Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 184

PRELIMINARIES ; January 22, 1973 Atty.

Jesus Delfin filed to the COMELEC a petition to


amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative. In
his petition, he wanted to amend Sec 4 and 7 of Article
ANGARA V ELECTORAL COMMISSION JAVELLANA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 6, Sec 4 of Article 7 and Sec 8 of Article 10 in order to lift
; March 31, 1973 the term limits of all elective government officials. He
asks the COMELEC to assist them in gathering the
ABAKADA GURO V ERMITA sufficient number of signatures by setting up signature
SANIDAD V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS stations all over the country, as required by COMELEC
METHOD AND INTERPRETATION ; October 12, 1976 Resolution No. 2300. The COMELEC took cognizance of
their petition and set the case up for hearing. Senator
MITRA V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Raul Roco then filed a motion to dismiss before the
“ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING, LEGAL COMELEC, stating that it was not the initiatory petition
REALISM, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF ; April 4, 1981 properly cognizable before the COMELEC. Sen. Miriam
THIS CONSTITUTION” Defensor Santiago, on the other hand, filed a special civil
ROBERT CLINTON (1987) LAWYERS’ LEAGUE FOR A BETTER action for prohibition, saying that RA 6735 is deficient
PHILIPPINES V AQUINO insofar as the initiative for amending the Constitution is
concerned. She further alleges that what the petitioners
“CONSTITUTIONAL EMPIRICISM: QUASI- EN BANC; May 22, 1986 are willing to propose are not amendments, but
NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES AND revisions. Thereafter, LABAN, DIK and MABINI filed their
FACTS/ISSUES motions for intervention, arguing on the same points.
CONSTITUTIONAL TRUTHS” - Petitioners questioned legitimacy of Aquino
TIMOTHY ZICK (2003) government. ISSUES
- Her gov’t was said to be illegal since it was not
established pursuant to 1973 Consti. 1. WON the court can take action of this case despite
ART XVII: REMAKING THE - Proclamation No. 3- “…Aquino gov’t is installed through there being a pending case before the COMELEC
CONSTITUTION direct exercise of power of the Filipino people, in 2. WON RA 6735 is an adequate enabling law for
defiance of the provisions of 1973 Consti.” people’s initiative
- April 10- Court already voted to dismiss. 3. WON the COMELEC resolution no. 2300 is valid
“MALOLOS: THE CRISES OF THE - April 17- Atty. Lozano withdrew petitions and said that 4. WON the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or in
REPUBLIC” they would pursue it by extra-judicial methods. grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin
TEODORO AGONCILLO (1997) petition
HELD
Petitions have no merit. HELD
“FROM MCKINLEY’S INSTRUCTIONS TO (1) Petitioners have no personality and no cause of 1. Yes. Comelec’s failure to act on roco’s motion to
THE NEW CONSTITUTION: DOCUMENTS action. dismiss and its insistence to hold on to the petition
ON THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL (2) Legitimacy of gov’t is NOT justiciable, and is a rendered ripe and viable the instant petition under sec 2
political question where people are the only judge. rule 65 of rules of court
SYSTEM” (3) People have already accepted such gov’t, which is in - Case may be treated as a special civil action for
VICENTE MENDOZA effective control of the country, making it a de jure certiorari since delfin didn’t come up with the minimum
gov’t. number of signatures
(SEE LEGAL HISTORY REVIEWER) (4) Community of nations has also accepted it. - Court may brush aside technicalities in cases of
(5) Eleven members of SC have sworn to uphold law transcendental importance.
under her gov’t. 2. No. The law is inadequate.
MABANAG V LOPEZ VITO - First, in Sec 2 of the Act (Statement and Policy), it
IN RE: SATURNINO BERMUDEZ seems that the word Constitution was a delayed
afterthought. The word Constitution was neither
;October 24, 1986 germane nor relevant to the said section. It only proves
GONZALES V COMMISSION ON
that it is silent to amendments in the constitution.
ELECTIONS DE LEON V ESGUERRA - Second, in the Act does not provide for the contents of
; November 9, 1967 ; August 31, 1987 a petition for initiative on the constitution.
- Third, there is no separate subtitle for initiative for the
TOLENTINO V COMMISSION ON Constitution.
SANTIAGO V COMMISSION ON - Therefore, it seems that the main thrust of the act is on
ELECTIONS ELECTIONS initiative and referendum of national and local laws. It
; October 16, 1971 DAVIDE; March 19, 1997 failed to provide for details in implementation of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
PLANAS V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS FACTS
- Comelec cannot be delegated power, since the law is - Oct. 5, 2000~ Sen. Teofisto Guingona Jr. delivered a > Estrada left Malacañang and issued a press
incomplete as it fails to provides a sufficient policy and speech entitled "I ACCUSE" wherein he accused Estrada statement saying that he now leaves Malacañang
standard for the delegated power. of receiving 220 million pesos worth of jueteng money Palace for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
3. No. It only follows that since the RA 6735 is from Gov. Singson from November 1998 till August 200 healing process of our nation.
incomplete, it does not have the power to prescribe rules and obtained another 70 million peson on excise tax still > He also wrote a letter saying that the VP shall be the
and regulations on the conduct of initiative on from Gov. Singson acting president and said letter was transmitted to
amendments to the Constitution. - The privilege speech was referred by Sen. Drilon to the former Speaker Fuentebella and Sen. Pres. Pimentel.
