithin the )eanin' of the statute is not to be $eter)ine$ by respon$entTs concept of
)orality! #he la( proi$es the stan$ar$" the offense is co)plete if respon$ent inten$e$ to perfor), an$ $i$ in fact
perfor), the act (hich it con$e)ns!S #he Mann Act un$er consi$eration in the Cleelan$ case $eclares as an offense the
transportation in interstate co))erce of Sany (o)an or 'irl for the purpose of prostitution or $ebauchery, or for any other
i))oral purpose!S
667
#he resolution of that case hin'e$ on the interpretation of the phrase Si))oral purpose!S #he >!2!
2upre)e Court hel$ that the petitioner Mor)onsT act of transportin' at least one plural (ife (hether for the purpose of
cohabitin' (ith her, or for the purpose of ai$in' another )e)ber of their Mor)on church in such a pro4ect, (as coere$
by the phrase Si))oral purpose!S &n so rulin', the Court relie$ on Reynol$s (hich hel$ that the Mor)onsT practice of
poly'a)y, in spite of their $efense of reli'ious free$o), (as So$ious a)on' the northern an$ (estern nations of
Europe,S
66<
Sa return to barbaris),S
669
Scontrary to the spirit of Christianity an$ of the ciili+ation (hich Christianity has
pro$uce$ in the /estern (orl$,S
6CB
an$ thus punishable by la(!
120
#he Cleelan$ stan$ar$, ho(eer, $oes not thro( li'ht to the issue in the case at bar! #he pronounce)ents of the >!2!
2upre)e Court that poly'a)y is intrinsically So$iousS or SbarbaricS $o not apply in the Philippines (here Musli)s, by la(,
are allo(e$ to practice poly'a)y! >nli0e in Cleelan$, there is no 4urispru$ence in Philippine 4uris$iction hol$in' that the
$efense of reli'ious free$o) of a )e)ber of the -ehoahTs /itnesses un$er the sa)e circu)stances as respon$ent (ill
not preail oer the la(s on a$ultery, concubina'e or so)e other la(! /e cannot su))arily conclu$e therefore that her
con$uct is li0e(ise so So$iousS an$ SbarbaricS as to be i))oral an$ punishable by la(!
/hile positin' the ie( that the resolution of the case at bar lies )ore on $eter)inin' the applicable )oral stan$ar$s an$
less on reli'ious free$o), M)e! -ustice Nnares*2antia'oTs $issent neertheless $iscusse$ respon$entTs plea of reli'ious
free$o) an$ $ispose$ of this $efense by statin' that S@aA clear an$ present $an'er of a substantie eil, $estructie to
public )orals, is a 'roun$ for the reasonable re'ulation of the free e5ercise an$ en4oy)ent of reli'ious profession!
@A)erican Bible 2ociety ! City of Manila, 1B1 Phil! D<; 919C7:A! &n a$$ition to the $estruction of public )orals, the
substantie eil in this case is the tearin' $o(n of )orality, 'oo$ or$er, an$ $iscipline in the 4u$iciary!S 1o(eer, the
fore'oin' $iscussion has sho(n that the Sclear an$ present $an'erS test that is usually e)ploye$ in cases inolin'
free$o) of e5pression is not appropriate to the case at bar (hich inoles purely reli'ious con$uct! #he $issent also cites
Reynol$s in supportin' its conclusion that respon$ent is 'uilty of S$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uct!S #he Reynol$s rulin',
ho(eer, (as reache$ (ith a strict neutrality approach, (hich is not the approach conte)plate$ by the Philippine
constitution! As $iscusse$ aboe, Philippine 4uris$iction a$opts beneolent neutrality in interpretin' the reli'ion clauses!
&n the sa)e ein, Mr! -ustice CarpioTs $issent (hich e)ploys strict neutrality $oes not reflect the constitutional intent of
e)ployin' beneolent neutrality in interpretin' the Philippine reli'ion clauses! 1is $issent aers that respon$ent shoul$
be hel$ a$)inistratiely liable not for S$is'raceful an$ i))oral con$uctS but Scon$uct pre4u$icial to the best interest of the
sericeS as she is a necessary co*accuse$ of her partner in concubina'e! #he $issent stresses that bein' a court
e)ployee, her open iolation of the la( is pre4u$icial to the a$)inistration of 4ustice! Firstly, the $issent offen$s $ue
process as respon$ent (as not 'ien an opportunity to $efen$ herself a'ainst the char'e of Scon$uct pre4u$icial to the
best interest of the serice!S &n a$$ition, there is no ei$ence of the alle'e$ pre4u$ice to the best interest of the serice!
Most i)portantly, the $issent conclu$es that respon$entTs plea of reli'ious free$o) cannot preail (ithout so )uch as
e)ployin' a test that (oul$ balance respon$entTs reli'ious free$o) an$ the stateTs interest at sta0e in the case at bar!
#he fore'oin' $iscussion on the $octrine of reli'ious free$o), ho(eer, sho(s that (ith beneolent neutrality as a
fra)e(or0, the Court cannot si)ply re4ect respon$entTs plea of reli'ious free$o) (ithout een sub4ectin' it to the
Sco)pellin' state interestS test that (oul$ balance her free$o) (ith the para)ount interests of the state! #he strict
neutrality e)ploye$ in the cases the $issent cites *Reynol$s, 2)ith an$ People ! Bit$u $eci$e$ before the 19DC
Constitution (hich un)ista0ably sho(s a$herence to beneolent neutrality * is not conte)plate$ by our constitution!
Neither is 2ulu &sla)ic Association of Mas4i$ %a)bayon' ! -u$'e Nab$ar -! Mali0
6C1
cite$ in Mr! -ustice CarpioTs $issent
$ecisie of the i))orality issue in the case at bar! &n that case, the Court $is)isse$ the char'e of i))orality a'ainst a
#ausu' 4u$'e for en'a'in' in an a$ulterous relationship (ith another (o)an (ith (ho) he ha$ three chil$ren because Sit
@(asA not Ti))oralT by Musli) stan$ar$s for -u$'e Mali0 to )arry a secon$ ti)e (hile his first )arria'e @e5iste$A!S Puttin'
the ,uote$ portion in its proper conte5t (oul$ rea$ily sho( that the 2ulu &sla)ic case $oes not proi$e a prece$ent to the
case at bar! &))e$iately prior to the portion ,uote$ by the $issent, the Court stresse$, i+7 S@sAince Art! 1<B of P!.! No!
1B<D, other(ise 0no(n as the Co$e of Musli) Personal %a(s of the Philippines, proi$es that the penal la(s relatie to
the cri)e of bi'a)y Tshall not apply to a person )arrie$ 5 5 5 un$er Musli) %a(,T it is not Ti))oralT by Musli) stan$ar$s
for -u$'e Mali0 to )arry a secon$ ti)e (hile his first )arria'e e5ists!S
6C2
&t (as by la(, therefore, that the Musli) con$uct
in ,uestion (as classifie$ as an e5ception to the cri)e of bi'a)y an$ thus an e5ception to the 'eneral stan$ar$s of
)orality! #he constitutionality of P!.! No! 1B<D (hen )easure$ a'ainst the Establish)ent Clause (as not raise$ as an
issue in the 2ulu &sla)ic case! #hus, the Court $i$ not $eter)ine (hether P!.! No! 1B<D suffere$ fro) a constitutional
infir)ity an$ instea$ relie$ on the proision e5ceptin' the challen'e$ Musli) con$uct fro) the cri)e of bi'a)y in hol$in'
that the challen'e$ act is not i))oral by Musli) stan$ar$s! &n contra$istinction, in the case at bar, there is no si)ilar la(
(hich the Court can apply as basis for treatin' respon$entTs con$uct as an e5ception to the preailin' 4urispru$ence on
illicit relations of ciil serants! &nstea$, the Free E5ercise Clause is bein' ino0e$ to 4ustify e5e)ption!
B. A$$8+-&+o% o1 B#%#0o8#%& N#/&"8+&) %' &,# Co7$#88+%2 S&&# I%&#"#!& T#!& &o &,# C!# & B"
#he case at bar bein' one of first i)pression, (e no( sub4ect the respon$entTs clai) of reli'ious free$o) to the
Sco)pellin' state interestS test fro) a beneolent neutrality stance * i!e! entertainin' the possibility that respon$entTs
clai) to reli'ious free$o) (oul$ (arrant carin' out an e5ception fro) the Ciil 2erice %a(" necessarily, her $efense of
reli'ious free$o) (ill be unaailin' shoul$ the 'oern)ent succee$ in $e)onstratin' a )ore co)pellin' state interest!
&n applyin' the test, the first in,uiry is (hether respon$entTs ri'ht to reli'ious free$o) has been bur$ene$! #here is no
$oubt that choosin' bet(een 0eepin' her e)ploy)ent an$ aban$onin' her reli'ious belief an$ practice an$ fa)ily on the
one han$, an$ 'iin' up her e)ploy)ent an$ 0eepin' her reli'ious practice an$ fa)ily on the other han$, puts a bur$en
on her free e5ercise of reli'ion! &n 2herbert, the Court foun$ that 2herbertTs reli'ious e5ercise (as bur$ene$ as the $enial
of une)ploy)ent benefits Sforces her to choose bet(een follo(in' the precepts of her reli'ion an$ forfeitin' benefits, on
the one han$, an$ aban$onin' one of the precepts of her reli'ion in or$er to accept (or0, on the other han$!S #he bur$en
on respon$ent in the case at bar is een 'reater as the price she has to pay for her e)ploy)ent is not only her reli'ious
precept but also her fa)ily (hich, by the .eclaration Ple$'in' Faithfulness, stan$s Shonorable before 3o$ an$ )en!S
#he secon$ step is to ascertain respon$entTs sincerity in her reli'ious belief! Respon$ent appears to be sincere in her
reli'ious belief an$ practice an$ is not )erely usin' the S.eclaration of Ple$'in' FaithfulnessS to aoi$ punish)ent for
i))orality! 2he $i$ not secure the .eclaration only after enterin' the 4u$iciary (here the )oral stan$ar$s are strict an$
$efine$, )uch less only after an a$)inistratie case for i))orality (as file$ a'ainst her! #he .eclaration (as issue$ to
her by her con're'ation after ten years of liin' to'ether (ith her partner, Wuilapio, an$ ten years before she entere$ the
4u$iciary! Ministers fro) her con're'ation testifie$ on the authenticity of the -ehoahTs /itnessesT practice of securin' a
.eclaration an$ their $octrinal or scriptural basis for such a practice! As the )inisters testifie$, the .eclaration is not
(hi)sically issue$ to aoi$ le'al punish)ent for illicit con$uct but to )a0e the SunionS of their )e)bers un$er
respon$entTs circu)stances Shonorable before 3o$ an$ )en!S &t is also (orthy of notice that the Report an$
121
Reco))en$ation of the inesti'atin' 4u$'e anne5e$ letters
6CD
of the ?CA to the respon$ent re'ar$in' her re,uest to be
e5e)pt fro) atten$in' the fla' cere)ony after Circular No! ;2*2BB1 (as issue$ re,uirin' atten$ance in the fla'
cere)ony! #he ?CATs letters (ere not sub)itte$ by respon$ent as ei$ence but anne5e$ by the inesti'atin' 4u$'e in
e5plainin' that he (as cau'ht in a $ile))a (hether to fin$ respon$ent 'uilty of i))orality because the Court
A$)inistrator an$ .eputy Court A$)inistrator ha$ $ifferent positions re'ar$in' respon$entTs re,uest for e5e)ption fro)
the fla' cere)ony on the 'roun$ of the -ehoahTs /itnessesT contrary belief an$ practice! Respon$entTs re,uest for
e5e)ption fro) the fla' cere)ony sho(s her sincerity in practicin' the -ehoahTs /itnessesT beliefs an$ not usin' the)
)erely to escape punish)ent! 2he is a practicin' )e)ber of the -ehoahTs /itnesses an$ the -ehoah )inisters
testifie$ that she is a )e)ber in 'oo$ stan$in'! Neertheless, shoul$ the 'oern)ent, thru the 2olicitor 3eneral, (ant to
further ,uestion the respon$entTs sincerity an$ the centrality of her practice in her faith, it shoul$ be 'ien the opportunity
to $o so! #he 'oern)ent has not been represente$ in the case at bar fro) its incipience until this point!
&n any eent, een if the Court $ee)s sufficient respon$entTs ei$ence on the sincerity of her reli'ious belief an$ its
centrality in her faith, the case at bar cannot still be $eci$e$ usin' the Sco)pellin' state interestS test! #he case at bar is
one of first i)pression, thus the parties (ere not a(are of the bur$ens of proof they shoul$ $ischar'e in the CourtTs use
of the Sco)pellin' state interestS test! /e note that the ?CA foun$ respon$entTs $efense of reli'ious free$o) unaailin'
in the face of the CourtTs rulin' in .ic$ican ! Fernan, et al!, )i;7
&t bears e)phasis that the i)a'e of a court of 4ustice is )irrore$ in the con$uct, official an$ other(ise, of the personnel
(ho (or0 thereat, fro) the 4u$'e to the lo(est of its personnel! Court personnel hae been en4oine$ to a$here to the
e5actin' stan$ar$s of )orality an$ $ecency in their professional an$ priate con$uct in or$er to presere the 'oo$ na)e
an$ inte'rity of the courts of 4ustice!
&t is apparent fro) the ?CATs reliance upon this rulin' that the state interest it uphol$s is the preseration of the inte'rity
of the 4u$iciary by )aintainin' a)on' its ran0s a hi'h stan$ar$ of )orality an$ $ecency! 1o(eer, there is nothin' in the
?CATs )e)oran$u) to the Court that $e)onstrates ho( this interest is so co)pellin' that it shoul$ oerri$e
respon$entTs plea of reli'ious free$o) nor is it sho(n that the )eans e)ploye$ by the 'oern)ent in pursuin' its interest
is the least restrictie to respon$entTs reli'ious e5ercise!
&n$ee$, it is inappropriate for the co)plainant, a priate person, to present ei$ence on the co)pellin' interest of the
state! #he bur$en of ei$ence shoul$ be $ischar'e$ by the proper a'ency of the 'oern)ent (hich is the ?ffice of the
2olicitor 3eneral! #o properly settle the issue in the case at bar, the 'oern)ent shoul$ be 'ien the opportunity to
$e)onstrate the co)pellin' state interest it see0s to uphol$ in opposin' the respon$entTs stance that her con4u'al
arran'e)ent is not i))oral an$ punishable as it co)es (ithin the scope of free e5ercise protection! 2houl$ the Court
prohibit an$ punish her con$uct (here it is protecte$ by the Free E5ercise Clause, the CourtTs action (oul$ be an
unconstitutional encroach)ent of her ri'ht to reli'ious free$o)!
6C6
/e cannot therefore si)ply ta0e a passin' loo0 at
respon$entTs clai) of reli'ious free$o), but )ust instea$ apply the Sco)pellin' state interestS test! #he 'oern)ent )ust
be hear$ on the issue as it has not been 'ien an opportunity to $ischar'e its bur$en of $e)onstratin' the stateTs
co)pellin' interest (hich can oerri$e respon$entTs reli'ious belief an$ practice! #o repeat, this is a case of first
i)pression (here (e are applyin' the Sco)pellin' state interestS test in a case inolin' purely reli'ious con$uct! #he
careful application of the test is in$ispensable as ho( (e (ill $eci$e the case (ill )a0e a $ecisie $ifference in the life of
the respon$ent (ho stan$s not only before the Court but before her -ehoah 3o$!
&N =&E/ /1ERE?F, the case is REMAN.E. to the ?ffice of the Court A$)inistrator! #he 2olicitor 3eneral is or$ere$ to
interene in the case (here it (ill be 'ien the opportunity @aA to e5a)ine the sincerity an$ centrality of respon$entTs
clai)e$ reli'ious belief an$ practice" @bA to present ei$ence on the stateTs Sco)pellin' interestS to oerri$e respon$entTs
reli'ious belief an$ practice" an$ @cA to sho( that the )eans the state a$opts in pursuin' its interest is the least restrictie
to respon$entTs reli'ious free$o)! #he rehearin' shoul$ be conclu$e$ thirty @DBA $ays fro) the ?ffice of the Court
A$)inistratorTs receipt of this .ecision!
2? ?R.ERE.!
EN BANC


PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, G.R No. 15>14>
AFBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA
HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. Present7
ROKUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF
THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF C?R?NA, C%#%,
LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA CARP&?,
BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE =E%A2C?, -R!,
ALFERES, C*ARINA MAY %E?NAR.?*.E CA2#R?,
ALTE*, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, BR&?N,
SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR PERA%#A,
BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, BER2AM&N,
ROMINA BERNARDO, VALERIE .E% CA2#&%%?,
PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN ABA.,
MARRI CACETE, VANN ALLEN =&%%ARAMA, -R!,
DELA CRU*, RENE DELORINO, PEREM,
PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON MEN.?MA, an$
ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III, 2EREN?, ##!
GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN
FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO,
ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH
FAY FALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE,
122
MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY,
MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI,
MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAFLYN HANNA
PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT,
MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIF FORT
REVILLAS, JAMES MARF TERRY
RIDON, JOHANN FRANT* RIVERA IV,
CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE
ROA, NICHOLAS SANTI*O, MELISSA
CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE
TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO,
MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, %'
MARCELINO VELOSO III,
Petitioners,

* ersus *
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS EHECUTIVE
SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO
ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON.
ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY
AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT,
HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE NATIONAL MAPPING M
RESOURCE INFORMATION
AUTHORITY, %' HON. HILARIO
DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PERMANENT MISSION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Pro)ul'ate$7
TO THE UNITED NATIONS,
Respon$ents! -uly 1;, 2B11
5 *****************************************************************************************5


D E C I S I O N


CARPIO, J.6


T,# C!#

#his ori'inal action for the (rits of certiorari an$ prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No! 9C221 @RA
9C22A a$4ustin' the countryGs archipela'ic baselines an$ classifyin' the baseline re'i)e of nearby territories!


T,# A%&#-#'#%&!

&n 19;1, Con'ress passe$ Republic Act No! DB6; @RA DB6;A2 $e)arcatin' the )ariti)e baselines of the Philippines as
an archipela'ic 2tate!D #his la( follo(e$ the fra)in' of the Conention on the #erritorial 2ea an$ the Conti'uous Mone in
19C< @>NC%?2 &A,6 co$ifyin', a)on' others, the soerei'n ri'ht of 2tates parties oer their 8territorial sea,F the brea$th
of (hich, ho(eer, (as left un$eter)ine$! Atte)pts to fill this oi$ $urin' the secon$ roun$ of ne'otiations in 3enea in
19;B @>NC%?2 &&A proe$ futile! #hus, $o)estically, RA DB6; re)aine$ unchan'e$ for nearly fie $eca$es, sae for
le'islation passe$ in 19;< @Republic Act No! C66; 9RA C66;:A correctin' typo'raphical errors an$ reserin' the $ra(in'
of baselines aroun$ 2abah in North Borneo!