4. Yes. There was insufficient number of signatures. Also, Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on Justice for - Jan 21, 2001~ Arroyo discharged the powers and duties
comelec acquires jurisdiction upon filing of the petition. joint investigation of the Presidency. The SC issued a resolution, which
The delfin petition was only in its initiatory pleading. - The House of Reps also decided to investigate the confirmed the authority given by the 12 members of the
Decision Petition granted expose of Gov. Singson. Court then present to the Chief Justice to administer the
- Reps. Heherson Alvarez, Ernesto Herrera and Michael oath of office to GMA.
SEPARATE OPINION Defensor spearheaded the move to impeach Estrada. - Jan. 24, 2001~ Despite the receipt of Estrada's letter,
- Oct. 11, 2000 ~ Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a House of Reps. passed House Resolution No. 175
pastoral statement asking Estrada to step down from the experiencing full support to GMA's administration and
PUNO [concur and dissent] presidency as he had lost the moral authority to govern also HR no. 176
- Oct. 13, 2000~ CBCP also cried out for Estrada's - Feb 7, 2001~ Despite receipt of Estrada's letter
RA 6735 is not defective. The intent of the framers was resignation claiming inability, Senate passed Resolution No. 82
to provide for a law for initiative on amendments to the - Oct. 17, 2000~ Former Pres. Aquino joined the calls for confirming GMA's nomination of Teofisto Guingona as VP
Constitution. (he cited the sponsorship remarks of Roco) resignation and former Pres. Ramos joined the chorus as and the Senate's support of the new gov't. and also in
well. the same date, Senate passed Res. No. 83 recognizing
VITUG - But before that, on Oct 12, Arroyo already resigned as that the impeachment court is functus offictio.
DSWD Secretary and also asked for Estrada's resignation - Feb. 8, 2001~ Senate passed Res. No. 84 certifying
The COMELEC should have dismissed the petition, since but Estrada really held on to his office and refused to vacancy in the Senate.
it did not have the required number of signatures. resign. (According to J. Puno: "The heat is on.") - Feb 15, 2001- CJ Davide and J. Panganiban inhibited
- November ended with a "big-bang" because on themselves from participating in this case as per
FRANCISCO [concur and dissent] November 13, House Speaker Manuel Villar transmitted Saguisag's motion. They of course debunked his charge
the Articles of Impeachment (which was based on the "that they have compromised their weight on one side"
looking at the definition of terms in the said RA, the law grounds of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of but nonetheless recused themselves.
clearly intends to include amendments to the public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution)
Constitution. signed by 115 representatives to the Senate. ISSUES
- Nov. 20, 2000~ Senate finally opened the 1. WON the petitions present a justiciable controversy
impeachment trial. 21 senators took their oath as judges 2. WON the petitioner resigned as president
PANGANIBAN with SC Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr, presiding. 3. WON the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act
- Dec. 7, 2000~ The impeachment trial started. as president
RA 6735 is not perfect but taken together with the
- Dramatic point of the December hearings was the 4. WON the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit (and
Constitution and COMELEC Res. No. 2300, it is sufficient
testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, the SVP of Equitable-PCI assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent of the
to implement Constitutional initiatives.
BANK. Ocampo testified that she was one foot away immunity)
from Estrada when he affixed the signature "Jose 5. WON the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be
RESOLUTION Velarde" on documents involving a 500 million pesos enjoined due to prejudicial publicity.
; investment account with their bank on Feb 4 2000.
- Impeachment trial was adjourned in the spirit of HELD
Christmas and when January came, more bombshells 1. The Court shall consider as justiciable the issue of
ESTRADA V DESIERTO were exploded. WON the change in the presidency was done in the
PUNO; > Sec. of Finance Atty. Espiritu testified that Estrada manner prescribed by the 1987 Constitution. (In this
jointly owned BW Resources Corporation with Mr. part, the ponente differentiated EDSA I from EDSA II
FACTS Dante Tan who was facing charges of insider trading. saying that EDSA I was a revolution, change of
- Nature: Writ of Preliminary Injunction against > Jan. 16, 2001~ with a vote of 11-10, the Senator presidency was done extra-constitutionally whereas
complaints against him until his term is over judges ruled against opening the 2nd envelope which EDSA II was not a revolution, the change was done to an
- May 11, 1998 ~ Estrada was elected President; Arroyo allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner element of the government only and it was done intra-
was VP; some 10 million Filipinos voted for Estrada and held 3.3 billion pesos in a secret bank account under constitutionally because GMA swore to uphold or protect
both Estrada and Arroyo were to serve a 6-year term. the name "Jose Velarde." the 1987 Constitution. Read it if u want a better
- Oct. 4, 2000 ~ Estrada's "sharp decent from power" > In short, this resulted to what we know as "EDSA II" understanding. Also, the Court is interpreting ART II
began; Chavit Singson, Estrada's long time friend, - January 19, 2001~ withdrawal of support from the sec 1, ART VII Sec 8 and ART VII Sec 11 in this case
publicly accused Estrada, Estrada's family and friends of Armed Forces, PNP and mass resignations ensued so look at those provisions too.)
receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. - Jan 20, 2001~ Estrada surrendered. At 12 nn, CJ Davide 2. The Court held that resignation shall be determined
administered the oath to Arroyo as the President of the from the totality of prior, contemporaneous and
Philippines.
posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a > seeks to enjoin the Commission on Audit from been defined ‘as nothing more than the legislative
material relevance on the issue. (In relation to this, see passing in audit expenditures for the PCCR and the authorization prescribed by the Constitution that money
Art. VII, Section 8) presidential consultants, advisers and assistants may be paid out of the Treasury.’ The funds for the PCCR
3. The Court held that the question WON it may review > prays for an order compelling respondent Zamora to was taken from the funds intended for the Office of the
and revise the decision of both Houses of Congress furnish petitioner with information on certain matters. President, in the exercise of the Chief Executive’s power
recognizing GMA as the de jure President of the to transfer funds pursuant to Sec 25 (5) Art VI of
Philippines is a political one. (Congress has laid Estrada's ISSUES Constitution.
claim of inability to rest because of its recognition of 1. WON the case has become moot and academic 4. Appointment is not synonymous with creation.
GMA as president. The issue is a political question and 2. WON petitioner has standing as a citizen - Petitioner does not have the personality to raise this
the Court cannot review Congress' decision without 3. WON petitioner has standing as a taxpayer issue as he has not proven that he has sustained or is in
violating the principle of separation of powers.) 4. WON the President has power to create positions (70) danger of sustaining any injury as a result of the
4. The Court held (shall rule) that the President enjoys in the Office of the President and appoint presidential appointment, and he has not alleged the necessary facts
immunity only during his tenure. (Reasoning in the In Re: consultants (20), advisers (22) and assistants (28) to enable the Court to determine if he possesses a
Bermudez case that the incumbent President is immune 5. WON the Court may issue a writ of mandamus taxpayer’s interest.
from suit or from being brought to court during his ordering Exec Sec Ronaldo Zamora to provide petitioner 5. As enshrined in Sec 7 of the Bill of Rights, “the right of
period of his incumbency and tenure but not beyond.) with names of executive officials holding multiple the people to information on matters of public concern
5. The Court shall rule that to warrant a finding of positions in government, copies of their appointments, shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof and a list of the recipients of luxury vehicles seized by documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
that the judges have been unduly influenced by the the Bureau of Customs and turned over to Malacañang. transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
barrage of publicity. research data used as basis for policy development,
Deicison The petitions of Joseph E. Estrada challenging HELD shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations
the respondent Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo as the de jure 1. Ratio An act is considered moot when it no longer as may be provided by law.”
14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED. presents a justiciable controversy because the issues - The right to information is a public right, and the
involved have become academic or dead. It is beyond requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere
the scope of judicial power to give advisory opinion. fact that petitioner is a citizen and therefore part of the
GONZALES V NARVASA
Obiter The case has already become moot and general public which possesses the right.
GONZAGA-REYES; August 14, 2000 academic as the PCCR has already ceased to exist. Relief - “matters of public concern” is a term which
prayed for by Gonzales (prohibition) is impossible to “embrace(s) a broad spectrum of subjects which the
FACTS grant and is an inappropriate remedy as body sought to public may want to know, either because these directly
- Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform or be enjoined no longer exists. Any ruling regarding the affect their lives, or simply because such matters
PCCR was created by then President Joseph Estrada on PCCR would only be in the nature of an advisory opinion. naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the
Nov 26, 1998 by virtue of Executive Order No. 43 in 2. Ratio A citizen has standing only if he can establish final analysis, it is for the courts to determine in a case
order to “study and recommend proposed amendments that he has suffered some actual or threatened injury as to case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or
and/or revisions to the 1987 Constitution, and the a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the importance, as it relates to or affects the public.”
manner of implementing the same.” government; the injury is fairly traceable to the Decision Petition is dismissed, with the exception that
> The PCCR was instructed to complete its task on or challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed respondent Zamora is ordered to furnish petitioner with
before June 30, 1999. On Feb 19, 1999, the President by a favorable action. information requested.
issued Executive Order No. 70 which extended the Obiter The interest of a person assailing the
time frame of the PCCR’s work until Dec 31 1999. constitutionality of a statute must be direct and
> The PCCR submitted its recommendations to the personal. He must be able to show that the law is invalid, THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE
President on Dec 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the but also that he has sustained or is in immediate danger (ART I, II, IV, V)
President on the same day. of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
- Ramon Gonzales, in his capacity as citizen and enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in
taxpayer, filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, some indefinite way.1 STATE DEFINED
assailing the constitutionality of the creation of the PCCR 3. Ratio A taxpayer has standing to raise a
on two grounds: constitutional issue when it is established that public
> it is a public office which only the legislature can funds have been disbursed in alleged contravention of COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE V
create by way of law the law or the Constitution, the action of which is CAMPOS RUEDA
> by creating the PCCR, the President is intervening in properly brought only when there is an exercise by FERNANDO; October 29, 1971
a process from which he is totally excluded by the Congress of its taxing or spending power.