&n March 2BB9, Con'ress a)en$e$ RA DB6; by enactin' RA 9C22, the statute no( un$er scrutiny! #he chan'e (as
pro)pte$ by the nee$ to )a0e RA DB6; co)pliant (ith the ter)s of the >nite$ Nations Conention on the %a( of the
2ea @>NC%?2 &&&A,C (hich the Philippines ratifie$ on 27 February 19<6!; A)on' others, >NC%?2 &&& prescribes the
(ater*lan$ ratio, len'th, an$ contour of baselines of archipela'ic 2tates li0e the Philippines7 an$ sets the $ea$line for the
filin' of application for the e5ten$e$ continental shelf!< Co)plyin' (ith these re,uire)ents, RA 9C22 shortene$ one
baseline, opti)i+e$ the location of so)e basepoints aroun$ the Philippine archipela'o an$ classifie$ a$4acent territories,
na)ely, the Lalayaan &slan$ 3roup @L&3A an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal, as 8re'i)es of islan$sF (hose islan$s 'enerate
their o(n applicable )ariti)e +ones!

Petitioners, professors of la(, la( stu$ents an$ a le'islator, in their respectie capacities as 8citi+ens, ta5payers or 5 5 5
le'islators,F9 as the case )ay be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9C22 on t(o principal 'roun$s, na)ely7 @1A RA 9C22
re$uces Philippine )ariti)e territory, an$ lo'ically, the reach of the Philippine stateGs soerei'n po(er, in iolation of
Article 1 of the 19<7 Constitution,1B e)bo$yin' the ter)s of the #reaty of Paris11 an$ ancillary treaties,12 an$ @2A RA
9C22 opens the countryGs (aters lan$(ar$ of the baselines to )ariti)e passa'e by all essels an$ aircrafts, un$er)inin'
Philippine soerei'nty an$ national security, contraenin' the countryGs nuclear*free policy, an$ $a)a'in' )arine
resources, in iolation of releant constitutional proisions!1D

&n a$$ition, petitioners conten$ that RA 9C22Gs treat)ent of the L&3 as 8re'i)e of islan$sF not only results in
123
the loss of a lar'e )ariti)e area but also pre4u$ices the lielihoo$ of subsistence fisher)en!16 #o buttress their ar'u)ent
of territorial $i)inution, petitioners facially attac0 RA 9C22 for (hat it e5clu$e$ an$ inclu$e$ O its failure to reference
either the #reaty of Paris or 2abah an$ its use of >NC%?2 &&&Gs fra)e(or0 of re'i)e of islan$s to $eter)ine the )ariti)e
+ones of the L&3 an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal!

Co))entin' on the petition, respon$ent officials raise$ threshol$ issues ,uestionin' @1A the petitionGs co)pliance (ith
the case or controersy re,uire)ent for 4u$icial reie( 'roun$e$ on petitionersG alle'e$ lac0 of locus standi an$ @2A the
propriety of the (rits of certiorari an$ prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9C22! ?n the )erits, respon$ents
$efen$e$ RA 9C22 as the countryGs co)pliance (ith the ter)s of >NC%?2 &&&, preserin' Philippine territory oer the L&3
or 2carborou'h 2hoal! Respon$ents a$$ that RA 9C22 $oes not un$er)ine the countryGs security, eniron)ent an$
econo)ic interests or relin,uish the PhilippinesG clai) oer 2abah!

Respon$ents also ,uestion the nor)atie force, un$er international la(, of petitionersG assertion that (hat
2pain ce$e$ to the >nite$ 2tates un$er the #reaty of Paris (ere the islan$s an$ all the &aters foun$ (ithin the
boun$aries of the rectan'ular area $ra(n un$er the #reaty of Paris!

/e left unacte$ petitionersG prayer for an in4unctie (rit!

T,# I!!/#!

#he petition raises the follo(in' issues7

1! Preli)inarily O

1! /hether petitioners possess locus standi to brin' this suit" an$
2! /hether the (rits of certiorari an$ prohibition are the proper re)e$ies to assail the constitutionality of RA
9C22!

2! ?n the )erits, (hether RA 9C22 is unconstitutional!


T,# R/8+%2 o1 &,# Co/"&
?n the threshol$ issues, (e hol$ that @1A petitioners possess locus standi to brin' this suit as citi+ens an$ @2A the (rits of
certiorari an$ prohibition are proper re)e$ies to test the constitutionality of RA 9C22! ?n the )erits, (e fin$ no basis to
$eclare RA 9C22 unconstitutional!

On the 5hreshold 'ssues

/etitioners /ossess Locus
Standi as +iti.ens

Petitioners the)seles un$er)ine their assertion of locus standi as le'islators an$ ta5payers because the petition alle'es
neither infrin'e)ent of le'islatie prero'atie1C nor )isuse of public fun$s,1; occasione$ by the passa'e an$
i)ple)entation of RA 9C22! Nonetheless, (e reco'ni+e petitionersG locus standi as citi+ens (ith constitutionally sufficient
interest in the resolution of the )erits of the case (hich un$oubte$ly raises issues of national si'nificance necessitatin'
ur'ent resolution! &n$ee$, o(in' to the peculiar nature of RA 9C22, it is un$erstan$ably $ifficult to fin$ other liti'ants
possessin' 8a )ore $irect an$ specific interestF to brin' the suit, thus satisfyin' one of the re,uire)ents for 'rantin'
citi+enship stan$in'!17


5he 6rits of +ertiorari and /rohibition
Are /roper %emedies to 5est
the +onstitutionality of Statutes


&n prayin' for the $is)issal of the petition on preli)inary 'roun$s, respon$ents see0 a strict obserance of the offices of
the (rits of certiorari an$ prohibition, notin' that the (rits cannot issue absent any sho(in' of 'rae abuse of $iscretion
in the e5ercise of 4u$icial, ,uasi*4u$icial or )inisterial po(ers on the part of respon$ents an$ resultin' pre4u$ice on the
part of petitioners!1<

Respon$entsG sub)ission hol$s true in or$inary ciil procee$in's! /hen this Court e5ercises its constitutional po(er of
4u$icial reie(, ho(eer, (e hae, by tra$ition, ie(e$ the (rits of certiorari an$ prohibition as proper re)e$ial ehicles to
test the constitutionality of statutes,19 an$ in$ee$, of acts of other branches of 'oern)ent!2B &ssues of constitutional
i)port are so)eti)es crafte$ out of statutes (hich, (hile hain' no bearin' on the personal interests of the petitioners,
carry such releance in the life of this nation that the Court ineitably fin$s itself constraine$ to ta0e co'ni+ance of the
case an$ pass upon the issues raise$, non*co)pliance (ith the letter of proce$ural rules not(ithstan$in'! #he statute
sou'ht to be reie(e$ here is one such la(!
%A 7899 is (ot 0nconstitutional


%A 7899 is a Statutory 5ool
to !emarcate the +ountry:s
Maritime ;ones and +ontinental
Shelf 0nder 0(+LOS ''', not to
!elineate /hilippine 5erritory


Petitioners sub)it that RA 9C22 8$is)e)bers a lar'e portion of the national territoryF21 because it $iscar$s the pre*
>NC%?2 &&& $e)arcation of Philippine territory un$er the #reaty of Paris an$ relate$ treaties, successiely enco$e$ in the
124
$efinition of national territory un$er the 19DC, 197D an$ 19<7 Constitutions! Petitioners theori+e that this constitutional
$efinition tru)ps any treaty or statutory proision $enyin' the Philippines soerei'n control oer (aters, beyon$ the
territorial sea reco'ni+e$ at the ti)e of the #reaty of Paris, that 2pain suppose$ly ce$e$ to the >nite$ 2tates! Petitioners
ar'ue that fro) the #reaty of ParisG technical $escription, Philippine soerei'nty oer territorial (aters e5ten$s hun$re$s
of nautical )iles aroun$ the Philippine archipela'o, e)bracin' the rectan'ular area $elineate$ in the #reaty of Paris!22

PetitionersG theory fails to persua$e us!

>NC%?2 &&& has nothin' to $o (ith the ac,uisition @or lossA of territory! &t is a )ultilateral treaty re'ulatin',
a)on' others, sea*use ri'hts oer )ariti)e +ones @i%e!, the territorial (aters 912 nautical )iles fro) the baselines:,
conti'uous +one 926 nautical )iles fro) the baselines:, e5clusie econo)ic +one 92BB nautical )iles fro) the baselines:A,
an$ continental sheles that >NC%?2 &&& $eli)its!2D >NC%?2 &&& (as the cul)ination of $eca$es*lon' ne'otiations
a)on' >nite$ Nations )e)bers to co$ify nor)s re'ulatin' the con$uct of 2tates in the (orl$Gs oceans an$ sub)arine
areas, reco'ni+in' coastal an$ archipela'ic 2tatesG 'ra$uate$ authority oer a li)ite$ span of (aters an$ sub)arine
lan$s alon' their coasts!

?n the other han$, baselines la(s such as RA 9C22 are enacte$ by >NC%?2 &&& 2tates parties to )ar0*out
specific basepoints alon' their coasts fro) (hich baselines are $ra(n, either strai'ht or contoure$, to sere as
'eo'raphic startin' points to )easure the brea$th of the )ariti)e +ones an$ continental shelf! Article 6< of >NC%?2 &&&
on archipela'ic 2tates li0e ours coul$ not be any clearer7

Article 6<! Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the conti*uous ;one, the
e'clusi)e economic ;one and the continental shelf! O #he brea$th of the territorial sea, the
conti'uous +one, the e5clusie econo)ic +one an$ the continental shelf !,88 (# 7#!/"#'
1"o7 "-,+$#82+- (!#8+%#! $ra(n in accor$ance (ith article 67! @E)phasis supplie$A
#hus, baselines la(s are nothin' but statutory )echanis)s for >NC%?2 &&& 2tates parties to $eli)it (ith
precision the e5tent of their )ariti)e +ones an$ continental sheles! &n turn, this 'ies notice to the rest of the
international co))unity of the scope of the )ariti)e space an$ sub)arine areas (ithin (hich 2tates parties e5ercise
treaty*base$ ri'hts, na)ely, the e5ercise of soerei'nty oer territorial (aters @Article 2A, the 4uris$iction to enforce
custo)s, fiscal, i))i'ration, an$ sanitation la(s in the conti'uous +one @Article DDA, an$ the ri'ht to e5ploit the liin' an$
non*liin' resources in the e5clusie econo)ic +one @Article C;A an$ continental shelf @Article 77A!

Een un$er petitionersG theory that the Philippine territory e)braces the islan$s an$ all the &aters (ithin the
rectan'ular area $eli)ite$ in the #reaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines (oul$ still hae to be $ra(n in
accor$ance (ith RA 9C22 because this is the only (ay to $ra( the baselines in confor)ity (ith >NC%?2 &&&! #he
baselines cannot be $ra(n fro) the boun$aries or other portions of the rectan'ular area $elineate$ in the #reaty of Paris,
but fro) the 8outer)ost islan$s an$ $ryin' reefs of the archipela'o!F26

>NC%?2 &&& an$ its ancillary baselines la(s play no role in the ac,uisition, enlar'e)ent or, as petitioners
clai), $i)inution of territory! >n$er tra$itional international la( typolo'y, 2tates ac,uire @or conersely, loseA territory
throu'h occupation, accretion, cession an$ prescription,2C not by e5ecutin' )ultilateral treaties on the re'ulations of sea*
use ri'hts or enactin' statutes to co)ply (ith the treatyGs ter)s to $eli)it )ariti)e +ones an$ continental sheles!
#erritorial clai)s to lan$ features are outsi$e >NC%?2 &&&, an$ are instea$ 'oerne$ by the rules on 'eneral international
la(!2;

%A 7899:s 0se of the $ramewor2
of %egime of 'slands to !etermine the
Maritime ;ones of the <'- and the
Scarborough Shoal, not 'nconsistent
with the /hilippines: +laim of Sovereignty
Over these Areas


Petitioners ne5t sub)it that RA 9C22Gs use of >NC%?2 &&&Gs re'i)e of islan$s fra)e(or0 to $ra( the baselines, an$ to
)easure the brea$th of the applicable )ariti)e +ones of the L&3, 8(ea0ens our territorial clai)F oer that area!27
Petitioners a$$ that the L&3Gs @an$ 2carborou'h 2hoalGsA e5clusion fro) the Philippine archipela'ic baselines results in
the loss of 8about 1C,BBB s,uare nautical )iles of territorial (aters,F pre4u$icin' the lielihoo$ of subsistence
fisher)en!2< A co)parison of the confi'uration of the baselines $ra(n un$er RA DB6; an$ RA 9C22 an$ the e5tent of
)ariti)e space enco)passe$ by each la(, couple$ (ith a rea$in' of the te5t of RA 9C22 an$ its con'ressional
$eliberations, )is/@/)is the PhilippinesG obli'ations un$er >NC%?2 &&&, belie this ie(!

#he confi'uration of the baselines $ra(n un$er RA DB6; an$ RA 9C22 sho(s that RA 9C22 )erely follo(e$ the
basepoints )appe$ by RA DB6;, sae for at least nine basepoints that RA 9C22 s0ippe$ to opti)i+e the location of
basepoints an$ a$4ust the len'th of one baseline @an$ thus co)ply (ith >NC%?2 &&&Gs li)itation on the )a5i)u) len'th
of baselinesA! >n$er RA DB6;, as un$er RA 9C22, the L&3 an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal lie outsi$e of the baselines $ra(n
aroun$ the Philippine archipela'o! #his un$eniable carto'raphic fact ta0es the (in$ out of petitionersG ar'u)ent bran$in'
RA 9C22 as a statutory renunciation of the PhilippinesG clai) oer the L&3, assu)in' that baselines are releant for this
purpose!

PetitionersG assertion of loss of 8about 1C,BBB s,uare nautical )iles of territorial (atersF un$er RA 9C22 is si)ilarly
unfoun$e$ both in fact an$ la(! ?n the contrary, RA 9C22, by opti)i+in' the location of basepoints, increased the
PhilippinesG total )ariti)e space @coerin' its internal (aters, territorial sea an$ e5clusie econo)ic +oneA by 16C,21;
s,uare nautical )iles, as sho(n in the table belo(729
E5tent of )ariti)e area usin' RA DB6;, as
a)en$e$, ta0in' into account the #reaty of
ParisG $eli)itation @in s,uare nautical )ilesA
E5tent of )ariti)e area usin' RA
9C22, ta0in' into account >NC%?2
&&& @in s,uare nautical )ilesA
125
&nternal or
archipela'ic
(aters

1;;,<C<

171,6DC

#erritorial 2ea

276,1D;

D2,1B;

E5clusie
Econo)ic Mone




D<2,;;9
TOTAL 44@,994 354,21@

#hus, as the )ap belo( sho(s, the reach of the e5clusie econo)ic +one $ra(n un$er RA 9C22 een e5ten$s (ay
beyon$ the (aters coere$ by the rectan'ular $e)arcation un$er the #reaty of Paris! ?f course, (here there are
oerlappin' e5clusie econo)ic +ones of opposite or a$4acent 2tates, there (ill hae to be a $elineation of )ariti)e
boun$aries in accor$ance (ith >NC%?2 &&&!DB


Further, petitionersG ar'u)ent that the L&3 no( lies outsi$e Philippine territory because the baselines that RA 9C22 $ra(s
$o not enclose the L&3 is ne'ate$ by RA 9C22 itself! 2ection 2 of the la( co))its to te5t the PhilippinesG continue$ clai)
of soerei'nty an$ 4uris$iction oer the L&3 an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal7

2EC! 2! #he baselines in the follo(in' areas o0#" ;,+-, &,# P,+8+$$+%#! 8+A#;+!#
#.#"-+!#! !o0#"#+2%&) %' </"+!'+-&+o% shall be $eter)ine$ as 8Re'i)e of &slan$sF un$er the
Republic of the Philippines consistent (ith Article 121 of the >nite$ Nations Conention on the
%a( of the 2ea @>NC%?2A7
aA #he Lalayaan &slan$ 3roup as constitute$ un$er Presi$ential .ecree No! 1C9; an$
bA Ba4o $e Masinloc, also 0no(n as 2carborou'h 2hoal! @E)phasis supplie$A


1a$ Con'ress in RA 9C22 enclose$ the L&3 an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal as part of the Philippine
archipela'o, a$erse le'al effects (oul$ hae ensue$! #he Philippines (oul$ hae co))itte$ a breach of t(o proisions
of >NC%?2 &&&! First, Article 67 @DA of >NC%?2 &&& re,uires that 89t:he $ra(in' of such baselines shall not $epart to any
appreciable e5tent fro) the 'eneral confi'uration of the archipela'o!F 2econ$, Article 67 @2A of >NC%?2 &&& re,uires that
8the len'th of the baselines shall not e5cee$ 1BB nautical )iles,F sae for three per cent @DEA of the total nu)ber of
baselines (hich can reach up to 12C nautical )iles!D1

Althou'h the Philippines has consistently clai)e$ soerei'nty oer the L&3D2 an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal for
seeral $eca$es, these outlyin' areas are locate$ at an appreciable $istance fro) the nearest shoreline of the Philippine
archipela'o,DD such that any strai'ht baseline lope$ aroun$ the) fro) the nearest basepoint (ill ineitably 8$epart to an
appreciable e5tent fro) the 'eneral confi'uration of the archipela'o!F

#he principal sponsor of RA 9C22 in the 2enate, 2enator Miria) .efensor*2antia'o, too0 pains to e)phasi+e
the fore'oin' $urin' the 2enate $eliberations7

/hat (e call the Lalayaan &slan$ 3roup or (hat the rest of the (orl$ call9: the
2pratlys an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal are outsi$e our archipela'ic baseline because if &e put
them inside our baselines &e mi*ht be accused of )iolatin* the pro)ision of international la&
&hich states$ KThe dra&in* of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable e'tent from the
*eneral confi*uration of the archipela*o%L 6o sa loob n* atin* baseline, dapat ma*kalapit an*
m*a islands% Dahil malayo an* 6carborou*h 6hoal, hindi natin masasabin* malapit sila sa atin
althou*h &e are still allo&ed by international la& to claim them as our o&n%

#his is calle$ conteste$ islan$s outsi$e our confi'uration! /e see that our archipela'o is $efine$
by the oran'e line (hich 9(e: call9: archipela'ic baseline! N'ayon, tin'nan ninyo an' )aliit na
circle $oon sa itaas, that is 2carborou'h 2hoal, iton' )ala0in' circle sa ibaba, that is Lalayaan
3roup or the 2pratlys! Malayo na sila sa atin* archipela*o kaya kun* ilihis pa natin an* datin*
archipela*ic baselines para laman* masama iton* dala&an* circles, hindi na sila ma*kalapit at
baka hindi na tatan**apin n* 7nited Nations because of the rule that it should follo& the natural
confi*uration of the archipela*o!D6 @E)phasis supplie$A


2i)ilarly, the len'th of one baseline that RA DB6; $re( e5cee$e$ >NC%?2 &&&Gs li)its! #he nee$ to shorten
this baseline, an$ in a$$ition, to opti)i+e the location of basepoints usin' current )aps, beca)e i)peratie as $iscusse$
by respon$ents7

9#:he a)en$)ent of the baselines la( (as necessary to enable the Philippines to
$ra( the outer li)its of its )ariti)e +ones inclu$in' the e5ten$e$ continental shelf in the )anner
proi$e$ by Article 67 of 9>NC%?2 &&&:! As $efine$ by R!A! DB6;, as a)en$e$ by R!A! C66;, the
baselines suffer fro) so)e technical $eficiencies, to (it7