Constitution, i.e. the amendment of the fundamental Obiter Under Sec 7 of EO No 43 which created the FACTS
charter. PCCR, the amount of P3 million is “appropriated” for its - Collector of Internal Revenue held Antonio Campos
- In this regard, Gonzales: operational expenses “to be sourced from the funds of Rueda, as administrator of the estate of the late Estrella
> seeks to enjoin the PCCR and the presidential the Office of the President.” The appropriations were Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira, liable for the stun of P
consultants, advisers and assistants from acting as authorized by the President, not by Congress. In fact, 161,974.95 as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes
such there was no appropriation at all since appropriation has for the transfer of intangible personal properties in the
> seeks to enjoin Exec Sec Ronaldo Zamora from Philippines, the deceased, a Spanish national having
1
enforcing their advice and recommendations in Kilosbayan v Morato citing Valmonte v Phil Charity Sweepstakes Office
been a resident of Tangier, Morocco from 1931 up to the - Collector of Internal Revenue v. De Lara: There can be o To submit the WTO agreement to
time of her death in 1955. no doubt that California as a state in the American Union competent authorities for their approval
- Rueda’s request for exemption was denied on the was lacking in the alleged requisite of international o Adopt the ministerial declarations and
ground that the law of Tangier is not reciprocal to personality. Nonetheless, it was held to be a foreign decisions
Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. country within the meaning of Section 122 of the (Basically, the final act aims to liberalize and expand
- Rueda requested for the reconsideration of the decision National Internal Revenue Code. world trade and strengthen the interrelationship
denying the claim for tax exemption. However, between trade and economic policies affecting growth
respondent denied this request on the grounds that - This Court did commit itself to the doctrine that even a and development.)
there was no reciprocity [with Tangier, which was tiny principality, that of Liechtenstein, hardly an - The president then sent to the senate a letter which
moreover] a mere principality, not a foreign country. international personality in the traditional sense, did fall submits the Uruguay Round Final Act for their
- Court of Tax Appeals ruled that the expression 'foreign under this exempt category. concurrence
country,' used in the last proviso of Section 122 of the - Another letter was sent by the president. This time, he
National Internal Revenue Code, refers to a government
of that foreign power which, although not an
SOVEREIGNTY AND SOVEREIGN submits the Uruguay Final Round Act, the Agreement
Establishing the WTO, the Ministerial Declarations and
international person in the sense of international law, IMMUNITY Decisions and the Understanding on Commitments in
does not impose transfer or death taxes upon intangible Financial Services to the Senate for its concurrence.
personal properties of our citizens not residing therein, ART II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES - The Senate adopted Resolution number 97, which
or whose law allows a similar exemption from such expresses their concurrence in the ratification of the
AND STATE POLICIES
taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary that Tangier should president of the Agreement Establishing the WTO.
have been recognized by our Government in order to - The President signed the Instrument of Ratification of
entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits of the Sec 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican the Agreement Establishing the WTO and the
last proviso of Section 122 of our Tax Code. state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all agreements and associated legal instruments of that
government authority emanates form them. agreement.
ISSUE - The final act signed by Secretary Navarro, on the other
Whether or not the requisites of statehood, or at least so ART V SUFFRAGE hand, embodies not only the WTO agreement but also
much thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of the ministerial declarations and decisions and the
an international personality, must be satisfied for a understanding on commitments in financial services.
Sec 1: Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
"foreign country" to fall within the exemption of Section - Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the treaty.
Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
122 of the National Internal Revenue Code They also claim that since the Senate only concurred
least 18 years of age, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein with the WTO agreement and not on all the contents of
HELD the Final act, they impliedly rejected the Final act.
they propose to vote, for at least six months
- Supreme Court affirmed Court of tax Appeal’s
immediately preceding the election. No literacy,
Ruling. ISSUES
property, or other substantive requirement shall be
- If a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is 1. WON the case is justiciable.
imposed on the exercise of suffrage
required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a 2. WON the parity provisions and national treatment
politically organized sovereign community independent clauses in the WTO agreement violates Sec. 19
Sec 2: The Congress shall provide a system for securing
of outside control bound by ties of nationhood, legally Article 2, Sec. 10 and 12 Article 12 of the
the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system
supreme within its territory, acting through a Constitution (“economic nationalism” clauses).
for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
government functioning under a regime of law. 3. WON the WTO agreement unduly limits, restricts
- it is thus a sovereign person with the people composing and impairs legislative power of the Congress.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the
it viewed as an organized corporate society under a 4. WON the WTO agreement intrudes on the power of
disabled and illiterates to vote without the assistance of
government with the legal competence to exact the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning
other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote
obedience to its commands. pleading, practice and procedures.
under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on
- The stress is on its being a nation, its people occupying 5. WON the concurring of the senate only in the WTO
Elections may promulgate to protect secrecy of the
a definite territory, politically organized, exercising by agreement and not in the final act implies rejection
ballot.
means of its government its sovereign will over the of the final act.
individuals within it and maintaining its separate
international personality. TANADA V ANGARA HELD
- State is a territorial society divided into government PANGANIBAN; May 2, 1997 - Petition dismissed.
and subjects, claiming within its allotted area a 1. Yes.