1! #he len'th of the baseline across Moro 3ulf @fro) Mi$$le of D Roc0 A(ash to #on',uil PointA is
16B!B; nautical )iles 5 5 5! #his e5cee$s the )a5i)u) len'th allo(e$ un$er Article 67@2A of the
9>NC%?2 &&&:, (hich states that 8#he len'th of such baselines shall not e5cee$ 1BB nautical
126
)iles, e5cept that up to D per cent of the total nu)ber of baselines enclosin' any archipela'o
)ay e5cee$ that len'th, up to a )a5i)u) len'th of 12C nautical )iles!F
2! #he selection of basepoints is not opti)al! At least 9 basepoints can be s0ippe$ or $elete$ fro)
the baselines syste)! #his (ill enclose an a$$itional 2,19C nautical )iles of (ater!
D! Finally, the basepoints (ere $ra(n fro) )aps e5istin' in 19;<, an$ not establishe$ by 'eo$etic
surey )etho$s! Accor$in'ly, so)e of the points, particularly alon' the (est coasts of %u+on
$o(n to Pala(an (ere later foun$ to be locate$ either inlan$ or on (ater, not on lo(*(ater line
an$ $ryin' reefs as prescribe$ by Article 67!DC


1ence, far fro) surren$erin' the PhilippinesG clai) oer the L&3 an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal, Con'ressG
$ecision to classify the L&3 an$ the 2carborou'h 2hoal as 8JRe'i)e9s: of &slan$sG un$er the Republic of the Philippines
consistent (ith Article 121FD; of >NC%?2 &&& )anifests the Philippine 2tateGs responsible obserance of its pacta sunt
ser)anda obli'ation un$er >NC%?2 &&&! >n$er Article 121 of >NC%?2 &&&, any 8naturally for)e$ area of lan$, surroun$e$
by (ater, (hich is aboe (ater at hi'h ti$e,F such as portions of the L&3, ,ualifies un$er the cate'ory of 8re'i)e of
islan$s,F (hose islan$s 'enerate their o(n applicable )ariti)e +ones!D7





Statutory +laim Over Sabah under
%A 8==> %etained


PetitionersG ar'u)ent for the inali$ity of RA 9C22 for its failure to te5tuali+e the PhilippinesG clai) oer 2abah in North
Borneo is also untenable! 2ection 2 of RA C66;, (hich RA 9C22 $i$ not repeal, 0eeps open the $oor for $ra(in' the
baselines of 2abah7

2ection 2! #he $efinition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine
Archipela'o as proi$e$ in this Act +! ;+&,o/& $"#</'+-# &o &,# '#8+%#&+o% o1 &,# (!#8+%#! o1
&,# &#""+&o"+8 !# "o/%' &,# &#""+&o") o1 S(,, !+&/&#' +% No"&, Bo"%#o, o0#" ;,+-, &,#
R#$/(8+- o1 &,# P,+8+$$+%#! ,! -:/+"#' 'o7+%+o% %' !o0#"#+2%&)! @E)phasis supplie$A



0(+LOS ''' and %A 7899 not
'ncompatible with the +onstitution:s
!elineation of 'nternal 6aters

As their final ar'u)ent a'ainst the ali$ity of RA 9C22, petitioners conten$ that the la( unconstitutionally 8conertsF
internal (aters into archipela'ic (aters, hence sub4ectin' these (aters to the ri'ht of innocent an$ sea lanes passa'e
un$er >NC%?2 &&&, inclu$in' oerfli'ht! Petitioners e5trapolate that these passa'e ri'hts in$ubitably e5pose Philippine
internal (aters to nuclear an$ )ariti)e pollution ha+ar$s, in iolation of the Constitution!D<

/hether referre$ to as Philippine 8internal (atersF un$er Article & of the ConstitutionD9 or as 8archipela'ic (atersF un$er
>NC%?2 &&& @Article 69 91:A, the Philippines e5ercises soerei'nty oer the bo$y of (ater lyin' lan$(ar$ of the baselines,
inclu$in' the air space oer it an$ the sub)arine areas un$erneath! >NC%?2 &&& affir)s this7

Article 69! Le*al status of archipela*ic &aters, of the air space o)er archipela*ic
&aters and of their bed and subsoil! O

1! #he !o0#"#+2%&) o1 % "-,+$#82+- S&&# #.&#%'! &o &,# ;&#"!
#%-8o!#' () &,# "-,+$#82+- (!#8+%#! $ra(n in accor$ance (ith
article 67, $escribe$ as archipela'ic (aters, re'ar$less of their $epth or
$istance fro) the coast!
2! T,+! !o0#"#+2%&) #.&#%'! &o &,# +" !$-# o0#" &,# "-,+$#82+-
;&#"!, ! ;#88 ! &o &,#+" (#' %' !/(!o+8, %' &,# "#!o/"-#!
-o%&+%#' &,#"#+%!
5 5 5 5

6! #he re'i)e of archipela'ic sea lanes passa'e establishe$ in this Part !,88 %o& +%
o&,#" "#!$#-&! 11#-& &,# !&&/! o1 &,# "-,+$#82+- ;&#"!, inclu$in' the sea lanes, o" &,#
#.#"-+!# () &,# "-,+$#82+- S&&# o1 +&! !o0#"#+2%&) o0#" !/-, ;&#"! %' &,#+" +" !$-#,
(#' %' !/(!o+8, %' &,# "#!o/"-#! -o%&+%#' &,#"#+%! @E)phasis supplie$A

#he fact of soerei'nty, ho(eer, $oes not preclu$e the operation of )unicipal an$ international la( nor)s sub4ectin' the
territorial sea or archipela'ic (aters to necessary, if not )ar'inal, bur$ens in the interest of )aintainin' uni)pe$e$,
e5pe$itious international nai'ation, consistent (ith the international la( principle of free$o) of nai'ation! #hus,
$o)estically, the political branches of the Philippine 'oern)ent, in the co)petent $ischar'e of their constitutional
po(ers, )ay pass le'islation $esi'natin' routes (ithin the archipela'ic (aters to re'ulate innocent an$ sea lanes
passa'e!6B &n$ee$, bills $ra(in' nautical hi'h(ays for sea lanes passa'e are no( pen$in' in Con'ress!61

&n the absence of )unicipal le'islation, international la( nor)s, no( co$ifie$ in >NC%?2 &&&, operate to 'rant
innocent passa'e ri'hts oer the territorial sea or archipela'ic (aters, sub4ect to the treatyGs li)itations an$ con$itions for
their e5ercise!62 2i'nificantly, the ri'ht of innocent passa'e is a custo)ary international la(,6D thus auto)atically
incorporate$ in the corpus of Philippine la(!66 No )o$ern 2tate can ali$ly ino0e its soerei'nty to absolutely forbi$
innocent passa'e that is e5ercise$ in accor$ance (ith custo)ary international la( (ithout ris0in' retaliatory )easures
fro) the international co))unity!
127
#he fact that for archipela'ic 2tates, their archipela'ic (aters are sub4ect to both the ri'ht of innocent
passa'e an$ sea lanes passa'e6C $oes not place the) in lesser footin' )is/@/)is continental coastal 2tates (hich are
sub4ect, in their territorial sea, to the ri'ht of innocent passa'e an$ the ri'ht of transit passa'e throu'h international
straits! #he i)position of these passa'e ri'hts throu'h archipela'ic (aters un$er >NC%?2 &&& (as a concession by
archipela'ic 2tates, in e5chan'e for their ri'ht to clai) all the (aters lan$(ar$ of their baselines, re*ardless of their
depth or distance from the coast, as archipela'ic (aters sub4ect to their territorial so)erei*nty! More i)portantly, the
reco'nition of archipela'ic 2tatesG archipela'o an$ the (aters enclose$ by their baselines as one cohesie entity
preents the treat)ent of their islan$s as separate islan$s un$er >NC%?2 &&&!6; 2eparate islan$s 'enerate their o(n
)ariti)e +ones, placin' the (aters bet(een islan$s separate$ by )ore than 26 nautical )iles beyon$ the 2tatesG
territorial soerei'nty, sub4ectin' these (aters to the ri'hts of other 2tates un$er >NC%?2 &&&!67


PetitionersG inocation of non*e5ecutory constitutional proisions in Article && @.eclaration of Principles an$
2tate PoliciesA6< )ust also fail! ?ur present state of 4urispru$ence consi$ers the proisions in Article && as )ere
le'islatie 'ui$es, (hich, absent enablin' le'islation, 8$o not e)bo$y 4u$icially enforceable constitutional ri'hts 5 5 5!F69
Article && proisions sere as 'ui$es in for)ulatin' an$ interpretin' i)ple)entin' le'islation, as (ell as in interpretin'
e5ecutory proisions of the Constitution! Althou'h "posa )% FactoranCB treate$ the ri'ht to a healthful an$ balance$
ecolo'y un$er 2ection 1; of Article && as an e5ception, the present petition lac0s factual basis to substantiate the clai)e$
constitutional iolation! #he other proisions petitioners cite, relatin' to the protection of )arine (ealth @Article I&&,
2ection 2, para'raph 2C1A an$ subsistence fisher)en @Article I&&&, 2ection 7C2A, are not iolate$ by RA 9C22!

&n fact, the $e)arcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to $eli)it its e5clusie econo)ic +one,
reserin' solely to the Philippines the e5ploitation of all liin' an$ non*liin' resources (ithin such +one! 2uch a )ariti)e
$elineation bin$s the international co))unity since the $elineation is in strict obserance of >NC%?2 &&&! &f the )ariti)e
$elineation is contrary to >NC%?2 &&&, the international co))unity (ill of course re4ect it an$ (ill refuse to be boun$ by it!

>NC%?2 &&& faors 2tates (ith a lon' coastline li0e the Philippines! >NC%?2 &&& creates a sui *eneris
)ariti)e space O the e5clusie econo)ic +one O in (aters preiously part of the hi'h seas! >NC%?2 &&& 'rants ne( ri'hts
to coastal 2tates to e5clusiely e5ploit the resources foun$ (ithin this +one up to 2BB nautical )iles!CD >NC%?2 &&&,
ho(eer, preseres the tra$itional free$o) of nai'ation of other 2tates that attache$ to this +one beyon$ the territorial
sea before >NC%?2 &&&!


%A 7899 and the /hilippines: Maritime ;ones

Petitioners hol$ the ie( that, base$ on the per)issie te5t of >NC%?2 &&&, Con'ress (as not boun$ to pass
RA 9C22!C6 /e hae loo0e$ at the releant proision of >NC%?2 &&&CC an$ (e fin$ petitionersG rea$in' plausible!
Neertheless, the prero'atie of choosin' this option belon's to Con'ress, not to this Court! Moreoer, the lu5ury of
choosin' this option co)es at a ery steep price! Absent an >NC%?2 &&& co)pliant baselines la(, an archipela'ic 2tate
li0e the Philippines (ill fin$ itself $eoi$ of internationally acceptable baselines fro) (here the brea$th of its )ariti)e
+ones an$ continental shelf is )easure$! #his is recipe for a t(o*fronte$ $isaster7 first, it sen$s an open initation to the
seafarin' po(ers to freely enter an$ e5ploit the resources in the (aters an$ sub)arine areas aroun$ our archipela'o"
an$ second, it (ea0ens the countryGs case in any international $ispute oer Philippine )ariti)e space! #hese are
conse,uences Con'ress (isely aoi$e$!

#he enact)ent of >NC%?2 &&& co)pliant baselines la( for the Philippine archipela'o an$ a$4acent areas, as
e)bo$ie$ in RA 9C22, allo(s an internationally*reco'ni+e$ $eli)itation of the brea$th of the PhilippinesG )ariti)e +ones
an$ continental shelf! RA 9C22 is therefore a )ost ital step on the part of the Philippines in safe'uar$in' its )ariti)e
+ones, consistent (ith the Constitution an$ our national interest!

WHEREFORE, (e DISMISS the petition!

SO ORDERED!
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 1>B@B4 O-&o(#" 9, 2@@>
PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, s!HEALTH SECRETARY
FRANCISCO T. DUKUE IIIG HEALTH UNDER SECRETARIES DR. ETHELYN P. NIETO, DR. MARGARITA M. GALON,
ATTY. ALEHANDER A. PADILLA, M DR. JADE F. DEL MUNDOG %' ASSISTANT SECRETARIES DR. MARIO C.
VILLAVERDE, DR. DAVID J. LO*ADA, AND DR. NEMESIO T. GAFO, respon$ents!
D E C I S I O N
128
AUSTRIA-MARTINE*, J.6
#he Court an$ all parties inole$ are in a'ree)ent that the best nourish)ent for an infant is )otherTs )il0! #here is
nothin' 'reater than for a )other to nurture her beloe$ chil$ strai'ht fro) her boso)! #he i$eal is, of course, for each
an$ eery Filipino chil$ to en4oy the une,uale$ benefits of breast)il0! But ho( shoul$ this en$ be attaine$K
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari un$er Rule ;C of the Rules of Court, see0in' to nullify A$)inistratie ?r$er
@A!?!A No! 2BB;*BB12 entitle$, %evised 'mplementing %ules and %egulations of #"ecutive Order (o. 83, Otherwise
<nown as 5he *Mil2 +ode,* %elevant 'nternational Agreements, /enali.ing 1iolations 5hereof, and for Other
/urposes @R&RRA! Petitioner posits that the R&RR is not ali$ as it contains proisions that are not constitutional an$ 'o
beyon$ the la( it is suppose$ to i)ple)ent!
Na)e$ as respon$ents are the 1ealth 2ecretary, >n$ersecretaries, an$ Assistant 2ecretaries of the .epart)ent of
1ealth @.?1A! For purposes of herein petition, the .?1 is $ee)e$ i)plea$e$ as a co*respon$ent since respon$ents
issue$ the ,uestione$ R&RR in their capacity as officials of sai$ e5ecutie a'ency!
1
E5ecutie ?r$er No! C1 @Mil0 Co$eA (as issue$ by Presi$ent Cora+on A,uino on ?ctober 2<, 19<; by irtue of the
le'islatie po(ers 'rante$ to the presi$ent un$er the Free$o) Constitution! ?ne of the prea)bular clauses of the Mil0
Co$e states that the la( see0s to 'ie effect to Article 11
2
of the &nternational Co$e of Mar0etin' of Breast)il0 2ubstitutes
@&CMB2A, a co$e a$opte$ by the /orl$ 1ealth Asse)bly @/1AA in 19<1! Fro) 19<2 to 2BB;, the /1A a$opte$ seeral
Resolutions to the effect that breastfee$in' shoul$ be supporte$, pro)ote$ an$ protecte$, hence, it shoul$ be ensure$
that nutrition an$ health clai)s are not per)itte$ for breast)il0 substitutes!
&n 199B, the Philippines ratifie$ the &nternational Conention on the Ri'hts of the Chil$! Article 26 of sai$ instru)ent
proi$es that 2tate Parties shoul$ ta0e appropriate )easures to $i)inish infant an$ chil$ )ortality, an$ ensure that all
se')ents of society, specially parents an$ chil$ren, are infor)e$ of the a$anta'es of breastfee$in'!
?n May 1C, 2BB;, the .?1 issue$ herein assaile$ R&RR (hich (as to ta0e effect on -uly 7, 2BB;!
1o(eer, on -une 2<, 2BB;, petitioner, representin' its )e)bers that are )anufacturers of breast)il0 substitutes, file$
the present Petition for Certiorari an$ Prohibition (ith Prayer for the &ssuance of a #e)porary Restrainin' ?r$er @#R?A or
/rit of Preli)inary &n4unction!
#he )ain issue raise$ in the petition is (hether respon$ents officers of the .?1 acte$ (ithout or in e5cess of 4uris$iction,
or (ith 'rae abuse of $iscretion a)ountin' to lac0 or e5cess of 4uris$iction, an$ in iolation of the proisions of the
Constitution in pro)ul'atin' the R&RR!
D
?n Au'ust 1C, 2BB;, the Court issue$ a Resolution 'rantin' a #R? en4oinin' respon$ents fro) i)ple)entin' the
,uestione$ R&RR!
After the Co))ent an$ Reply ha$ been file$, the Court set the case for oral ar'u)ents on -une 19, 2BB7! #he Court
issue$ an A$isory @3ui$ance for ?ral Ar'u)entsA $ate$ -une C, 2BB7, to (it7
#he Court hereby sets the follo(in' issues7
1! /hether or not petitioner is a real party*in*interest"
2! /hether A$)inistratie ?r$er No! 2BB;*BB12 or the Reise$ &)ple)entin' Rules an$ Re'ulations @R&RRA issue$ by
the .epart)ent of 1ealth @.?1A is not constitutional"
2!1 /hether the R&RR is in accor$ (ith the proisions of E5ecutie ?r$er No! C1 @Mil0 Co$eA"
2!2 /hether pertinent international a'ree)ents
1
entere$ into by the Philippines are part of the la( of the lan$ an$ )ay be
i)ple)ente$ by the .?1 throu'h the R&RR" &f in the affir)atie, (hether the R&RR is in accor$ (ith the international
a'ree)ents"
2!D /hether 2ections 6, C@(A, 22, D2, 67, an$ C2 of the R&RR iolate the $ue process clause an$ are in restraint of tra$e"
an$
2!6 /hether 2ection 1D of the R&RR on #otal Effect proi$es sufficient stan$ar$s!
]]]]]]]]]]]]]
1 @1A >nite$ Nations Conention on the Ri'hts of the Chil$" @2A the /1? an$ >nicef S2BB2 3lobal 2trate'y on &nfant an$
Noun' Chil$ Fee$in'"S an$ @DA arious /orl$ 1ealth Asse)bly @/1AA Resolutions!
#he parties file$ their respectie )e)oran$a!
#he petition is partly i)bue$ (ith )erit!
"n the issue of petitionerCs standin*
129
/ith re'ar$ to the issue of (hether petitioner )ay prosecute this case as the real party*in*interest, the Court a$opts the
ie( enunciate$ in E5ecutie 2ecretary ! Court of Appeals,
6
to (it7
#he )o$ern ie( is that an association has stan$in' to co)plain of in4uries to its )e)bers! #his ie( fuses the le'al
i$entity of an association (ith that of its )e)bers! A% !!o-+&+o% ,! !&%'+%2 &o 1+8# !/+& 1o" +&! ;o"A#"! '#!$+&# +&!
8-A o1 '+"#-& +%&#"#!& +1 +&! 7#7(#"! "# 11#-&#' () &,# -&+o%. A% o"2%+L&+o% ,! !&%'+%2 &o !!#"& &,#
-o%-#"%! o1 +&! -o%!&+&/#%&!.
5 5 5 5
5 5 5 /e note that, un$er its Articles of &ncorporation, the respon$ent (as or'ani+e$ 5 5 5 to act as the representatie of
any in$ii$ual, co)pany, entity or association on )atters relate$ to the )anpo(er recruit)ent in$ustry, an$ to perfor)
other acts an$ actiities necessary to acco)plish the purposes e)bo$ie$ therein! #he "#!$o%'#%& +!, &,/!, &,#
$$"o$"+&# $"&) &o !!#"& &,# "+2,&! o1 +&! 7#7(#"!, (#-/!# +& %' +&! 7#7(#"! "# +% #0#") $"-&+-8 !#%!#
+'#%&+-8! 5 5 5 T,# "#!$o%'#%& I!!o-+&+o%J +! (/& &,# 7#'+/7 &,"o/2, ;,+-, +&! +%'+0+'/8 7#7(#"! !##A &o
7A# 7o"# #11#-&+0# &,# #.$"#!!+o% o1 &,#+" 0o+-#! %' &,# "#'"#!! o1 &,#+" 2"+#0%-#!.
C
@E)phasis supplie$A
(hich (as reasserte$ in Purok .a*on* 6ilan* !ssociation, ,nc% )% 5uipco,
;
(here the Court rule$ that an association has
the le'al personality to represent its )e)bers because the results of the case (ill affect their ital interests!
7
1erein petitionerTs A)en$e$ Articles of &ncorporation contains a si)ilar proision 4ust li0e in E5ecutie 2ecretary, that the
association is for)e$ Sto represent $irectly or throu'h approe$ representaties the phar)aceutical an$ health care
in$ustry before the Philippine 3oern)ent an$ any of its a'encies, the )e$ical professions an$ the 'eneral public!S
<
#hus, as an or'ani+ation, petitioner $efinitely has an interest in fulfillin' its ao(e$ purpose of representin' )e)bers
(ho are part of the phar)aceutical an$ health care in$ustry! Petitioner is $uly authori+e$
9
to ta0e the appropriate course
of action to brin' to the attention of 'oern)ent a'encies an$ the courts any 'rieance suffere$ by its )e)bers (hich
are $irectly affecte$ by the R&RR! Petitioner, (hich is )an$ate$ by its A)en$e$ Articles of &ncorporation to represent the
entire in$ustry, (oul$ be re)iss in its $uties if it fails to act on 'oern)ental action that (oul$ affect any of its in$ustry
)e)bers, no )atter ho( fe( or nu)erous they are! 1ence, petitioner, (hose le'al i$entity is $ee)e$ fuse$ (ith its
)e)bers, shoul$ be consi$ere$ as a real party*in*interest (hich stan$s to be benefite$ or in4ure$ by any 4u$')ent in the
present action!
"n the constitutionality of the pro)isions of the ,
F+"!&, the Court (ill $eter)ine if pertinent international instru)ents a$erte$ to by respon$ents are part of the la( of the
lan$!
Petitioner assails the R&RR for alle'e$ly 'oin' beyon$ the proisions of the Mil0 Co$e, thereby a)en$in' an$ e5pan$in'
the coera'e of sai$ la(! #he $efense of the .?1 is that the R&RR i)ple)ents not only the Mil0 Co$e but also arious
international instru)ents
1B
re'ar$in' infant an$ youn' chil$ nutrition! &t is respon$entsT position that sai$ international
instru)ents are $ee)e$ part of the la( of the lan$ an$ therefore the .?1 )ay i)ple)ent the) throu'h the R&RR!
#he Court notes that the follo(in' international instru)ents ino0e$ by respon$ents, na)ely7 @1A #he >nite$ Nations
Conention on the Ri'hts of the Chil$" @2A #he &nternational Coenant on Econo)ic, 2ocial an$ Cultural Ri'hts" an$ @DA
the Conention on the Eli)ination of All For)s of .iscri)ination A'ainst /o)en, only proi$e in 'eneral ter)s that steps
)ust be ta0en by 2tate Parties to $i)inish infant an$ chil$ )ortality an$ infor) society of the a$anta'es of
breastfee$in', ensure the health an$ (ell*bein' of fa)ilies, an$ ensure that (o)en are proi$e$ (ith serices an$
nutrition in connection (ith pre'nancy an$ lactation! 2ai$ instru)ents $o not contain specific proisions re'ar$in' the
use or )ar0etin' of breast)il0 substitutes!
#he international instru)ents that $o hae specific proisions re'ar$in' breast)il0 substitutes are the &CMB2 an$
arious /1A Resolutions!
>n$er the 19<7 Constitution, international la( can beco)e part of the sphere of $o)estic la( either by &"%!1o"7&+o%
or +%-o"$o"&+o%!
11
#he transfor)ation )etho$ re,uires that an international la( be transfor)e$ into a $o)estic la(
throu'h a constitutional )echanis) such as local le'islation! #he incorporation )etho$ applies (hen, by )ere
constitutional $eclaration, international la( is $ee)e$ to hae the force of $o)estic la(!
12
#reaties beco)e part of the la( of the lan$ throu'h &"%!1o"7&+o% pursuant to Article =&&, 2ection 21 of the Constitution
(hich proi$es that S9n:o treaty or international a'ree)ent shall be ali$ an$ effectie unless concurre$ in by at least t(o*
thir$s of all the )e)bers of the 2enate!S #hus, treaties or conentional international la( )ust 'o throu'h a process
prescribe$ by the Constitution for it to be transfor)e$ into )unicipal la( that can be applie$ to $o)estic conflicts!
1D
#he &CMB2 an$ /1A Resolutions are not treaties as they hae not been concurre$ in by at least t(o*thir$s of all
)e)bers of the 2enate as re,uire$ un$er 2ection 21, Article =&& of the 19<7 Constitution!
1o(eer, the &CMB2 (hich (as a$opte$ by the /1A in 19<1 ha$ been transfor)e$ into $o)estic la( throu'h local
le'islation, the Mil0 Co$e! Conse,uently, it is the Mil0 Co$e that has the force an$ effect of la( in this 4uris$iction an$ not
the &CMB2 per se!
#he Mil0 Co$e is al)ost a erbati) repro$uction of the &CMB2, but it is (ell to e)phasi+e at this point that the Co$e $i$
not a$opt the proision in the ICMBS (!o8/&#8) $"o,+(+&+%2 '0#"&+!+%2 or other for)s of pro)otion to the 'eneral
public of pro$ucts (ithin the scope of the &CMB2! &nstea$, &,# M+8A Co'# #.$"#!!8) $"o0+'#! &,& '0#"&+!+%2,
$"o7o&+o%, o" o&,#" 7"A#&+%2 7&#"+8! 7) (# 88o;#' +1 !/-, 7&#"+8! "# '/8) /&,o"+L#' %' $$"o0#' ()
130
&,# I%&#"-A2#%-) Co77+&&## DIACE!
?n the other han$, 2ection 2, Article && of the 19<7 Constitution, to (it7
2EC#&?N 2! #he Philippines renounces (ar as an instru)ent of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land an$ a$heres to the policy of peace, e,uality, 4ustice,
free$o), cooperation an$ a)ity (ith all nations! @E)phasis supplie$A
e)bo$ies the +%-o"$o"&+o% )etho$!
16
&n Mi(ares )% anada,
1C
the Court hel$ thus7
93:enerally accepte$ principles of international la(, by irtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, for) part of
the la(s of the lan$ een if they $o not $erie fro) treaty obli'ations! #he classical for)ulation in international la( sees
those custo)ary rules accepte$ as bin$in' result fro) the co)bination 9of: t(o ele)ents7 the establishe$, (i$esprea$,
an$ consistent practice on the part of 2tates" an$ a psycholo'ical ele)ent 0no(n as the opinion 4uris !+0# %#-#!!+&&#!
@opinion as to la( or necessityA! &)plicit in the latter ele)ent is a belief that the practice in ,uestion is ren$ere$ obli'atory
by the e5istence of a rule of la( re,uirin' it!
1;
@E)phasis supplie$A
S3enerally accepte$ principles of international la(S refers to nor)s of 'eneral or custo)ary international la( (hich are
bin$in' on all states,
17
i!e!, renunciation of (ar as an instru)ent of national policy, the principle of soerei'n i))unity,
1<
a
personTs ri'ht to life, liberty an$ $ue process,
19
an$ pacta sunt ser)anda,
2B
a)on' others! #he concept of S'enerally
accepte$ principles of la(S has also been $epicte$ in this (ise7
2o)e le'al scholars an$ 4u$'es loo0 upon certain S'eneral principles of la(S as a pri)ary source of international la(
because &,#) ,0# &,# N-,"-&#" o1 </! "&+o%8#N %' "# N08+' &,"o/2, 88 A+%'! o1 ,/7% !o-+#&+#!.N @-u$'e
#ana0a in his $issentin' opinion in the 19;; 2outh /est Africa Case, 19;; &!C!-! 29;A! ?TConnell hol$s that certain
priniciples are part of international la( because &,#) "# N(!+- &o 8#28 !)!&#7! 2#%#"88)N %' ,#%-# $"& o1 &,# </!
2#%&+/7! #hese principles, he beliees, are establishe$ by a process of reasonin' base$ on the co))on i$entity of all
le'al syste)s! &f there shoul$ be $oubt or $isa'ree)ent, one )ust loo0 to state practice an$ $eter)ine (hether the
)unicipal la( principle proi$es a 4ust an$ acceptable solution! 5 5 5
21
@E)phasis supplie$A
Fr! -oa,uin 3! Bernas $efines custo)ary international la( as follo(s7
Custo) or custo)ary international la( )eans Sa 'eneral an$ consistent practice of states follo(e$ by the) fro) a sense
of le'al obli'ation 9opinio (uris:!S @Restate)entA T,+! !&&#7#%& -o%&+%! &,# &;o (!+- #8#7#%&! o1 -/!&o76 &,#
material factor, that +!, ,o; !&&#! (#,0#, %' &,# $!)-,o8o2+-8 o" subjective factor, &,& +!, ;,) &,#) (#,0#
&,# ;) &,#) 'o.
5 5 5 5
#he initial factor for $eter)inin' the e5istence of custo) is the actual behaior of states! #his inclu$es seeral ele)ents7
$uration, consistency, an$ 'enerality of the practice of states!
#he re,uire$ $uration can be either short or lon'! 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
.uration therefore is not the )ost i)portant ele)ent! More i)portant is the consistency an$ the 'enerality of the practice!
5 5 5
5 5 5 5
?nce the e5istence of state practice has been establishe$, it beco)es necessary to $eter)ine (hy states behae the
(ay they $o! .o states behae the (ay they $o because &,#) -o%!+'#" +& o(8+2&o") to behae thus or 'o &,#) 'o +&
o%8) ! 7&&#" o1 -o/"&#!)K Opinio juris, o" &,# (#8+#1 &,& -#"&+% 1o"7 o1 (#,0+o" +! o(8+2&o"), +! ;,&
7A#! $"-&+-# % +%&#"%&+o%8 "/8#! /ithout it, practice is not la(!
22
@>n$erscorin' an$ E)phasis supplie$A
Clearly, custo)ary international la( is $ee)e$ incorporate$ into our $o)estic syste)!
2D
/1A Resolutions hae not been e)bo$ie$ in any local le'islation! 1ae they attaine$ the status of custo)ary la( an$
shoul$ they then be $ee)e$ incorporate$ as part of the la( of the lan$K
#he /orl$ 1ealth ?r'ani+ation @/1?A is one of the international speciali+e$ a'encies allie$ (ith the >nite$ Nations @>NA
by irtue of Article C7,
26
in relation to Article ;D
2C
of the >N Charter! >n$er the 196; /1? Constitution, it is the /1A
(hich $eter)ines the policies of the /1?,
2;
an$ has the po(er to a$opt re'ulations concernin' Sa$ertisin' an$ labelin'
of biolo'ical, phar)aceutical an$ si)ilar pro$ucts )oin' in international co))erce,S
27
an$ to S)a0e reco))en$ations
to )e)bers (ith respect to any )atter (ithin the co)petence of the ?r'ani+ation!S
2<
#he le'al effect of its re'ulations, as
oppose$ to reco))en$ations, is ,uite $ifferent!
Re'ulations, alon' (ith conentions an$ a'ree)ents, $uly a$opte$ by the /1A (+%' 7#7(#" !&&#! thus7
131
Article 19! #he 1ealth Asse)bly shall hae authority to a$opt conentions or a'ree)ents (ith respect to any )atter
(ithin the co)petence of the ?r'ani+ation! A t(o*thir$s ote of the 1ealth Asse)bly shall be re,uire$ for the a$option of
such -o%0#%&+o%! o" 2"##7#%&!, (hich !,88 -o7# +%&o 1o"-# 1o" #-, M#7(#" ;,#% --#$&#' () +& +%
--o"'%-# ;+&, +&! -o%!&+&/&+o%8 $"o-#!!#!.
Article 2B! E-, M#7(#" /%'#"&A#! &,& +& ;+88, (ithin ei'hteen )onths after the a$option by the 1ealth Asse)bly of a
conention or a'ree)ent, &A# -&+o% "#8&+0# &o &,# --#$&%-# o1 !/-, -o%0#%&+o% o" 2"##7#%&! Each Me)ber
shall notify the .irector*3eneral of the action ta0en, an$ if it $oes not accept such conention or a'ree)ent (ithin the
ti)e li)it, it (ill furnish a state)ent of the reasons for non*acceptance! &n case of acceptance, each Me)ber a'rees to
)a0e an annual report to the .irector*3eneral in accor$ance (ith Chapter I&=!
Article 21! #he 1ealth Asse)bly shall hae authority to a$opt re'ulations concernin'7 @aA sanitary an$ ,uarantine
re,uire)ents an$ other proce$ures $esi'ne$ to preent the international sprea$ of $isease" @bA no)enclatures (ith
respect to $iseases, causes of $eath an$ public health practices" @cA stan$ar$s (ith respect to $ia'nostic proce$ures for
international use" @$A stan$ar$s (ith respect to the safety, purity an$ potency of biolo'ical, phar)aceutical an$ si)ilar
pro$ucts )oin' in international co))erce" @eA a$ertisin' an$ labelin' of biolo'ical, phar)aceutical an$ si)ilar
pro$ucts )oin' in international co))erce!
Article 22! e*ulations adopted pursuant to !rticle 14 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been