supremacy over all other institutions. Moreover, FACTS - The judiciary has the duty and power to strike down
similarly would point to the power entrusted to its - Petition for Certiorari grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or
government to maintain within its territory the - DTI secretary Rizalino Navarro signed the Final Act instrumentality of government including Congress
conditions of a legal order and to enter into international Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of 2. No
relations. With the latter requisite satisfied, Multilateral Negotiations. (Final Act). By signing it, he - The declaration of principles are not intended to
international law does not exact independence as a agreed on behalf of the Philippines be self-executing, rather, they are just aid and
condition of statehood. guides by the judiciary in judicial review, and by
the legislature in enacting laws. These broad - The Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring to - Concept of auto-limitation: Any state may, by its
principles need legislative enactments to implement as shown by the member’s deliberations. consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its
them. sovereign rights. It is not precluded from allowing
REAGAN V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL another power to participate in the exercise of
- The economic nationalism provisions should be read jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If
REVENUE
with other constitutional mandates, especially Sec 1 and it does so, it by no means follows that such areas
13 of Article 12. FERNANDO; December 27, 1969 become impressed with an alien character. They retain
- The WTO protects the weak economies. There are their status as native soil. They are still subject to its
specific provisos in the agreement with respect to tariffs, FACTS authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does
domestic subsidies and protection from unfair APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the
competition which are intended to help developing Petitioner: William Reagan –civilian employee of an American armed forces by virtue of the military bases
economies. American corporation providing technical assistance to agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign
- The Constitution does not rule out foreign competition. the United States Air Force in the Philippines territory.
Independence refers to the freedom from undue foreign Respondent: Commissioner of Internal Revenue - Therefore, the Philippines’ jurisdictional rights
control of the national economy. July 7, 1959 –Reagan was assigned at the Clark Field Air over the bases, certainly not excluding the power
- The Constitution has not really shown any unbalanced Base to tax, have been preserved. As to certain tax
bias in favor of any business or enterprise, nor does it April 22, 1960 –He imported a tax-free Cadillac with matters, an appropriate exemption was provided
contain any specific pronouncement that Filipino accessories valued at $6,443.83 for.
companies should be pampered with total prescription of July 11, 1960 –petitioner asked Base Commander for - Judgment (7 concur, 2 concur in the result, 1 did
foreign competition. permit to sell the car which was granted provided that not take part)
- Constitutions are designed to meet not only the he sell it to a member of the US Armed Forces or a US The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals denying
vagaries of contemporary events. They should be citizen employed in the Philippine military bases. On the the refund of P2,979.00 as the income tax
interpreted to cover even future and unknown same date, he sold his car for $6,600.00 to Willie paid by petitioner is affirmed.
circumstances. Johnson, Jr. of the US Marine Corps.
- As a result of the transaction, respondent, after
3. No REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN
- Sovereignty is not absolute because it is subject deducting the landed cost of the car as well as
petitioner’s personal exemption, fixed his net taxable CORONA; July 15, 2003
to restrictions and voluntarily agreed to by the
Philippines. income arising from the sale at P17,912.34 rendering
him liable for P2,979.00 income tax. After paying the FACTS
- The Constitution did not envision a hermit type
sum, petitioner sought a refund claiming that he was - Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
isolation of the country.
exempt, but pending action on his request, he filed the - Dec 17 1991, the Republic, through the Presidential
- By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict
case with the Court of Tax Appeals which denied his Commission on Good Government or PCGG, filed a
the absoluteness of sovereignty
petition. petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan, entitled
- There are certain restrictions to the Constitution
- Petitioner asserts that he is exempt from paying the Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. - Marcos,
- Limitations imposed by the very nature of
income tax. He contends that in legal contemplation the represented by his Estate/heirs and Imelda R. Marcos,
membership in the family of nations.
sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore pursuant to RA 13792.
- Limitations imposed by treaty stipulations
beyond its jurisdiction to tax. - PCGG was created by virtue of
- When the Philippines join the UN, it consented to
- Petitioner relies on a statement of Justice Tuason in Co Executive Order No. 1 issued on February 28,
restrict its soverign rights under the concept of auto-
Po v. Collector of Internal Revenue: “While in army bases 1986 by then President Corazon Aquino, and
limitation. (Reagan vs Commission of Internal Revenue)
or installations within the Philippines those goods were was charged with the task of assisting the
- The underlying concept in the partial surrender of
in contemplation of law on foreign soil.” The court President in the “recovery of all ill-gotten
sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other
resolved this by pointing out that the statement was wealth accumulated by former President
contracting states granting the same privilege and
merely obiter dictum in that case and therefore, cannot Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family,
immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens.
be invoked in this case. relatives, subordinates and close associates,
4. No.
whether located in the Philippines or abroad,
- The burden of proof is not transferred in cases of
ISSUE including the takeover or sequestration of all
patent infringement. It is still on the patent owner to
WON the Clark Field Air Base is Philippine territory business enterprises and entities owned or
introduce evidence of the existence of the alleged
controlled by them during is administration,
identical product.
HELD directly or through nominees, by taking undue
- The new rule should not really present any problem in
Yes. Bases under lease to the American armed advantage of their public office and/or using
changing the rules of evidence as the present law on the
forces by virtue of the Military Bases Agreement their powers, authority, influence, connections
subject, RA 165 (Patent Law), provides a similar
of 1947 remain part of Philippine territory. or relationship.”
presumption in cases of infringement of patent design.
- The Philippines being independent and sovereign, its - In said case, petitioner Republic, represented by the
- Conclusion in the third issue also applies.
authority may be exercised over its entire domain. Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought:
5. No.
- The final act need not be ratified. It is not the treaty Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands
itself. Rather, it is just a summary of the proceedings. paramount. Likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not
The final act only required that the senate concur with thus, there is a diminution of its sovereignty. 2
An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any
the WTO agreement, which they did. Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the Procedure Therefor.
a. the declaration of the aggregate amount of - Petitioner asserts in the main that the Sandiganbayan
- Oct 18 1996 petitioner filed a motion for summary committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
US$356 million (estimated to be US$658 million
judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings. decision on the ground that the original copies of the
inclusive of interest as of the time of decision)
Respondents filed their opposition. authenticated Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions
deposited in escrow3 in the Philippine National
- Nov 20 1997 Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion and their “authenticated translations” have not been
Bank (PNB), as ill-gotten wealth.
for summary judgment and/or judgment on the submitted to the Court, when in fact the Sandiganbayan
*The ff account groups, using various foreign
pleadings on the ground that the motion to approve the quoted extensively a portion of the Swiss decisions in
foundations in certain Swiss banks, previously
compromise agreement “(took) precedence over the denying a previous motion dated July 29 1999. Petitioner
held the funds:
motion for summary judgment” adds that nowhere in the respondents’ motions for
1. Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation
- May 26 1998 Mrs. Marcos filed manifestation claiming reconsideration and supplemental motion for
accounts
she was not a party to the motion for approval of the reconsideration were the authenticity, accuracy and
2. Xandy-Wintrop: Charis-Scolari-
Compromise Agreement and that the owned 90% of the admissibility of the Swiss decisions ever challenged.
Valamo-Spinus-
funds with the remaining 10% belonging to the Marcos - Respondents, of course, assert that the petition should
Avertina-Foundation accounts
estate. be denied.
3. Trinidad-Rayby-Palmy Foundation
accounts
The Fund Transfer Analysis of Respondents’ Legitimate Income
4. Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation
- Aug 10 1995 petitioner Republic filed with the District - the Marcoses reported P16,408,442.00 or
accounts
Attorney in Zurich, Switzerland an additional request for US$2,414,484.91 in total income over a period of 20
5. Maler Foundation accounts
the immediate transfer of the deposits to an escrow years from 1965 to 1984.
account in PNB. This was granted. - This amount includes Ferdinand Marcos’ salary as
b.
the forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million
- Marcoses appealed, Swiss Federal Supreme Court Senate President in 1965, (P15,935) and as President
in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos
affirmed ruling of District Attorney of Zurich, and funds from 1966 to 1985 (1966-1976 at P60,000/year; 1977-
couple’s salaries, other lawful income as well as
were remitted to the Philippines in escrow in 1998. 1985 at P100,000/year), Imelda Marcos’ salary as
income from legitimately acquired property.
Minister of Human Settlements from 1976 to 1986
These treasury notes are frozen at the Bangko
The Petition for Summary Judgment (P75,000/year), income from legal practice
Sentral ng Pilipinas by virtue of freeze order
- Mar 10 2000 petitioner filed another motion for (P11,109,836), plus other sources.
issued by PCGG.
summary judgment “pertaining to the forfeiture of the - Ferdinand Marcos made it appear that he had an
- Oct 18, 1993, respondents Imelda R Marcos, Ma.
US$356 million, based on ff grounds: extremely profitable legal practice before he became
Imelda M Manotoc, Irene M Araneta and Ferdinand R
a. essential facts which warrant the forfeiture of President, and that he was still receiving payments
Marcos, Jr. filed their answer.
the funds are admitted by respondents in their almost 20 years after
pleadings and other submissions made in the
The General Agreement/Supplemental Agreements
course of the proceeding - Computations establish the total net worth of spouses
- Before case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement
b. respondents’ admission made during pre-trial Ferdinand and Imelda, for the years 1965 to 1984, in the
and the Supplemental Agreements dated Dec 28, 1993
that they do not have any interest or ownership amount of US$957,487.75. (assuming income from legal
were executed by the Marcos children and then PCGG
over the funds tenders no genuine issue or practice is valid)
Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement
controversy as to any material fact in the - The five group accounts have a total balance of
of the assets of the Marcos family
present action US$356 million.
- The General Agreement/Supplemental Agreements
- Mrs. Marcos filed her opposition, which was later
sought to identify, collate, cause the inventory of and
adopted by co-respondents Marcos children. ISSUES
distribute all assets presumed to be owned by the
- Mar 24 2000 hearing on motion for summary judgment 1. WON petitioner Republic’s action for certiorari is
Marcos family under the conditions contained therein.
was conducted proper.
- It was stated in one of the “whereas clauses” the fact
- Sep 19 2000 Sandiganbayan granted petitioner’s 2. WON respondents raised any genuine issue of fact
that petitioner Republic “obtained a judgment from the
motion for summary judgment, stating that there is no which would either justify or negate summary judgment.
Swiss Federal Tribunal on Dec 21 1990 that the US$356
issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, 3. WON petitioner Republic was able to prove its case for
million belongs in principle to the Republic of the
and declared the funds, which were deemed unlawfully forfeiture in accordance with Sections 2 and 3 of RA
Philippines provided certain conditions are met….” The
acquired as ill-gotten wealth, forfeited in favor of the 1379.
decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court affirmed
State.
the decision of Zurich District Attorney Peter Cosandey
- Mrs. Marcos filed motion for reconsideration on Sep 26 HELD
granting legal assistance to Republic. Cosandey declared
2000; Marcos children followed. 1. Ratio Where the case is undeniably ingrained with
the various deposits in the name of the foundations to
- In Jan 31 2002 resolution, Sandiganbayan reversed its immense public interest, public policy and deep
be of illegal provenance and ordered that they be frozen
Sep 19 2000 decision, stating that “the evidence offered historical repercussions, certiorari is allowed
to await the final verdict in favor of the parties entitled
for summary judgment of the case did not prove that the notwithstanding the existence and availability of the
to restitution.
money in the Swiss Banks belonged to the Marcos remedy of appeal.