*i)en of their adoption by the 8ealth !ssembly e'cept for such Members as may notify the Director/=eneral of re(ection
or reser)ations &ithin the period stated in the notice% @E)phasis supplie$A
?n the other han$, /%'#" A"&+-8# 2B, "#-o77#%'&+o%! o1 &,# WHA 'o %o& -o7# +%&o 1o"-# 1o" 7#7(#"!, in the
sa)e (ay that conentions or a'ree)ents un$er Article 19 an$ "#2/8&+o%! /%'#" A"&+-8# 21 co)e into force! Article 2D
of the /1? Constitution rea$s7
Article 2D! #he 1ealth Asse)bly shall hae authority to ma2e recommendations to Me)bers (ith respect to any
)atter (ithin the co)petence of the ?r'ani+ation! @E)phasis supplie$A
#he absence of a proision in Article 2D of any )echanis) by (hich the reco))en$ation (oul$ co)e into force for
)e)ber states is conspicuous!
#he for)er 2enior %e'al ?fficer of /1?, 2a)i 2hubber, state$ that /1A reco))en$ations are 'enerally not bin$in',
but they Scarry )oral an$ political (ei'ht, as they constitute the 4u$')ent on a health issue of the collectie )e)bership
of the hi'hest international bo$y in the fiel$ of health!S
29
Een the &CMB2 itself (as a$opte$ as a )ere reco))en$ation,
as /1A Resolution No! D6!22 states7
S#he #hirty*Fourth /orl$ 1ealth Asse)bly 5 5 5 a$opts, +% &,# !#%!# o1 A"&+-8# 2B o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%, the &nternational
Co$e of Mar0etin' of Breast)il0 2ubstitutes anne5e$ to the present resolution!S @E)phasis supplie$A
#he &ntro$uction to the &CMB2 also rea$s as follo(s7
&n -anuary 19<1, the E5ecutie Boar$ of the /orl$ 1ealth ?r'ani+ation at its si5ty*seenth session, consi$ere$ the fourth
$raft of the co$e, en$orse$ it, an$ unani)ously reco))en$e$ to the #hirty*fourth /orl$ 1ealth Asse)bly the te5t of a
resolution by (hich +& ;o/8' 'o$& &,# -o'# +% &,# 1o"7 o1 "#-o77#%'&+o% "&,#" &,% "#2/8&+o%! 5 5 5
@E)phasis supplie$A
#he le'al alue of /1A Resolutions as reco))en$ations is su))ari+e$ in Article ;2 of the /1? Constitution, to (it7
Art! ;2! Each )e)ber shall report annually on the action ta0en (ith respect to reco))en$ations )a$e to it by the
?r'ani+ation, an$ (ith respect to conentions, a'ree)ents an$ re'ulations!
Apparently, the /1A Resolution a$optin' the &CMB2 an$ subse,uent /1A Resolutions ur'in' )e)ber states to
i)ple)ent the &CMB2 are )erely reco))en$atory an$ le'ally non*bin$in'! T,/!, /%8+A# ;,& ,! (##% 'o%# ;+&, &,#
ICMBS ;,#"#() &,# 8#2+!8&/"# #%-&#' 7o!& o1 &,# $"o0+!+o%! +%&o 8; ;,+-, +! &,# M+8A Co'#, &,# !/(!#:/#%&
WHA R#!o8/&+o%!,
DB
!$#-+1+-88) $"o0+'+%2 1o" #.-8/!+0# ("#!&1##'+%2 1"o7 @-4 7o%&,!, -o%&+%/#' ("#!&1##'+%2
/$ &o 24 7o%&,!, %' (!o8/&#8) $"o,+(+&+%2 '0#"&+!#7#%&! %' $"o7o&+o%! o1 ("#!&7+8A !/(!&+&/&#!, ,0# %o&
(##% 'o$&#' ! 'o7#!&+- 8;.
&t is propoun$e$ that /1A Resolutions )ay constitute Ssoft la(S or non*bin$in' nor)s, principles an$ practices that
influence state behaior!
D1
S2oft la(S $oes not fall into any of the cate'ories of international la( set forth in Article D<, Chapter &&& of the 196; 2tatute
of the &nternational Court of -ustice!
D2
&t is, ho(eer, an e5pression of non*bin$in' nor)s, principles, an$ practices that
influence state behaior!
DD
Certain $eclarations an$ resolutions of the >N 3eneral Asse)bly fall un$er this cate'ory!
D6
#he )ost notable is the >N .eclaration of 1u)an Ri'hts, (hich this Court has enforce$ in arious cases, specifically,
=o)ernment of 8on*kon* 6pecial !dministrati)e e*ion )% "lalia,
DC
Me(off )% Director of Prisons,
D;
Mi(ares )% a?ada
D7
an$ 6han*ri/la ,nternational 8otel Mana*ement, Ltd% )% De)elopers =roup of Companies, ,nc%%
D<
#he /orl$ &ntellectual Property ?r'ani+ation @/&P?A, a speciali+e$ a'ency attache$ to the >N (ith the )an$ate to
pro)ote an$ protect intellectual property (orl$(i$e, has resorte$ to soft la( as a rapi$ )eans of nor) creation, in or$er
Sto reflect an$ respon$ to the chan'in' nee$s an$ $e)an$s of its constituents!S
D9
?ther international or'ani+ations (hich
hae resorte$ to soft la( inclu$e the &nternational %abor ?r'ani+ation an$ the Foo$ an$ A'riculture ?r'ani+ation @in the
132
for) of the Code' !limentariusA!
6B
/1? has resorte$ to soft la(! #his (as )ost ei$ent at the ti)e of the 2eere Acute Respiratory 2yn$ro)e @2AR2A an$
Aian flu outbrea0s!
Although the ',% %esolution does not create new international law binding on 6,O member states, it provides
an e"cellent e"ample of the power of *soft law* in international relations. 'nternational lawyers typically
distinguish binding rules of international law*hard law*from nonbinding norms, principles, and practices that
influence state behavior*soft law.* 6,O has during its e"istence generated many soft law norms, creating a
*soft law regime* in international governance for public health.
#he Ssoft la(S 2AR2 an$ &1R Resolutions represent si'nificant steps in layin' the political 'roun$(or0 for i)proe$
international cooperation on infectious $iseases! #hese resolutions clearly $efine /1? )e)ber statesT nor)atie $uty to
cooperate fully (ith other countries an$ (ith /1? in connection (ith infectious $isease sureillance an$ response to
outbrea0s!
5his duty is neither binding nor enforceable, but, in the wa2e of the SA%S epidemic, the duty is powerful
politically for t(o reasons! First, the 2AR2 outbrea0 has tau'ht the lesson that participatin' in, an$ enhancin',
international cooperation on infectious $isease controls is in a countryTs self*interest 5 5 5 if this (arnin' is hee$e$, the
Ssoft la(S in the 2AR2 an$ &1R Resolution coul$ infor) the $eelop)ent of 'eneral an$ consistent state practice on
infectious $isease sureillance an$ outbrea0 response, perhaps crystalli+in' eentually into custo)ary international la(
on infectious $isease preention an$ control!
61
&n the Philippines, the e5ecutie $epart)ent i)ple)ente$ certain )easures reco))en$e$ by /1? to a$$ress the
outbrea0s of 2AR2 an$ Aian flu by issuin' E5ecutie ?r$er @E!?!A No! 2B1 on April 2;, 2BBD an$ E!?! No! 2<B on
February 2, 2BB6, $ele'atin' to arious $epart)ents broa$ po(ers to close $o(n schoolsHestablish)ents, con$uct health
sureillance an$ )onitorin', an$ ban i)portation of poultry an$ a'ricultural pro$ucts!
&t )ust be e)phasi+e$ that een un$er such an international e)er'ency, the $uty of a state to i)ple)ent the &1R
Resolution (as still consi$ere$ not bin$in' or enforceable, althou'h sai$ resolutions ha$ 'reat political influence!
As preiously $iscusse$, for an international rule to be consi$ere$ as custo)ary la(, it )ust be establishe$ that such rule
is bein' follo(e$ by states because they -o%!+'#" +& o(8+2&o") to co)ply (ith such rules @opinio (urisA! Respon$ents
hae not presente$ any ei$ence to proe that the /1A Resolutions, althou'h si'ne$ by )ost of the )e)ber states,
(ere in fact enforce$ or practice$ by at least a )a4ority of the )e)ber states" neither hae respon$ents proen that any
co)pliance by )e)ber states (ith sai$ /1A Resolutions (as obli'atory in nature!
Respon$ents faile$ to establish that the proisions of pertinent /1A Resolutions are custo)ary international la( that
)ay be $ee)e$ part of the la( of the lan$!
Conse,uently, le'islation is necessary to transfor) the proisions of the /1A Resolutions into $o)estic la(! T,#
$"o0+!+o%! o1 &,# WHA R#!o8/&+o%! -%%o& (# -o%!+'#"#' ! $"& o1 &,# 8; o1 &,# 8%' &,& -% (# +7$8#7#%&#'
() #.#-/&+0# 2#%-+#! ;+&,o/& &,# %##' o1 8; #%-&#' () &,# 8#2+!8&/"#.
S#-o%', the Court (ill $eter)ine (hether the .?1 )ay i)ple)ent the proisions of the /1A Resolutions by irtue of its
po(ers an$ functions un$er the Reise$ A$)inistratie Co$e een in the absence of a $o)estic la(!
2ection D, Chapter 1, #itle &I of the Reise$ A$)inistratie Co$e of 19<7 proi$es that the .?1 shall '#1+%# &,#
%&+o%8 ,#8&, $o8+-) an$ i)ple)ent a national health plan (ithin the fra)e(or0 of the 'oern)entTs 'eneral policies
an$ plans, an$ +!!/# o"'#"! %' "#2/8&+o%! -o%-#"%+%2 &,# +7$8#7#%&&+o% o1 #!&(8+!,#' ,#8&, $o8+-+#!!
&t is crucial to ascertain (hether the absolute prohibition on a$ertisin' an$ other for)s of pro)otion of breast)il0
substitutes proi$e$ in so)e /1A Resolutions has been a$opte$ as part of the national health policy!
Respon$ents sub)it that the national policy on infant an$ youn' chil$ fee$in' is e)bo$ie$ in A!?! No! 2BBC*BB16, $ate$
May 2D, 2BBC! Basically, the A$)inistratie ?r$er $eclare$ the follo(in' policy 'ui$elines7 @1A i$eal breastfee$in'
practices, such as early initiation of breastfee$in', e5clusie breastfee$in' for the first si5 )onths, e5ten$e$
breastfee$in' up to t(o years an$ beyon$" @2A appropriate co)ple)entary fee$in', (hich is to start at a'e si5 )onths"
@DA )icronutrient supple)entation" @6A uniersal salt io$i+ation" @CA the e5ercise of other fee$in' options" an$ @;A fee$in'
in e5ceptionally $ifficult circu)stances! &n$ee$, the pri)acy of breastfee$in' for chil$ren is e)phasi+e$ as a national
health policy! Ho;#0#", %o;,#"# +% A.O. No. 2@@3-@@14 +! +& '#-8"#' &,& ! $"& o1 !/-, ,#8&, $o8+-), &,#
'0#"&+!#7#%& o" $"o7o&+o% o1 ("#!&7+8A !/(!&+&/&#! !,o/8' (# (!o8/&#8) $"o,+(+&#'.
#he national policy of protection, pro)otion an$ support of breastfee$in' cannot auto)atically be e,uate$ (ith a total
ban on a$ertisin' for breast)il0 substitutes!
&n ie( of the enact)ent of the Mil0 Co$e (hich $oes not contain a total ban on the a$ertisin' an$ pro)otion of
breast)il0 substitutes, but instea$, specifically creates an &AC (hich (ill re'ulate sai$ a$ertisin' an$ pro)otion, it
follo(s that a total ban policy coul$ be i)ple)ente$ only $/"!/%& &o 8; a)en$in' the Mil0 Co$e passe$ by the
constitutionally authori+e$ branch of 'oern)ent, the le'islature!
#hus, only the proisions of the Mil0 Co$e, but %o& &,o!# o1 !/(!#:/#%& WHA R#!o8/&+o%!, can be ali$ly i)ple)ente$
by the .?1 throu'h the sub4ect R&RR!
133
T,+"', the Court (ill no( $eter)ine (hether the proisions of the R&RR are in accor$ance (ith those of the Mil0 Co$e!
&n support of its clai) that the R&RR is inconsistent (ith the Mil0 Co$e, petitioner alle'es the follo(in'7
1! #he Mil0 Co$e li)its its coera'e to chil$ren B*12 )onths ol$, but the R&RR e5ten$e$ its coera'e to Syoun' chil$renS
or those fro) a'es t(o years ol$ an$ beyon$7
MILF CODE RIRR
WHEREAS, in or$er to ensure that safe
an$ a$e,uate nutrition for infants is
proi$e$, there is a nee$ to protect an$
pro)ote breastfee$in' an$ to infor) the
public about the proper use of breast)il0
substitutes an$ supple)ents an$ relate$
pro$ucts throu'h a$e,uate, consistent
an$ ob4ectie infor)ation an$
appropriate re'ulation of the )ar0etin'
an$ $istribution of the sai$ substitutes,
supple)ents an$ relate$ pro$ucts"
SECTION 4D#E. S&nfantS )eans a person
fallin' (ithin the a'e brac0et of B*12
)onths!
S#-&+o% 2. P/"$o!# U #hese Reise$ Rules an$ Re'ulations are hereby
pro)ul'ate$ to ensure the proision of safe an$ a$e,uate nutrition for
infants an$ youn' chil$ren by the pro)otion, protection an$ support of
breastfee$in' an$ by ensurin' the proper use of breast)il0 substitutes,
breast)il0 supple)ents an$ relate$ pro$ucts (hen these are )e$ically
in$icate$ an$ only (hen necessary, on the basis of a$e,uate infor)ation
an$ throu'h appropriate )ar0etin' an$ $istribution!
S#-&+o% 3D11E. SNoun' Chil$S )eans a person fro) the a'e of )ore than
t(ele @12A )onths up to the a'e of three @DA years @D; )onthsA!
2! #he Mil0 Co$e reco'ni+es that infant for)ula )ay be a proper an$ possible substitute for breast)il0 in certain
instances" but the R&RR proi$es Se5clusie breastfee$in' for infants fro) B*; )onthsS an$ $eclares that Sthere is no
substitute nor replace)ent for breast)il0S7
D! #he Mil0 Co$e only re'ulates an$ $oes not i)pose unreasonable re,uire)ents for a$ertisin' an$ pro)otion" R&RR
i)poses an absolute ban on such actiities for breast)il0 substitutes inten$e$ for infants fro) B*26 )onths ol$ or
beyon$, an$ forbi$s the use of health an$ nutritional clai)s! 2ection 1D of the R&RR, (hich proi$es for a Stotal effectS in
the pro)otion of pro$ucts (ithin the scope of the Co$e, is a'ue7
MILF CODE RIRR
SECTION 4. T,# G#%#"8 P/(8+- %'
Mo&,#"!. U
@aA No a$ertisin', pro)otion or other
)ar0etin' )aterials, (hether (ritten, au$io or
isual, for pro$ucts (ithin the scope of this
Co$e shall be printe$, publishe$, $istribute$,
e5hibite$ an$ broa$cast unless such )aterials
are $uly authori+e$ an$ approe$ by an inter*
a'ency co))ittee create$ herein pursuant to
the applicable stan$ar$s proi$e$ for in this
Co$e!
S#-&+o% 4. D#-8"&+o% o1 P"+%-+$8#! U #he follo(in' are the
un$erlyin' principles fro) (hich the reise$ rules an$ re'ulations
are pre)ise$ upon7
5 5 5 5
f! A$ertisin', pro)otions, or sponsor*ships of infant for)ula,
breast)il0 substitutes an$ other relate$ pro$ucts are prohibite$!
S#-&+o% 11. P"o,+(+&+o% U No a$ertisin', pro)otions,
sponsorships, or )ar0etin' )aterials an$ actiities for breast)il0
substitutes inten$e$ for infants an$ youn' chil$ren up to t(enty*four
@26A )onths, shall be allo(e$, because they ten$ to coney or 'ie
subli)inal )essa'es or i)pressions that un$er)ine breast)il0 an$
breastfee$in' or other(ise e5a''erate breast)il0 substitutes an$Hor
replace)ents, as (ell as relate$ pro$ucts coere$ (ithin the scope
of this Co$e!
S#-&+o% 1B! NTo&8 E11#-&N * Pro)otion of pro$ucts (ithin the scope
of this Co$e )ust be ob4ectie an$ shoul$ not e,uate or )a0e the
pro$uct appear to be as 'oo$ or e,ual to breast)il0 or
breastfee$in' in the a$ertisin' concept! &t )ust not in any case
MILF CODE RIRR
WHEREAS, in or$er to ensure that safe an$
a$e,uate nutrition for infants is proi$e$,
there is a nee$ to protect an$ pro)ote
breastfee$in' an$ to infor) the public about
the proper use of breast)il0 substitutes an$
supple)ents an$ relate$ pro$ucts throu'h
a$e,uate, consistent an$ ob4ectie
infor)ation an$ appropriate re'ulation of the
)ar0etin' an$ $istribution of the sai$
substitutes, supple)ents an$ relate$
pro$ucts"
S#-&+o% 4. D#-8"&+o% o1 P"+%-+$8#! U #he follo(in' are the
un$erlyin' principles fro) (hich the reise$ rules an$ re'ulations are
pre)ise$ upon7
a! E5clusie breastfee$in' is for infants fro) B to si5 @;A )onths!
b! #here is no substitute or replace)ent for breast)il0!
134
un$er)ine breast)il0 or breastfee$in'! #he Stotal effectS shoul$ not
$irectly or in$irectly su''est that buyin' their pro$uct (oul$ pro$uce
better in$ii$uals, or resultin' in 'reater loe, intelli'ence, ability,
har)ony or in any )anner brin' better health to the baby or other
such e5a''erate$ an$ unsubstantiate$ clai)!
S#-&+o% 13. Co%&#%& o1 M&#"+8!. * #he follo(in' shall not be
inclu$e$ in a$ertisin', pro)otional an$ )ar0etin' )aterials7
a! #e5ts, pictures, illustrations or infor)ation (hich $iscoura'e or
ten$ to un$er)ine the benefits or superiority of breastfee$in' or
(hich i$eali+e the use of breast)il0 substitutes an$ )il0
supple)ents! &n this connection, no pictures of babies an$ chil$ren
to'ether (ith their )others, fathers, siblin's, 'ran$parents, other
relaties or care'iers @or yayasA shall be use$ in any
a$ertise)ents for infant for)ula an$ breast)il0 supple)ents"
b! #he ter) Shu)ani+e$,S S)aternali+e$,S Sclose to )otherTs )il0S or
si)ilar (or$s in $escribin' breast)il0 substitutes or )il0
supple)ents"
c! Pictures or te5ts that i$eali+e the use of infant an$ )il0 for)ula!
S#-&+o% 14! All health an$ nutrition clai)s for pro$ucts (ithin the
scope of the Co$e are absolutely prohibite$! For this purpose, any
phrase or (or$s that connotes to increase e)otional, intellectual
abilities of the infant an$ youn' chil$ an$ other li0e phrases shall not
be allo(e$!
6! #he R&RR i)poses a$$itional labelin' re,uire)ents not foun$ in the Mil0 Co$e7
C! #he Mil0 Co$e allo(s $isse)ination of infor)ation on infant for)ula to health professionals" the R&RR totally prohibits
such actiity7
MILF CODE RIRR
SECTION >. H#8&, C"# S)!&#7. U
@bA No facility of the health care syste) shall be
use$ for the purpose of pro)otin' infant for)ula or
other pro$ucts (ithin the scope of this Co$e! #his
Co$e $oes not, ho(eer, preclu$e the $isse)ination
of infor)ation to health professionals as proi$e$ in
2ection <@bA!
SECTION 5. H#8&, Wo"A#"!. *
@bA &nfor)ation proi$e$ by )anufacturers an$
$istributors to health professionals re'ar$in'
pro$ucts (ithin the scope of this Co$e shall be
restricte$ to scientific an$ factual )atters an$ such
infor)ation shall not i)ply or create a belief that
bottle*fee$in' is e,uialent or superior to
breastfee$in'! &t shall also inclu$e the infor)ation
specifie$ in 2ection C@bA!
S#-&+o% 22. No )anufacturer, $istributor, or representaties of
pro$ucts coere$ by the Co$e shall be allo(e$ to con$uct or
be inole$ in any actiity on breastfee$in' pro)otion,
e$ucation an$ pro$uction of &nfor)ation, E$ucation an$
Co))unication @&ECA )aterials on breastfee$in', hol$in' of or
participatin' as spea0ers in classes or se)inars for (o)en
an$ chil$ren actiities an$ to aoi$ the use of these enues to
)ar0et their bran$s or co)pany na)es!
SECTION 14. All health an$ nutrition clai)s for pro$ucts (ithin
the scope of the Co$e are absolutely prohibite$! For this
purpose, any phrase or (or$s that connotes to increase
e)otional, intellectual abilities of the infant an$ youn' chil$ an$
other li0e phrases shall not be allo(e$!
;! #he Mil0 Co$e per)its )il0 )anufacturers an$ $istributors to e5ten$ assistance in research an$ continuin' e$ucation
of health professionals" R&RR absolutely forbi$s the sa)e!
MILF CODE RIRR
SECTION 1@. Co%&+%#"!=L(#8. U
@aA Containers an$Hor labels shall be $esi'ne$ to
proi$e the necessary infor)ation about the
appropriate use of the pro$ucts, an$ in such a (ay
as not to $iscoura'e breastfee$in'!
@bA Each container shall hae a clear, conspicuous
an$ easily rea$able an$ un$erstan$able )essa'e in
Pilipino or En'lish printe$ on it, or on a label, (hich
)essa'e can not rea$ily beco)e separate$ fro) it,
an$ (hich shall inclu$e the follo(in' points7
@iA the (or$s S&)portant NoticeS or their e,uialent"
@iiA a state)ent of the superiority of breastfee$in'"
@iiiA a state)ent that the pro$uct shall be use$ only
on the a$ice of a health (or0er as to the nee$ for
its use an$ the proper )etho$s of use" an$
@iA instructions for appropriate preparation, an$ a
(arnin' a'ainst the health ha+ar$s of inappropriate
preparation!
S#-&+o% 24. Co%&#%& U Each containerHlabel shall contain such
)essa'e, in both Filipino an$ En'lish lan'ua'es, an$ (hich
)essa'e cannot be rea$ily separate$ therefro), relatie the
follo(in' points7
@aA #he (or$s or phrase S&)portant NoticeS or S3oern)ent
/arnin'S or their e,uialent"
@bA A state)ent of the superiority of breastfee$in'"
@cA A state)ent that there is no substitute for breast)il0"
@$A A state)ent that the pro$uct shall be use$ only on the
a$ice of a health (or0er as to the nee$ for its use an$ the
proper )etho$s of use"
@eA &nstructions for appropriate prepara*tion, an$ a (arnin'
a'ainst the health ha+ar$s of inappropriate preparation" an$
@fA #he health ha+ar$s of unnecessary or i)proper use of
infant for)ula an$ other relate$ pro$ucts inclu$in' infor)ation
that po($ere$ infant for)ula )ay contain patho'enic
)icroor'anis)s an$ )ust be prepare$ an$ use$ appropriately!
135
MILF CODE RIRR
SECTION 5. H#8&, Wo"A#"! O
@eA Manufacturers an$ $istributors of pro$ucts (ithin the
scope of this Co$e )ay assist in the research,
scholarships an$ continuin' e$ucation, of health
professionals, in accor$ance (ith the rules an$
re'ulations pro)ul'ate$ by the Ministry of 1ealth!
S#-&+o% 4. D#-8"&+o% o1 P"+%-+$8#! U
#he follo(in' are the un$erlyin' principles fro) (hich the
reise$ rules an$ re'ulations are pre)ise$ upon7
i! Mil0 co)panies, an$ their representaties, shoul$ not
for) part of any policy)a0in' bo$y or entity in relation to
the a$ance)ent of breasfee$in'!
SECTION 22. No )anufacturer, $istributor, or
representaties of pro$ucts coere$ by the Co$e shall be
allo(e$ to con$uct or be inole$ in any actiity on
breastfee$in' pro)otion, e$ucation an$ pro$uction of
&nfor)ation, E$ucation an$ Co))unication @&ECA )aterials
on breastfee$in', hol$in' of or participatin' as spea0ers in
classes or se)inars for (o)en an$ chil$ren actiities an$
to aoi$ the use of these enues to )ar0et their bran$s or
co)pany na)es!
SECTION B2. P"+7") R#!$o%!+(+8+&) o1 H#8&, Wo"A#"!
* &t is the pri)ary responsibility of the health (or0ers to
pro)ote, protect an$ support breastfee$in' an$ appropriate
infant an$ youn' chil$ fee$in'! Part of this responsibility is
to continuously up$ate their 0no(le$'e an$ s0ills on
breastfee$in'! No assistance, support, lo'istics or trainin'
fro) )il0 co)panies shall be per)itte$!
7! #he Mil0 Co$e re'ulates the 'iin' of $onations" R&RR absolutely prohibits it!
MILF CODE RIRR
SECTION 4. T,# G#%#"8 P/(8+- %'
Mo&,#"!. U
@fA Nothin' herein containe$ shall preent
$onations fro) )anufacturers an$
$istributors of pro$ucts (ithin the scope of
this Co$e upon re,uest by or (ith the
approal of the Ministry of 1ealth!
S#-&+o% 31. Do%&+o%! W+&,+% &,# S-o$# o1 T,+! Co'# * .onations of
pro$ucts, )aterials, $efine$ an$ coere$ un$er the Mil0 Co$e an$ these
i)ple)entin' rules an$ re'ulations, shall be strictly prohibite$!
S#-&+o% 32. O&,#" Do%&+o%! B) M+8A Co7$%+#! No& Co0#"#' () &,+!
Co'#. * .onations of pro$ucts, e,uip)ents, an$ the li0e, not other(ise
fallin' (ithin the scope of this Co$e or these Rules, 'ien by )il0
co)panies an$ their a'ents, representaties, (hether in 0in$ or in cash,
)ay only be course$ throu'h the &nter A'ency Co))ittee @&ACA, (hich
shall $eter)ine (hether such $onation be accepte$ or other(ise!
MILF CODE RIRR
S#-&+o% 44. A'7+%+!&"&+0# S%-&+o%!. U #he follo(in' a$)inistratie sanctions
shall be i)pose$ upon any person, 4uri$ical or natural, foun$ to hae iolate$ the
proisions of the Co$e an$ its i)ple)entin' Rules an$ Re'ulations7
aA 1
st
iolation O /arnin'"
bA 2
n$
iolation O A$)inistratie fine of a )ini)u) of #en #housan$ @P1B,BBB!BBA to
Fifty #housan$ @PCB,BBB!BBA Pesos, $epen$in' on the 'raity an$ e5tent of the
iolation, inclu$in' the recall of the offen$in' pro$uct"
cA D
r$
iolation O A$)inistratie Fine of a )ini)u) of 2i5ty #housan$ @P;B,BBB!BBA
to ?ne 1un$re$ Fifty #housan$ @P1CB,BBB!BBA Pesos, $epen$in' on the 'raity
an$ e5tent of the iolation, an$ in a$$ition thereto, the recall of the offen$in'
pro$uct, an$ suspension of the Certificate of Pro$uct Re'istration @CPRA"
$A 6
th
iolation OA$)inistratie Fine of a )ini)u) of #(o 1un$re$ #housan$
@P2BB,BBB!BBA to Fie 1un$re$ @PCBB,BBB!BBA #housan$ Pesos, $epen$in' on the
'raity an$ e5tent of the iolation" an$ in a$$ition thereto, the recall of the pro$uct,
reocation of the CPR, suspension of the %icense to ?perate @%#?A for one year"
eA C
th
an$ succee$in' repeate$ iolations O A$)inistratie Fine of ?ne Million
@P1,BBB,BBB!BBA Pesos, the recall of the offen$in' pro$uct, cancellation of the
CPR, reocation of the %icense to ?perate @%#?A of the co)pany concerne$,
inclu$in' the blac0listin' of the co)pany to be furnishe$ the .epart)ent of Bu$'et
an$ Mana'e)ent @.BMA an$ the .epart)ent of #ra$e an$ &n$ustry @.#&A"
fA An a$$itional penalty of #(o #hou*san$ Fie 1un$re$ @P2,CBB!BBA Pesos per
$ay shall be )a$e for eery $ay the iolation continues after hain' receie$ the
or$er fro) the &AC or other such appropriate bo$y, notifyin' an$ penali+in' the
co)pany for the infraction!
For purposes of $eter)inin' (hether or not there is Srepeate$S iolation, each
pro$uct iolation belon'in' or o(ne$ by a co)pany, inclu$in' those of their
subsi$iaries, are $ee)e$ to be iolations of the concerne$ )il0 co)pany an$ shall
not be base$ on the specific iolatin' pro$uct alone!
136
<! #he R&RR proi$es for a$)inistratie sanctions not i)pose$ by the Mil0 Co$e!
9! #he R&RR proi$es for repeal of e5istin' la(s to the contrary!
#he Court shall resole the )erits of the alle'ations of petitioner seriatim!
1! Petitioner is )ista0en in its clai) that the Mil0 Co$eTs coera'e is li)ite$ only to chil$ren B*12 )onths ol$! 2ection D of
the Mil0 Co$e states7
2EC#&?N D! 6cope of the Code O #he Co$e applies to the )ar0etin', an$ practices relate$ thereto, of the follo(in'
pro$ucts7 breast)il0 substitutes, inclu$in' infant for)ula" other )il0 pro$ucts, foo$s an$ beera'es, inclu$in' bottle*fe$
co)ple)entary foo$s, (hen )ar0ete$ or other(ise represente$ to be suitable, (ith or (ithout )o$ification, for use as a
partial or total replace)ent of breast)il0" fee$in' bottles an$ teats! &t also applies to their ,uality an$ aailability, an$ to
infor)ation concernin' their use!
Clearly, the coera'e of the Mil0 Co$e is not $epen$ent on the a'e of the chil$ but on the A+%' o1 $"o'/-& bein'
)ar0ete$ to the public! #he la( treats infant for)ula, bottle*fe$ co)ple)entary foo$, an$ breast)il0 substitute as
separate an$ $istinct pro$uct cate'ories!
2ection 6@hA of the Mil0 Co$e $efines infant for)ula as Sa breast)il0 substitute 5 5 5 to satisfy the nor)al nutritional
re,uire)ents of infants up to bet(een four to si5 )onths of a'e, an$ a$apte$ to their physiolo'ical characteristicsS" (hile
un$er 2ection 6@bA, bottle*fe$ co)ple)entary foo$ refers to Sany foo$, (hether )anufacture$ or locally prepare$,
suitable as a co)ple)ent to breast)il0 or infant for)ula, (hen either beco)es insufficient to satisfy the nutritional
re,uire)ents of the infant!S An infant un$er 2ection 6@eA is a person fallin' (ithin the a'e brac0et B*12 )onths! &t is the
nourish)ent of this 'roup of infants or chil$ren a'e$ B*12 )onths that is sou'ht to be pro)ote$ an$ protecte$ by the Mil0
Co$e!
But there is another tar'et 'roup! Breast)il0 substitute is $efine$ un$er 2ection 6@aA as Sany foo$ bein' )ar0ete$ or
other(ise presente$ as a partial or total replace)ent for breast)il0, (hether or not suitable for that purpose!S T,+!
!#-&+o% -o%!$+-/o/!8) 8-A! "#1#"#%-# &o %) $"&+-/8" 2#-2"o/$ o1 -,+8'"#%. H#%-#, &,# $"o0+!+o% o1 &,# M+8A
Co'# -%%o& (# -o%!+'#"#' #.-8/!+0# 1o" -,+8'"#% 2#' @-12 7o%&,!! &n other (or$s, breast)il0 substitutes )ay
also be inten$e$ for youn' chil$ren )ore than 12 )onths of a'e! #herefore, by re'ulatin' breast)il0 substitutes, the Mil0
Co$e also inten$s to protect an$ pro)ote the nourish)ent of chil$ren )ore than 12 )onths ol$!
Ei$ently, as lon' as (hat is bein' )ar0ete$ falls (ithin the scope of the Mil0 Co$e as proi$e$ in 2ection D, then it can
be sub4ect to re'ulation pursuant to sai$ la(, een if the pro$uct is to be use$ by chil$ren a'e$ oer 12 )onths!
#here is, therefore, nothin' ob4ectionable (ith 2ections 2
62
an$ C@ffA
6D
of the R&RR!
2! &t is also incorrect for petitioner to say that the R&RR, unli0e the Mil0 Co$e, $oes not reco'ni+e that breast)il0
substitutes )ay be a proper an$ possible substitute for breast)il0!
#he entirety of the R&RR, not )erely truncate$ portions thereof, )ust be consi$ere$ an$ construe$ to'ether! As hel$ in
De Luna )% Pascual,
66
S9t:he particular (or$s, clauses an$ phrases in the Rule shoul$ not be stu$ie$ as $etache$ an$
isolate$ e5pressions, but the (hole an$ eery part thereof )ust be consi$ere$ in fi5in' the )eanin' of any of its parts
an$ in or$er to pro$uce a har)onious (hole!S
2ection 7 of the R&RR proi$es that S(hen )e$ically in$icate$ an$ only (hen necessary, &,# /!# o1 ("#!&7+8A
!/(!&+&/&#! +! $"o$#" if base$ on co)plete an$ up$ate$ infor)ation!S 2ection < of the R&RR also states that infor)ation
an$ e$ucational )aterials shoul$ inclu$e infor)ation on the proper use of infant for)ula (hen the use thereof is nee$e$!
1ence, &,# RIRR, </!& 8+A# &,# M+8A Co'#, 8!o "#-o2%+L#! &,& +% -#"&+% -!#!, &,# /!# o1 ("#!&7+8A !/(!&+&/&#!
7) (# $"o$#".
D! #he Court shall ascertain the )erits of alle'ations D
6C
an$ 6
6;
to'ether as they are interlin0e$ (ith each other!
#o resole the ,uestion of (hether the labelin' re,uire)ents an$ a$ertisin' re'ulations un$er the R&RR are ali$, it is
i)portant to $eal first (ith the nature, purpose, an$ $epth of the re'ulatory po(ers of the .?1, as $efine$ in 'eneral
un$er the 19<7 A$)inistratie Co$e,
67
an$ as $ele'ate$ in particular un$er the Mil0 Co$e!
1ealth is a le'iti)ate sub4ect )atter for re'ulation by the .?1 @an$ certain other a$)inistratie a'enciesA in e5ercise of
police po(ers $ele'ate$ to it! #he sheer span of 4urispru$ence on that )atter preclu$es the nee$ to further $iscuss it!
!6<
1o(eer, health infor)ation, particularly a$ertisin' )aterials on apparently non*to5ic pro$ucts li0e breast)il0
substitutes an$ supple)ents, is a relatiely ne( area for re'ulation by the .?1!
69
As early as the 1917 Reise$ A$)inistratie Co$e of the Philippine &slan$s,
CB
health infor)ation (as alrea$y (ithin the
a)bit of the re'ulatory po(ers of the pre$ecessor of .?1!
C1
2ection 9D< thereof char'e$ it (ith the $uty to protect the
health of the people, an$ este$ it (ith such po(ers as S@'A the $isse)ination of hy'ienic infor)ation a)on' the people
an$ especially the inculcation of 2nowledge as to the proper care of infants an$ the )etho$s of preentin' an$
co)batin' $an'erous co))unicable $iseases!S
2eenty years later, the 19<7 A$)inistratie Co$e tas0e$ respon$ent .?1 to carry out the state policy pronounce$
un$er 2ection 1C, Article && of the 19<7 Constitution, (hich is Sto protect an$ pro)ote the ri'ht to health of the people an$
137
instill health consciousness a)on' the)!S
C2
#o that en$, it (as 'rante$ un$er 2ection D of the A$)inistratie Co$e the
po(er to S@;A propa'ate health infor)ation an$ educate the population on i)portant health, )e$ical an$ eniron)ental
)atters (hich hae health i)plications!S
CD
/hen it co)es to infor)ation re'ar$in' nutrition of infants an$ youn' chil$ren, ho(eer, the Mil0 Co$e specifically
$ele'ate$ to the Ministry of 1ealth @hereinafter referre$ to as .?1A the po(er to ensure that there is a$e,uate,
consistent an$ ob4ectie infor)ation on breastfee$in' an$ use of breast)il0 substitutes, supple)ents an$ relate$
pro$ucts" an$ the po(er to -o%&"o8 such infor)ation! #hese are e5pressly proi$e$ for in 2ections 12 an$ C@aA, to (it7
2EC#&?N 12! ,mplementation and Monitorin* O
5 5 5 5
@bA #he Ministry of 1ealth shall be principally responsible for the i)ple)entation an$ enforce)ent of the proisions of this
Co$e! For this purpose, the Ministry of 1ealth shall hae the follo(in' po(ers an$ functions7
@1A #o pro)ul'ate such rules an$ re'ulations as are necessary or proper for the i)ple)entation of this Co$e an$ the
acco)plish)ent of its purposes an$ ob4ecties!
5 5 5 5
@6A #o e5ercise such other po(ers an$ functions as )ay be necessary for or inci$ental to the attain)ent of the purposes
an$ ob4ecties of this Co$e!
2EC#&?N C! ,nformation and Education O
@aA #he 'oern)ent shall ensure that o(<#-&+0# %' -o%!+!&#%& infor)ation is proi$e$ on infant fee$in', for use by
fa)ilies an$ those inole$ in the fiel$ of infant nutrition! #his responsibility shall coer the plannin', proision, $esi'n
an$ $isse)ination of infor)ation, an$ the control thereof, on infant nutrition! @E)phasis supplie$A
Further, .?1 is authori+e$ by the Mil0 Co$e to -o%&"o8 the content of any infor)ation on breast)il0 )is/@/)is breast)il0
substitutes, supple)ent an$ relate$ pro$ucts, in the follo(in' )anner7
2EC#&?N C! 5 5 5
@bA &nfor)ational an$ e$ucational )aterials, (hether (ritten, au$io, or isual, $ealin' (ith the fee$in' of infants an$
inten$e$ to reach pre'nant (o)en an$ )others of infants, shall inclu$e clear infor)ation on all the follo(in' points7 @1A
the benefits an$ superiority of breastfee$in'" @2A )aternal nutrition, an$ the preparation for an$ )aintenance of
breastfee$in'" @DA the ne'atie effect on breastfee$in' of intro$ucin' partial bottlefee$in'" @6A the $ifficulty of reersin'
the $ecision not to breastfee$" an$ @CA (here nee$e$, the proper use of infant for)ula, (hether )anufacture$ in$ustrially
or ho)e*prepare$! 6hen such materials contain information about the use of infant formula, they shall include
the social and financial implications of its use) the health ha.ards of inappropriate foods or feeding methods)
and, in particular, the health ha.ards of unnecessary or improper use of infant formula and other breastmil2
substitutes. Such materials shall not use any picture or te"t which may ideali.e the use of breastmil2
substitutes.
6ECT,"N 2% 8ealth Workers M
5 5 5 5
@bA &nfor)ation proi$e$ by )anufacturers an$ $istributors to health professionals re'ar$in' pro$ucts (ithin the scope of
this Co$e !,88 (# "#!&"+-&#' &o !-+#%&+1+- %' 1-&/8 7&&#"!, %' !/-, +%1o"7&+o% !,88 %o& +7$8) o" -"#&#
(#8+#1 &,& (o&&8#1##'+%2 +! #:/+08#%& o" !/$#"+o" &o ("#!&1##'+%2. I& !,88 8!o +%-8/'# &,# +%1o"7&+o% !$#-+1+#'
+% S#-&+o% 3D(E.
6ECT,"N 40% Containers-Label M
@aA Containers an$Hor labels shall be $esi'ne$ to proi$e the necessary infor)ation about the appropriate use of the
pro$ucts, an$ +% !/-, ;) ! %o& &o '+!-o/"2# ("#!&1##'+%2.
5 5 5 5
@$A #he ter) Shu)ani+e$,S S)aternali+e$S or si)ilar ter)s shall not be use$! @E)phasis supplie$A
#he .?1 is also authori+e$ to control the purpose of the infor)ation an$ to (ho) such infor)ation )ay be $isse)inate$
un$er 2ections ; throu'h 9 of the Mil0 Co$e
C6
to ensure that the infor)ation that (oul$ reach pre'nant (o)en, )others
of infants, an$ health professionals an$ (or0ers in the health care syste) is restricte$ to scientific an$ factual )atters
an$ shall %o& i)ply or create a belief that bottlefee$in' is e,uialent or superior to breastfee$in'!
&t bears e)phasis, ho(eer, that the .?1Ts po(er un$er the Mil0 Co$e to -o%&"o8 infor)ation re'ar$in' breast)il0 )is/a/
)is breast)il0 substitutes +! %o& (!o8/&# as the po(er to control $oes not enco)pass the po(er to absolutely prohibit
the a$ertisin', )ar0etin', an$ pro)otion of breast)il0 substitutes!
138
#he follo(in' are the proisions of the Mil0 Co$e that une,uiocally in$icate that the control oer infor)ation 'ien to the
.?1 is not absolute an$ that absolute prohibition is not conte)plate$ by the Co$e7
aA 2ection 2 (hich re,uires a$e,uate infor)ation an$ appropriate )ar0etin' an$ $istribution of breast)il0 substitutes, to
(it7
2EC#&?N 2! !im of the Code M #he ai) of the Co$e is to contribute to the proision of safe an$ a$e,uate nutrition for
infants by the protection an$ pro)otion of breastfee$in' an$ by ensurin' the proper use of breast)il0 substitutes an$