- Sandiganbayan conducted hearings on the motion to
spouses because no legal proof exists in the record as to Obiter Almost two decades have passed since the
approve the General/Supplemental Agreements.
the ownership by the Marcoses of the funds”, and thus government initiated its search for and reversion of ill-
3
denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. gotten wealth. The definitive resolution of such cases on
Money or a deed or other instrument deposited with a third person for a delivery to a given party upon the Hence, the present petition. the merits is long overdue.
fulfillment of some condition. While in the keeping of the third party, the money or instrument is said to be “in
escrow”. (Random House Webster’s Legal Dictionary, Random House, New York, 1996)
2. Ratio Mere denials, if unaccompanied by any fact c. Whether by the time motion for summary - substantive due process refers to intrinsic
which will be admissible in evidence at a hearing, are judgment was filed on Mar 10 2000, estoppel by validity of a law that interferes with the
not sufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and will not laches had already set in against petitioner. rights of a person to his property
defeat a motion for summary judgment - Doctrine of estoppel or laches does not apply when - there is no showing that RA 1379 is
Obiter Court held that respondent Marcoses failed to government sues as a sovereign or asserts unfair, unreasonable or unjust.
raise any genuine issue of fact in their pleadings. governmental rights. Nor can estoppel validate an Respondents were not deprived of
Summary judgment should take place as a matter of act that contravenes law or public policy. their property through forfeiture for
right. - estoppel by laches is the failure or arbitrary reasons.
- a genuine issue is an issue of fact which calls for the neglect for an unreasonable or unexplained - procedural due process means
presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue length of time to do that which, by exercising compliance with procedures or steps, even
which is fictitious and contrived, set up in bad faith or due diligence, could or should have been periods, prescribed by the statute, in
patently lacking in substance. done earlier, warranting a presumption that conformity with the standard of fair play
- Respondents failed to specifically deny each and every the person has abandoned his right or and without arbitrariness on the part of
allegation contained in the petition for forfeiture in the declined to assert it. those who are called upon to administer it.
manner required by the rules (Sec 10 Rule 8 1997 Rules - in invoking doctrine of estoppel by - forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem,
of Civil Procedure). Their answers include “they have no laches, respondents must show not only
thus civil in nature, contrary to respondents’
sufficient knowledge” or “they could not recall because it unjustified inaction but also that some unfair
contention that they are penal in character.
happened a long time ago” or “the funds were lawfully injury to them might result unless the action
The proceedings under RA 1379 do not
acquired” without stating the basis of such assertions. is barred.
terminate in the imposition of penalty but
- Question: Whether the kind of denial in respondents’ 3. Ratio The prima facie presumption raised by the law
merely in the forfeiture in favor of the State
answer qualifies as the specific denial called for by the that a property is unlawfully acquired when the amount
of properties illegally acquired.
rules. No. The Court holds that if an allegation directly or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official
- Civil suits to recover unlawfully acquired
and specifically charges a party with having done, salary and other lawful income of the public officer who
property under RA 1379 may be proven by
performed or committed a particular act which the latter owns it stands as proved unless defendant shows, and
preponderance of evidence. The Government
did not in fact do, perform or commit, a categorical and proves, that these were lawfully acquired and that there
is required only to state the known lawful
express denial must be made. are other legitimate sources of income.
income of respondents for the prima facie
- The allegations for forfeiture on the existence of the Obiter burden of proof was on respondents to dispute
presumption of illegal provenance to attach.
Swiss bank deposits, not having been specifically denied presumption and show by clear and convincing evidence
Petitioner Republic having established this
by respondents in their answer, were deemed admitted that the Swiss deposits were lawfully acquired and that
presumption, burden of proof shifted to
pursuant to Sec 11 Rule 8 of 1997 Rules on Civil they had other legitimate sources of income. A
respondents to show by clear and convincing
Procedure. presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed,
evidence that the Swiss deposits were
a. Propriety of Summary Judgment and, unless the fact thus prima facie established by legal
lawfully acquired and that they had other
- Summary judgment is proper when there is clearly presumption is disproved, it must stand as proved.
legitimate sources of income. Respondents
no genuine issue as to any material fact in the - the Court not only took into consideration that
failed on this part.
action. The Court is justified in dispensing with the respondents themselves made admissions in their
- essence of due process is found in the
trial and rendering summary judgment if it is pleadings and testimonies, but that petitioner was able
reasonable opportunity to be heard and
demonstrated by affidavits, depositions or to present sworn statements of witnesses who had
submit one’s evidence in support of his
admissions that the issues are not genuine but personal knowledge of the Marcoses’ participation in the
defense
sham or fictitious. illegal acquisition of funds.