breast)il0 supple)ents (hen these are necessary, on the basis of a$e,uate infor)ation an$ throu'h appropriate
)ar0etin' an$ $istribution!
bA 2ection D (hich specifically states that the Co$e applies to the )ar0etin' of an$ practices relate$ to breast)il0
substitutes, inclu$in' infant for)ula, an$ to infor)ation concernin' their use"
cA 2ection C@aA (hich proi$es that the 'oern)ent shall ensure that ob4ectie an$ consistent infor)ation is proi$e$ on
infant fee$in'"
$A 2ection C@bA (hich proi$es that (ritten, au$io or isual infor)ational an$ e$ucational )aterials shall not use any
picture or te5t (hich )ay i$eali+e the use of breast)il0 substitutes an$ shoul$ inclu$e infor)ation on the health ha+ar$s
of unnecessary or i)proper use of sai$ pro$uct"
eA 2ection ;@aA in relation to 2ection 12@aA (hich creates an$ e)po(ers the &AC to reie( an$ e5a)ine a$ertisin',
pro)otion, an$ other )ar0etin' )aterials"
fA 2ection <@bA (hich states that )il0 co)panies )ay proi$e infor)ation to health professionals but such infor)ation
shoul$ be restricte$ to factual an$ scientific )atters an$ shall not i)ply or create a belief that bottlefee$in' is e,uialent
or superior to breastfee$in'" an$
'A 2ection 1B (hich proi$es that containers or labels shoul$ not contain infor)ation that (oul$ $iscoura'e breastfee$in'
an$ i$eali+e the use of infant for)ula!
&t is in this conte5t that the Court no( e5a)ines the assaile$ proisions of the R&RR re'ar$in' labelin' an$ a$ertisin'!
2ections 1D
CC
on Stotal effectS an$ 2;
C;
of Rule =&& of the R&RR contain so)e labelin' re,uire)ents, specifically7 aA that
there be a state)ent that there is no substitute to breast)il0" an$ bA that there be a state)ent that po($ere$ infant
for)ula )ay contain patho'enic )icroor'anis)s an$ )ust be prepare$ an$ use$ appropriately! 2ection 1;
C7
of the R&RR
prohibits all health an$ nutrition clai)s for pro$ucts (ithin the scope of the Mil0 Co$e, such as clai)s of increase$
e)otional an$ intellectual abilities of the infant an$ youn' chil$!
#hese re,uire)ents an$ li)itations are consistent (ith the proisions of 2ection < of the Mil0 Co$e, to (it7
2EC#&?N <! 8ealth &orkers *
5 5 5 5
@bA &nfor)ation proi$e$ by )anufacturers an$ $istributors to health professionals re'ar$in' pro$ucts (ithin the scope of
this Co$e shall be "#!&"+-&#' &o !-+#%&+1+- %' 1-&/8 7&&#"!, an$ such infor)ation !,88 %o& i)ply or create a belief
that bottlefee$in' is e?uivalent or !/$#"+o" to breastfee$in'! &t shall also inclu$e the infor)ation specifie$ in 2ection C!
C<
@E)phasis supplie$A
an$ 2ection 1B@$A
C9
(hich bars the use on containers an$ labels of the ter)s Shu)ani+e$,S S)aternali+e$,S or si)ilar
ter)s!
#hese proisions of the Mil0 Co$e e5pressly forbi$ infor)ation that (oul$ i)ply or create a belief that there is any )il0
pro$uct e,uialent to breast)il0 or (hich is hu)ani+e$ or )aternali+e$, as such infor)ation (oul$ be inconsistent (ith
the superiority of breastfee$in'!
&t )ay be ar'ue$ that 2ection < of the Mil0 Co$e refers only to infor)ation 'ien to health (or0ers re'ar$in' breast)il0
substitutes, not to containers an$ labels thereof! 1o(eer, such restrictie application of 2ection <@bA (ill result in the
absur$ situation in (hich )il0 co)panies an$ $istributors are forbi$$en to clai) to health (or0ers that their pro$ucts are
substitutes or e,uialents of breast)il0, an$ yet be allo(e$ to $isplay on the containers an$ labels of their pro$ucts the
e5act opposite )essa'e! #hat as0e(e$ interpretation of the Mil0 Co$e is precisely (hat 2ection C@aA thereof see0s to
aoi$ by )an$atin' that all infor)ation re'ar$in' breast)il0 )is/a/)is breast)il0 substitutes be consistent, at the sa)e
ti)e 'iin' the 'oern)ent control oer plannin', proision, $esi'n, an$ $isse)ination of infor)ation on infant fee$in'!
#hus, 2ection 2;@cA of the R&RR (hich re,uires containers an$ labels to state that the pro$uct offere$ is not a substitute
for breast)il0, is a reasonable )eans of enforcin' 2ection <@bA of the Mil0 Co$e an$ $eterrin' circu)ention of the
protection an$ pro)otion of breastfee$in' as e)bo$ie$ in 2ection 2
;B
of the Mil0 Co$e!
2ection 2;@fA
;1
of the R&RR is an e,ually reasonable labelin' re,uire)ent! &t i)ple)ents 2ection C@bA of the Mil0 Co$e
(hich rea$s7
139
2EC#&?N C! 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
@bA &nfor)ational an$ e$ucational )aterials, (hether (ritten, au$io, or isual, $ealin' (ith the fee$in' of infants an$
inten$e$ to reach pre'nant (o)en an$ )others of infants, shall inclu$e clear infor)ation on all the follo(in' points7 5 5 5
@CA (here nee$e$, the proper use of infant for)ula, (hether )anufacture$ in$ustrially or ho)e*prepare$! /hen such
)aterials contain infor)ation about the use of infant for)ula, they shall inclu$e the social an$ financial i)plications of its
use" the health ha.ards of inappropriate foods or feeding methods) and, in particular, the health ha.ards of
unnecessary or improper use of infant formula and other breastmil2 substitutes! 2uch )aterials shall not use any
picture or te5t (hich )ay i$eali+e the use of breast)il0 substitutes! @E)phasis supplie$A
#he label of a pro$uct contains +%1o"7&+o% about sai$ pro$uct inten$e$ for the buyers thereof! #he buyers of breast)il0
substitutes are )others of infants, an$ 2ection 2; of the R&RR )erely a$$s a fair (arnin' about the li0elihoo$ of
patho'enic )icroor'anis)s bein' present in infant for)ula an$ other relate$ pro$ucts (hen these are prepare$ an$
use$ inappropriately!
PetitionerGs counsel has a$)itte$ $urin' the hearin' on -une 19, 2BB7 that for)ula )il0 is prone to conta)inations an$
there is as yet no technolo'y that allo(s pro$uction of po($ere$ infant for)ula that eli)inates all for)s of
conta)ination!
;2
&neluctably, the re,uire)ent un$er 2ection 2;@fA of the R&RR for the label to contain the )essa'e re'ar$in' health
ha+ar$s inclu$in' the possibility of conta)ination (ith patho'enic )icroor'anis)s is in accor$ance (ith 2ection C@bA of
the Mil0 Co$e!
#he authority of .?1 to control infor)ation re'ar$in' breast)il0 )is/a/)is breast)il0 substitutes an$ supple)ents an$
relate$ pro$ucts cannot be ,uestione$! &t is its interention into the area of a$ertisin', pro)otion, an$ )ar0etin' that is
bein' assaile$ by petitioner!
&n furtherance of 2ection ;@aA of the Mil0 Co$e, to (it7
2EC#&?N ;! The =eneral Public and Mothers% O
@aA No a$ertisin', pro)otion or other )ar0etin' )aterials, (hether (ritten, au$io or isual, for pro$ucts (ithin the scope
of this Co$e shall be printe$, publishe$, $istribute$, e5hibite$ an$ broa$cast unless such )aterials are $uly authori+e$
an$ approe$ by an inter*a'ency co))ittee create$ herein pursuant to the applicable stan$ar$s proi$e$ for in this
Co$e!
the Mil0 Co$e ineste$ re'ulatory authority oer a$ertisin', pro)otional an$ )ar0etin' )aterials to an &AC, thus7
2EC#&?N 12! ,mplementation and Monitorin* *
@aA For purposes of 2ection ;@aA of this Co$e, an inter*a'ency co))ittee co)pose$ of the follo(in' )e)bers is hereby
create$7
Minister of 1ealth ******************* Chair)an
Minister of #ra$e an$ &n$ustry ******************* Me)ber
Minister of -ustice ******************* Me)ber
Minister of 2ocial 2erices an$ .eelop)ent ******************* Me)ber
#he )e)bers )ay $esi'nate their $uly authori+e$ representatie to eery )eetin' of the Co))ittee!
#he Co))ittee shall hae the follo(in' po(ers an$ functions7
@1A #o reie( an$ e5a)ine all a$ertisin'! pro)otion or other )ar0etin' )aterials, (hether (ritten, au$io or isual, on
pro$ucts (ithin the scope of this Co$e"
@2A #o approe or $isapproe, $elete ob4ectionable portions fro) an$ prohibit the printin', publication, $istribution,
e5hibition an$ broa$cast of, all a$ertisin' pro)otion or other )ar0etin' )aterials, (hether (ritten, au$io or isual, on
pro$ucts (ithin the scope of this Co$e"
@DA #o prescribe the internal an$ operational proce$ure for the e5ercise of its po(ers an$ functions as (ell as the
perfor)ance of its $uties an$ responsibilities" an$
140
@6A To $"o7/82&# !/-, "/8#! %' "#2/8&+o%! ! "# %#-#!!") o" $"o$#" 1o" &,# +7$8#7#%&&+o% o1 S#-&+o% 4DE
o1 &,+! Co'#. 5 5 5 @E)phasis supplie$A
1o(eer, 2ection 11 of the R&RR, to (it7
2EC#&?N 11! Prohibition U No a$ertisin', pro)otions, sponsorships, or )ar0etin' )aterials an$ actiities for breast)il0
substitutes inten$e$ for infants an$ youn' chil$ren up to t(enty*four @26A )onths, shall be allo(e$, because they ten$ to
coney or 'ie subli)inal )essa'es or i)pressions that un$er)ine breast)il0 an$ breastfee$in' or other(ise
e5a''erate breast)il0 substitutes an$Hor replace)ents, as (ell as relate$ pro$ucts coere$ (ithin the scope of this
Co$e!
prohibits a$ertisin', pro)otions, sponsorships or )ar0etin' )aterials an$ actiities for breast)il0 substitutes in line (ith
the R&RRGs $eclaration of principle un$er 2ection 6@fA, to (it7
2EC#&?N 6! Declaration of Principles M
5 5 5 5
@fA A$ertisin', pro)otions, or sponsorships of infant for)ula, breast)il0 substitutes an$ other relate$ pro$ucts are
prohibite$!
#he .?1, throu'h its co*respon$ents, ei$ently arro'ate$ to itself not only the re'ulatory authority 'ien to the &AC but
also i)pose$ absolute prohibition on a$ertisin', pro)otion, an$ )ar0etin'!
Net, o$$ly enou'h, 2ection 12 of the R&RR reiterate$ the re,uire)ent of the Mil0 Co$e in 2ection ; thereof for prior
approal by &AC of all a$ertisin', )ar0etin' an$ pro)otional )aterials prior to $isse)ination!
Een respon$ents, throu'h the ?23, ac0no(le$'e$ the authority of &AC, an$ repeate$ly insiste$, $urin' the oral
ar'u)ents on -une 19, 2BB7, that the prohibition un$er 2ection 11 is not actually operational, )i;7
2?%&C&#?R 3ENERA% .E=ANA.ERA7
5 5 5 5
5 5 5 No(, the cru5 of the )atter that is bein' ,uestione$ by Petitioner is (hether or not there is an absolute prohibition
on a$ertisin' )a0in' A? 2BB;*12 unconstitutional! /e )aintaine$ that (hat A? 2BB;*12 proi$es is not an absolute
prohibition because 2ection 11 (hile it states an$ it is entitle$ prohibition it states that no a$ertisin', pro)otion,
sponsorship or )ar0etin' )aterials an$ actiities for breast )il0 substitutes inten$e$ for infants an$ youn' chil$ren up to
26 )onths shall be allo(e$ because this is the stan$ar$ they ten$ to coney or 'ie subli)inal )essa'es or i)pression
un$er)ine that breast)il0 or breastfee$in' 5 5 5!
/e hae to rea$ 2ection 11 to'ether (ith the other 2ections because the other 2ection, 2ection 12, proi$es for the inter
a'ency co))ittee that is e)po(ere$ to process an$ ealuate all the a$ertisin' an$ pro)otion )aterials!
5 5 5 5
/hat A? 2BB;*12, (hat it $oes, it $oes not prohibit the sale an$ )anufacture, it si)ply re'ulates the a$ertise)ent an$
the pro)otions of breastfee$in' )il0 substitutes!
5 5 5 5
No(, the prohibition on a$ertisin', Nour 1onor, )ust be ta0en to'ether (ith the proision on the &nter*A'ency
Co))ittee that processes an$ ealuates because there )ay be so)e infor)ation $isse)ination that are strai'ht for(ar$
infor)ation $isse)ination! /hat the A? 2BB; is tryin' to preent is any )aterial that (ill un$er)ine the practice of
breastfee$in', Nour 1onor!
5 5 5 5
A22?C&A#E ->2#&CE 2AN#&A3?7
Ma$a) 2olicitor 3eneral, un$er the Mil0 Co$e, (hich bo$y has authority or po(er to pro)ul'ate Rules an$ Re'ulations
re'ar$in' the A$ertisin', Pro)otion an$ Mar0etin' of Breast)il0 2ubstitutesK
2?%&C&#?R 3ENERA% .E=ANA.ERA7
Nour 1onor, please, it is proi$e$ that the &nter*A'ency Co))ittee, Nour 1onor!
5 5 5 5
A22?C&A#E ->2#&CE 2AN#&A3?7
141
5 5 5 .onTt you thin0 that the .epart)ent of 1ealth oersteppe$ its rule )a0in' authority (hen it totally banne$
a$ertisin' an$ pro)otion un$er 2ection 11 prescribe$ the total effect rule as (ell as the content of )aterials un$er
2ection 1D an$ 1C of the rules an$ re'ulationsK
2?%&C&#?R 3ENERA% .E=ANA.ERA7
Nour 1onor, please, first (e (oul$ li0e to stress that there is no total absolute ban! 2econ$, the &nter*A'ency Co))ittee
is un$er the .epart)ent of 1ealth, Nour 1onor!
5 5 5 5
A22?C&A#E ->2#&CE NAMAR&?7
5 5 5 .i$ & hear you correctly, Ma$a) 2olicitor, that there is no absolute ban on a$ertisin' of breast)il0 substitutes in the
Reise$ RulesK
2?%&C&#?R 3ENERA% .E=ANA.ERA7
Nes, your 1onor!
A22?C&A#E ->2#&CE NAMAR&?7
But, (oul$ you neertheless a'ree that there is an absolute ban on a$ertisin' of breast)il0 substitutes inten$e$ for
chil$ren t(o @2A years ol$ an$ youn'erK
2?%&C&#?R 3ENERA% .E=ANA.ERA7
&tTs not an absolute ban, Nour 1onor, because (e hae the &nter*A'ency Co))ittee that can ealuate so)e a$ertisin'
an$ pro)otional )aterials, sub4ect to the stan$ar$s that (e hae state$ earlier, (hich are* they shoul$ not un$er)ine
breastfee$in', Nour 1onor!
5 5 5 5
5 5 5 2ection 11, (hile it is title$ Prohibition, it )ust be ta0en in relation (ith the other 2ections, particularly 12 an$ 1D an$
1C, Nour 1onor, because it is reco'ni+e$ that the &nter*A'ency Co))ittee has that po(er to ealuate pro)otional
)aterials, Nour 1onor!
A22?C&A#E ->2#&CE NAMAR&?7
2o in short, (ill you please clarify thereTs no absolute ban on a$ertise)ent re'ar$in' )il0 substitute re'ar$in' infants
t(o @2A years belo(K
2?%&C&#?R 3ENERA% .E=ANA.ERA7
/e can prou$ly say that the 'eneral rule is that there is a prohibition, ho(eer, (e ta0e e5ceptions an$ stan$ar$s hae
been set! ?ne of (hich is that, the &nter*A'ency Co))ittee can allo( if the a$ertisin' an$ pro)otions (ill not
un$er)ine breast)il0 an$ breastfee$in', Nour 1onor!
;D
2ections 11 an$ 6@fA of the R&RR are clearly iolatie of the Mil0 Co$e!
1o(eer, althou'h it is the &AC (hich is authori+e$ to pro)ul'ate rules an$ re'ulations for the approal or re4ection of
a$ertisin', pro)otional, or other )ar0etin' )aterials un$er 2ection 12@aA of the Mil0 Co$e, sai$ proision )ust be
relate$ to 2ection ; thereof (hich in turn proi$es that the rules an$ re'ulations )ust be Spursuant to the applicable
stan$ar$s proi$e$ for in this Co$e!S 2ai$ stan$ar$s are set forth in 2ections C@bA, <@bA, an$ 1B of the Co$e, (hich, at the
ris0 of bein' repetitious, an$ for easy reference, are ,uote$ hereun$er7
2EC#&?N C! ,nformation and Education M
5 5 5 5
@bA &nfor)ational an$ e$ucational )aterials, (hether (ritten, au$io, or isual, $ealin' (ith the fee$in' of infants an$
inten$e$ to reach pre'nant (o)en an$ )others of infants, shall inclu$e clear infor)ation on all the follo(in' points7 @1A
the benefits an$ superiority of breastfee$in'" @2A )aternal nutrition, an$ the preparation for an$ )aintenance of
breastfee$in'" @DA the ne'atie effect on breastfee$in' of intro$ucin' partial bottlefee$in'" @6A the $ifficulty of reersin'
the $ecision not to breastfee$" an$ @CA (here nee$e$, the proper use of infant for)ula, (hether )anufacture$ in$ustrially
or ho)e*prepare$! /hen such )aterials contain infor)ation about the use of infant for)ula, they shall inclu$e the social
an$ financial i)plications of its use" the health ha+ar$s of inappropriate foo$s of fee$in' )etho$s" an$, in particular, the
health ha+ar$s of unnecessary or i)proper use of infant for)ula an$ other breast)il0 substitutes! 2uch )aterials shall
not use any picture or te5t (hich )ay i$eali+e the use of breast)il0 substitutes!
5 5 5 5
142
2EC#&?N <! 8ealth Workers% O
5 5 5 5
@bA &nfor)ation proi$e$ by )anufacturers an$ $istributors to health professionals re'ar$in' pro$ucts (ithin the scope of
this Co$e shall be restricte$ to scientific an$ factual )atters an$ such infor)ation shall not i)ply or create a belief that
bottle fee$in' is e,uialent or superior to breastfee$in'! &t shall also inclu$e the infor)ation specifie$ in 2ection C@bA!
5 5 5 5
2EC#&?N 1B! Containers-Label @
@aA Containers an$Hor labels shall be $esi'ne$ to proi$e the necessary infor)ation about the appropriate use of the
pro$ucts, an$ in such a (ay as not to $iscoura'e breastfee$in'!
@bA Each container shall hae a clear, conspicuous an$ easily rea$able an$ un$erstan$able )essa'e in Pilipino or
En'lish printe$ on it, or on a label, (hich )essa'e can not rea$ily beco)e separate$ fro) it, an$ (hich shall inclu$e the
follo(in' points7
@iA the (or$s S&)portant NoticeS or their e,uialent"
@iiA a state)ent of the superiority of breastfee$in'"
@iiiA a state)ent that the pro$uct shall be use$ only on the a$ice of a health (or0er as to the nee$ for its use an$ the
proper )etho$s of use" an$
@iA instructions for appropriate preparation, an$ a (arnin' a'ainst the health ha+ar$s of inappropriate preparation!
2ection 12@bA of the Mil0 Co$e $esi'nates the .?1 as the principal i)ple)entin' a'ency for the enforce)ent of the
proisions of the Co$e! &n relation to such responsibility of the .?1, 2ection C@aA of the Mil0 Co$e states that7
2EC#&?N C! ,nformation and Education M
@aA #he 'oern)ent shall ensure that o(<#-&+0# %' -o%!+!&#%& infor)ation is proi$e$ on infant fee$in', for use by
fa)ilies an$ those inole$ in the fiel$ of infant nutrition! #his responsibility shall coer the plannin', proision, $esi'n
an$ $isse)ination of infor)ation, an$ the control thereof, on infant nutrition! @E)phasis supplie$A
#hus, &,# DOH ,! &,# !+2%+1+-%& "#!$o%!+(+8+&) &o &"%!8&# +%&o o$#"&+o%8 &#"7! &,# !&%'"'! !#& 1o"&, +%
S#-&+o%! 3, 5, %' 1@ o1 &,# M+8A Co'#, () ;,+-, &,# IAC !,88 !-"##% '0#"&+!+%2, $"o7o&+o%8, o" o&,#"
7"A#&+%2 7&#"+8!.
&t is pursuant to such responsibility that the .?1 correctly proi$e$ for 2ection 1D in the R&RR (hich rea$s as follo(s7
2EC#&?N 1D! STotal EffectS * Pro)otion of pro$ucts (ithin the scope of this Co$e )ust be ob4ectie an$ shoul$ not
e,uate or )a0e the pro$uct appear to be as 'oo$ or e,ual to breast)il0 or breastfee$in' in the a$ertisin' concept! &t
)ust not in any case un$er)ine breast)il0 or breastfee$in'! #he Stotal effectS shoul$ not $irectly or in$irectly su''est
that buyin' their pro$uct (oul$ pro$uce better in$ii$uals, or resultin' in 'reater loe, intelli'ence, ability, har)ony or in
any )anner brin' better health to the baby or other such e5a''erate$ an$ unsubstantiate$ clai)!
2uch stan$ar$s bin$ the &AC in for)ulatin' its rules an$ re'ulations on a$ertisin', pro)otion, an$ )ar0etin'! #hrou'h
that sin'le proision, the .?1 e5ercises control oer the infor)ation content of a$ertisin', pro)otional an$ )ar0etin'
)aterials on breast)il0 )is/a/)is breast)il0 substitutes, supple)ents an$ other relate$ pro$ucts! &t also sets a iable
stan$ar$ a'ainst (hich the &AC )ay screen such )aterials before they are )a$e public!
&n EAui/!sia Placement, ,nc% )s% Department of Forei*n !ffairs,
;6
the Court hel$7
5 5 5 9#:his Court ha$, in the past, accepte$ as sufficient stan$ar$s the follo(in'7 Spublic interest,S S4ustice an$ e,uity,S
Spublic conenience an$ (elfare,S an$ Ssi)plicity, econo)y an$ (elfare!S
;C
&n this case, correct infor)ation as to infant fee$in' an$ nutrition is infuse$ (ith public interest an$ (elfare!
6! /ith re'ar$ to actiities for $isse)ination of infor)ation to health professionals, the Court also fin$s that there is no
inconsistency bet(een the proisions of the Mil0 Co$e an$ the R&RR! 2ection 7@bA
;;
of the Mil0 Co$e, in relation to
2ection <@bA
;7
of the sa)e Co$e, allo(s $isse)ination of infor)ation to health professionals but such +%1o"7&+o% +!
"#!&"+-&#' &o !-+#%&+1+- %' 1-&/8 7&&#"!!
Contrary to petitionerTs clai), 2ection 22 of the R&RR $oes not prohibit the 2+0+%2 o1 +%1o"7&+o% &o ,#8&,
$"o1#!!+o%8! o% !-+#%&+1+- %' 1-&/8 7&&#"!! /hat it prohibits is the inole)ent of the )anufacturer an$ $istributor
of the pro$ucts coere$ by the Co$e in actiities for the pro)otion, e$ucation an$ pro$uction of &nfor)ation, E$ucation
an$ Co))unication @&ECA )aterials re'ar$in' breastfee$in' that are +%&#%'#' 1o" ;o7#% %' -,+8'"#%! 2ai$ proision
cannot be construe$ to enco)pass een the '+!!#7+%&+o% o1 +%1o"7&+o% &o ,#8&, $"o1#!!+o%8!, ! "#!&"+-&#' by
143
the Mil0 Co$e!
C! Ne5t, petitioner alle'es that 2ection <@eA
;<
of the Mil0 Co$e per)its )il0 )anufacturers an$ $istributors to e5ten$
assistance in research an$ in the continuin' e$ucation of health professionals, (hile 2ections 22 an$ D2 of the R&RR
absolutely forbi$ the sa)e! Petitioner also assails 2ection 6@iA
;9
of the R&RR prohibitin' )il0 )anufacturersT an$
$istributorsT participation in any policy)a0in' bo$y in relation to the a$ance)ent of breastfee$in'!
2ection 6@iA of the R&RR proi$es that )il0 co)panies an$ their representaties shoul$ not for) part of any policy)a0in'
bo$y or entity in relation to the a$ance)ent of breastfee$in'! #he Court fin$s nothin' in sai$ proisions (hich
contraenes the Mil0 Co$e! Note that un$er 2ection 12@bA of the Mil0 Co$e, it is &,# DOH ;,+-, !,88 (# $"+%-+$88)
"#!$o%!+(8# for the i)ple)entation an$ enforce)ent of the proisions of sai$ Co$e! &t is entirely up to the .?1 to $eci$e
(hich entities to call upon or allo( to be part of policy)a0in' bo$ies on breastfee$in'! #herefore, the R&RRTs prohibition
on )il0 co)paniesG participation in any policy)a0in' bo$y in relation to the a$ance)ent of breastfee$in' is in accor$
(ith the Mil0 Co$e!
Petitioner is also )ista0en in ar'uin' that 2ection 22 of the R&RR prohibits )il0 co)panies fro) 'iin' reasearch
assistance an$ continuin' e$ucation to health professionals! S#-&+o% 22
7B
o1 &,# RIRR 'o#! %o& $#"&+% &o "#!#"-,
!!+!&%-# &o o" &,# -o%&+%/+%2 #'/-&+o% o1 ,#8&, $"o1#!!+o%8!" rather, it $eals (ith breastfee$in' pro)otion an$
#'/-&+o% 1o" ;o7#% %' -,+8'"#%! Nothin' in 2ection 22 of the R&RR prohibits )il0 co)panies fro) 'iin' assistance
for research or continuin' e$ucation to health professionals" hence, petitionerTs ar'u)ent a'ainst this particular proision
)ust be struc0 $o(n!
&t is 2ections 9
71
an$ 1B
72
of the R&RR (hich 'oern research assistance! 2ai$ sections of the R&RR proi$e that
"#!#"-, !!+!&%-# 1o" ,#8&, ;o"A#"! %' "#!#"-,#"! 7) (# 88o;#' /$o% $$"o08 o1 % #&,+-! -o77+&&##,
%' ;+&, -#"&+% '+!-8o!/"# "#:/+"#7#%&! +7$o!#' o% &,# 7+8A -o7$%) %' o% &,# "#-+$+#%& o1 &,# "#!#"-,
;"'!
#he Mil0 Co$e en$o(s the .?1 (ith the po(er to $eter)ine ho( such research or e$ucational assistance )ay be 'ien
by )il0 co)panies or un$er (hat con$itions health (or0ers )ay accept the assistance! #hus, 2ections 9 an$ 1B of the
R&RR i)posin' li)itations on the 0in$ of research $one or e5tent of assistance 'ien by )il0 co)panies are co)pletely
in accor$ (ith the Mil0 Co$e!
Petitioner co)plains that 2ection D2
7D
of the R&RR prohibits )il0 co)panies fro) 'iin' assistance, support, lo'istics or
trainin' to health (or0ers! #his proision is (ithin the prero'atie 'ien to the .?1 un$er 2ection <@eA
76
of the Mil0 Co$e,
(hich proi$es that )anufacturers an$ $istributors of breast)il0 substitutes )ay assist in researches, scholarships an$
the continuin' e$ucation, of health professionals in accor$ance (ith the rules an$ re'ulations pro)ul'ate$ by the
Ministry of 1ealth, no( .?1!
;! As to the R&RRTs prohibition on $onations, sai$ proisions are also consistent (ith the Mil0 Co$e! 2ection ;@fA of the
Mil0 Co$e proi$es that $onations 7) be )a$e by )anufacturers an$ $istributors of breast)il0 substitutes /$o% &,#
"#:/#!& o" ;+&, &,# $$"o08 o1 &,# DOH! #he la( $oes not proscribe the refusal of $onations! #he Mil0 Co$e leaes it
purely to the $iscretion of the .?1 (hether to re,uest or accept such $onations! #he .?1 then appropriately e5ercise$
its $iscretion throu'h 2ection C1
7C
of the R&RR (hich sets forth its policy not to re,uest or approe $onations fro)
)anufacturers an$ $istributors of breast)il0 substitutes!
&t (as (ithin the $iscretion of the .?1 (hen it proi$e$ in 2ection C2 of the R&RR that any $onation fro) )il0 co)panies
not coere$ by the Co$e shoul$ be course$ throu'h the &AC (hich shall $eter)ine (hether such $onation shoul$ be
accepte$ or refuse$! As reasone$ out by respon$ents, the .?1 is not )an$ate$ by the Mil0 Co$e to accept $onations!
For that )atter, no person or entity can be force$ to accept a $onation! #here is, therefore, no real inconsistency bet(een
the R&RR an$ the la( because the Mil0 Co$e $oes not prohibit the .?1 fro) refusin' $onations!
7! /ith re'ar$ to 2ection 6; of the R&RR proi$in' for a$)inistratie sanctions that are not foun$ in the Mil0 Co$e, the
Court uphol$s petitionerTs ob4ection thereto!
Respon$entTs reliance on Ci)il !eronautics .oard )% Philippine !ir Lines, ,nc%
7;
is )isplace$! #he 'larin' $ifference in sai$
case an$ the present case before the Court is that, in the Ci)il !eronautics .oard, the Ciil Aeronautics A$)inistration
@CAAA (as #.$"#!!8) 2"%&#' () &,# 8; DR.A. No. >>4E &,# $o;#" to i)pose fines an$ ciil penalties, (hile the Ciil
Aeronautics Boar$ @CABA (as 'rante$ by the sa)e la( the po(er to reie( on appeal the or$er or $ecision of the CAA
an$ to $eter)ine (hether to i)pose, re)it, )iti'ate, increase or co)pro)ise such fine an$ ciil penalties! #hus, the
Court uphel$ the CABTs Resolution i)posin' a$)inistratie fines!
&n a )ore recent case, Pere; )% LP= efillers !ssociation of the Philippines, ,nc!,
77
the Court uphel$ the .epart)ent of
Ener'y @.?EA Circular No! 2BBB*B;*1B i)ple)entin' .atas Pambansa @B!P!A .l*% DD! #he circular proi$e$ for fines for
the co))ission of prohibite$ acts! #he Court foun$ that nothin' in the circular contraene$ the la( because the .?E
(as e5pressly authori+e$ by B!P! .l*% DD an$ R!A! No! 7;D< to i)pose fines or penalties!
&n the present case, neither the Mil0 Co$e nor the Reise$ A$)inistratie Co$e 'rants the .?1 the authority to fi5 or
i)pose a$)inistratie fines! #hus, (ithout any e5press 'rant of po(er to fi5 or i)pose such fines, the .?1 cannot
proi$e for those fines in the R&RR! &n this re'ar$, the .?1 a'ain e5cee$e$ its authority by proi$in' for such fines or
sanctions in 2ection 6; of the R&RR! 2ai$ proision is, therefore, null an$ oi$!
#he .?1 is not left (ithout any )eans to enforce its rules an$ re'ulations! 2ection 12@bA @DA of the Mil0 Co$e authori+es
the .?1 to Scause the prosecution of the iolators of this Co$e an$ other pertinent la(s on pro$ucts coere$ by this
Co$e!S 2ection 1D of the Mil0 Co$e proi$es for the penalties to be i)pose$ on iolators of the proision of the Mil0 Co$e
144
or the rules an$ re'ulations issue$ pursuant to it, to (it7
2EC#&?N 1D! 6anctions M
@aA Any person (ho iolates the proisions of this Co$e o" &,# "/8#! %' "#2/8&+o%! +!!/#' $/"!/%& &o &,+! Co'#
shall, upon coniction, be punishe$ by a penalty of t(o @2A )onths to one @1A year i)prison)ent or a fine of not less than
?ne #housan$ Pesos @P1,BBB!BBA nor )ore than #hirty #housan$ Pesos @PDB,BBB!BBA or both! 2houl$ the offense be
co))itte$ by a 4uri$ical person, the chair)an of the Boar$ of .irectors, the presi$ent, 'eneral )ana'er, or the partners
an$Hor the persons $irectly responsible therefor, shall be penali+e$!
@bA Any license, per)it or authority issue$ by any 'oern)ent a'ency to any health (or0er, $istributor, )anufacturer, or
)ar0etin' fir) or personnel for the practice of their profession or occupation, or for the pursuit of their business, )ay,
upon reco))en$ation of the Ministry of 1ealth, be suspen$e$ or reo0e$ in the eent of repeate$ iolations of this
Co$e, or of the rules an$ re'ulations issue$ pursuant to this Co$e! @E)phasis supplie$A
<! PetitionerGs clai) that 2ection C7 of the R&RR repeals e5istin' la(s that are contrary to the R&RR is friolous!
2ection C7 rea$s7
2EC#&?N C7! epealin* Clause * All or$ers, issuances, an$ rules an$ re'ulations or parts thereof inconsistent (ith these
reise$ rules an$ i)ple)entin' re'ulations are hereby repeale$ or )o$ifie$ accor$in'ly!
2ection C7 of the R&RR $oes not proi$e for the repeal of la(s but only or$ers, issuances an$ rules an$ re'ulations!
#hus, sai$ proision is ali$ as it is (ithin the .?1Ts rule*)a0in' po(er!
An a$)inistratie a'ency li0e respon$ent possesses ,uasi*le'islatie or rule*)a0in' po(er or the po(er to )a0e rules
an$ re'ulations (hich results in $ele'ate$ le'islation that is (ithin the confines of the 'rantin' statute an$ the
Constitution, an$ sub4ect to the $octrine of non*$ele'ability an$ separability of po(ers!
7<
2uch e5press 'rant of rule*
)a0in' po(er necessarily inclu$es the po(er to a)en$, reise, alter, or repeal the sa)e!
79
#his is to allo( a$)inistratie
a'encies fle5ibility in for)ulatin' an$ a$4ustin' the $etails an$ )anner by (hich they are to i)ple)ent the proisions of a
la(,
<B
in or$er to )a0e it )ore responsie to the ti)es! 1ence, it is a stan$ar$ proision in a$)inistratie rules that prior
issuances of a$)inistratie a'encies that are inconsistent there(ith are $eclare$ repeale$ or )o$ifie$!
&n fine, only 2ections 6@fA, 11 an$ 6; are ultra )ires, beyon$ the authority of the .?1 to pro)ul'ate an$ in contraention
of the Mil0 Co$e an$, therefore, null an$ oi$! #he rest of the proisions of the R&RR are in consonance (ith the Mil0
Co$e!
%astly, petitioner )a0es a Scatch*allS alle'ation that7
5 5 5 9#:he ,uestione$ R&RR sou'ht to be i)ple)ente$ by the Respon$ents is /%%#-#!!") %' o$$"#!!+0#, %' +!
o11#%!+0# &o &,# '/# $"o-#!! -8/!# o1 &,# Co%!&+&/&+o%, +%!o1" ! &,# !7# +! +% "#!&"+%& o1 &"'# an$ because a
proision therein is ina$e,uate to proi$e the public (ith a co)prehensible basis to $eter)ine (hether or not they hae
co))itte$ a iolation!
<1
@E)phasis supplie$A
Petitioner refers to 2ections 6@fA,
<2
6@iA,
<D
C@(A,
<6
11,
<C
22,
<;
D2,
<7
6;,
<<
an$ C2
<9
as the proisions that suppress the tra$e of
)il0 an$, thus, iolate the $ue process clause of the Constitution!
#he fra)ers of the constitution (ere (ell a(are that tra$e )ust be sub4ecte$ to so)e for) of re'ulation for the public
'oo$! Public interest )ust be uphel$ oer business interests!
9B
&n Pest Mana*ement !ssociation of the Philippines )%
Fertili;er and Pesticide !uthority,
91
it (as hel$ thus7
5 5 5 Further)ore, as hel$ in Association of Philippine Coconut .esiccators ! Philippine Coconut Authority, '#!$+&# &,#
1-& &,& No/" $"#!#%& Co%!&+&/&+o% #%!,"+%#! 1"## #%&#"$"+!# ! $o8+-), +& %o%#&,#8#!! "#!#"0#! &o &,#
2o0#"%7#%& &,# $o;#" &o +%&#"0#%# ;,#%#0#" %#-#!!") &o $"o7o&# &,# 2#%#"8 ;#81"#.S #here can be no
,uestion that the unre'ulate$ use or proliferation of pestici$es (oul$ be ha+ar$ous to our eniron)ent! #hus, in the
aforecite$ case, the Court $eclare$ that S1"## #%&#"$"+!# 'o#! %o& -88 1o" "#7o08 o1 R$"o&#-&+0# "#2/8&+o%!9!S 5 5 5 I&
7/!& (# -8#"8) #.$8+%#' %' $"o0#% () -o7$#&#%& #0+'#%-# </!& #.-&8) ,o; !/-, $"o&#-&+0# "#2/8&+o% ;o/8'
"#!/8& +% &,# "#!&"+%& o1 &"'#. 9E)phasis an$ un$erscorin' supplie$:
&n this case, petitioner faile$ to sho( that the proscription of )il0 )anufacturersG participation in any policy)a0in' bo$y
@2ection 6@iAA, classes an$ se)inars for (o)en an$ chil$ren @2ection 22A" the 'iin' of assistance, support an$ lo'istics
or trainin' @2ection D2A" an$ the 'iin' of $onations @2ection C2A (oul$ unreasonably ha)per the tra$e of breast)il0
substitutes! Petitioner has not establishe$ that the proscribe$ actiities are in$ispensable to the tra$e of breast)il0
substitutes! Petitioner faile$ to $e)onstrate that the afore)entione$ proisions of the R&RR are unreasonable an$
oppressie for bein' in restraint of tra$e!
Petitioner also faile$ to conince the Court that 2ection C@(A of the R&RR is unreasonable an$ oppressie! 2ai$ section
proi$es for the $efinition of the ter) S)il0 co)pany,S to (it7
2EC#&?N C 5 5 5! @(A SMil0 Co)panyS shall refer to the o(ner, )anufacturer, $istributor of infant for)ula, follo(*up )il0,
)il0 for)ula, )il0 supple)ent, breast)il0 substitute or replace)ent, or by any other $escription of such nature, inclu$in'
their representaties (ho pro)ote or other(ise a$ance their co))ercial interests in )ar0etin' those pro$ucts"
145
?n the other han$, 2ection 6 of the Mil0 Co$e proi$es7
@$A S.istributorS )eans a person, corporation or any other entity in the public or priate sector en'a'e$ in the business
@(hether $irectly or in$irectlyA of )ar0etin' at the (holesale or retail leel a pro$uct (ithin the scope of this Co$e! A
Spri)ary $istributorS is a )anufacturerTs sales a'ent, representatie, national $istributor or bro0er!
5 5 5 5
@4A SManufacturerS )eans a corporation or other entity in the public or priate sector en'a'e$ in the business or function
@(hether $irectly or in$irectly or throu'h an a'ent or an$ entity controlle$ by or un$er contract (ith itA of )anufacturin' a
pro$ucts (ithin the scope of this Co$e!
Notably, the $efinition in the R&RR )erely )er'e$ to'ether un$er the ter) S)il0 co)panyS the entities $efine$ separately
un$er the Mil0 Co$e as S$istributorS an$ S)anufacturer!S #he R&RR also enu)erate$ in 2ection C@(A the pro$ucts
)anufacture$ or $istribute$ by an entity that (oul$ ,ualify it as a S)il0 co)pany,S (hereas in the Mil0 Co$e, (hat is use$
is the phrase Spro$ucts (ithin the scope of this Co$e!S #hose are the only $ifferences bet(een the $efinitions 'ien in the
Mil0 Co$e an$ the $efinition as re*state$ in the R&RR!
2ince all the re'ulatory proisions un$er the Mil0 Co$e apply e,ually to both )anufacturers an$ $istributors, the Court
sees no har) in the R&RR proi$in' for 4ust one ter) to enco)pass both entities! #he $efinition of S)il0 co)panyS in the
R&RR an$ the $efinitions of S$istributorS an$ S)anufacturerS proi$e$ for un$er the Mil0 Co$e are practically the sa)e!
#he Court is not conince$ that the $efinition of S)il0 co)panyS proi$e$ in the R&RR (oul$ brin' about any chan'e in
the treat)ent or re'ulation of S$istributorsS an$ S)anufacturersS of breast)il0 substitutes, as $efine$ un$er the Mil0
Co$e!
E5cept 2ections 6@fA, 11 an$ 6;, the rest of the proisions of the R&RR are in consonance (ith the ob4ectie, purpose an$
intent of the Mil0 Co$e, constitutin' reasonable re'ulation of an in$ustry (hich affects public health an$ (elfare an$, as
such, the rest of the R&RR $o not constitute ille'al restraint of tra$e nor are they iolatie of the $ue process clause of the
Constitution!
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED! 2ections 6@fA, 11 an$ 6; of A$)inistratie ?r$er No! 2BB;*BB12
$ate$ May 12, 2BB; are $eclare$ NULL an$ VOID for bein' ultra )ires! #he .epart)ent of 1ealth an$ respon$ents are
PROHIBITED fro) i)ple)entin' sai$ proisions!
#he #e)porary Restrainin' ?r$er issue$ on Au'ust 1C, 2BB; is LIFTED insofar as the rest of the proisions of
A$)inistratie ?r$er No! 2BB;*BB12 is concerne$!
SO ORDERED!
146