- Respondents were repeatedly accorded
- motion for summary judgment is
full opportunity to present their case,
premised on the assumption that the issues RESOLUTION defenses and pleadings. They obstinately
presented need not be tried either because
CORONA; November 18, 2003 refused to do so and have tried to
these are patently devoid of substance or
confuse the issues and the Court and to
that there is no genuine issue as to any
- SC: Respondents in their motions for reconsideration do delay the disposition of the case
pertinent fact.
not raise any new matters for the Court to resolve. - “the people and the State are entitled to
- It is a procedural device for the prompt
favorable judgment, free from vexatious,
disposition of actions in which the pleadings
Is summary judgment in forfeiture proceedings a capricious and oppressive delays, the
raise only a legal issue, not a genuine issue
violation of due process? salutary objective being to restore the
as to any material fact.
- Respondents: RA 1379 is penal in substance and effect, ownership of the Swiss deposits to the
b. Whether petitioner Republic had bound itself to
hence they are entitled to constitutional safeguards rightful owner – that is, the Republic of the
go to trial and had legally waived right it had to
enjoyed by accused. Philippines – in the shortest possible time.”
move for summary judgment.
- SC: Due process of law has two aspects: substantive
- Court rules that petitioner could validly move for
and procedural. There must be a compliance with both Motions for reconsiderations denied with finality.
summary judgment any time after the respondents’
substantive and procedural requirements in order that a
answer was filed or, for that matter, at any
subsequent stage of the litigation. The fact that
particular act may not be impugned as violative of the
due process clause.
DOMINIUM AND IMPERIUM
petitioner agreed to proceed to trial did not in any
way prevent it from moving for summary judgment.
CARINO V INSULAR GOVERNMENT Ratio Prescription, mentioned in the royal cedula of - While the motion was pending, a new circular of the
1754 states: “Where such possessors shall not be able to Department of Justice (Circular No. 128) dated August
HOLMES; February 23, 1909
produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall 12, 1947 was issued, instructing all register of deeds to
show that ancient possession, as a valid title by accept for registration all transfers of residential lots to
FACTS
prescription.” aliens.
- Mateo Carino, an Igorot from the Province of Benguet,
- Decree of June 25, 1880 states: possession for certain - RDM naturally obeyed the circular.
contests dismissal of application of registration of their
times shall be deemed owners; cultivated land 20 years,
ancestral land through writ of error.
uncultivated 30 years. Plaintiff’s father was owner of ISSUE
- Carino’s ancestors maintained fences for cattle,
land by the very terms of this decree. Jurisdiction:
cultivated some parts, and pastured parts for cattle for
- By Organic Act of July 1, 1902, all the property and WON the Court should grant the motion withdrawing an
more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris
rights acquired there by the United States are to be appeal with the issuance of the said circular of the DOJ
(April 11, 1899). This land is also used for inheritance in
administered “for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof.” Primary Issue:
accordance to Igorot custom.
Obiter Writ of error is the general method of bringing WON an alien under our Constitution may acquire
- Although the plaintiff applied in 1893-1894 and 1896-
cases to this court (Federal SC), and appeal the residential land.
1897, no document of title was issued by Spanish
exception, confined to equity in the main.
Crown. In 1901, plaintiff alleged ownership under
- Every presumption is and ought to be against the HELD
mortgage law and the lands were registered to him but it
government in a case like present. The Court denied the motion withdrawing the appeal.
only established possessory title.
- The reason for taking over the Philippines was different Granting a withdrawal of appeal is discretionary upon
(compared to occupation of white race against Native the Court after the briefs have been presented.
- Procedure
Americans). Our first object in the internal - It cannot grant appellant's motion withdrawing his
- Court -– application of land registration granted
administration of the islands is to do justice to the appeal only because the constitutional issue should be
(March 4, 1904 )
natives not to exploit their country for private gain. avoided.
- CFI of Benguet – appeal on behalf of Government of
- The effect of proof was not to confer title but simply to - Also, the withdrawal was denied because under the
the Philippines and US having taken possession of
establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by circumstances, particularly (1) the circular of the Dept.
property for military and public purposes; application
earlier law. of Justice issued while this case was pending before the
dismissed
Decision REVERSED Court and ordering all registers of deed to accept for
- Philippine SC – affirmed decision of CFI Benguet
- Applicant should be granted what he seeks and should registration all transfers of residential lots to aliens,
- Federal SC – writ of error reviewing judgment of
not be deprived of what by the practice and belief of together with the circumstance that (2) probably a
Philippine SC
those among whom he lived, was his property, through a similar question may never come up again before the
- Respondents argue:
refined interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Court, the effect of the withdrawal would be offensive to
- Given that
Spain. the opinion reached by a majority of the members of the
- Spain assumed and asserted that they
Court after long and exhaustive deliberations on the
had title to all the land in the Philippines
except to permit private lands to be acquired KRIVENKO V REGISTER OF DEEDS OF constitutional question.
- To allow the withdrawal under such circumstances is
- No prescription against the Spanish MANILA
equivalent to tolerating an offense to the constitution,
Crown MORAN; November 15, 1947 offense that may be permanent.
- Decree of June 25, 1880 required
- The Court held that NO, aliens may not acquire private
registration within a limited time to make FACTS or public agricultural lands, including residential lands.
the title good - Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Manila (The votes were: 8-3)
- And US succeeded the title of Spain - December, 1941-Krivenko, alien, bought a residential - The case was decided under section 5 of Article XIII of
(through Treaty of Paris) lot from the Magdalena Estate. Inc the 1935 Constitution which is more comprehensive and
- Plaintiff’s land not registered and he had - The registration of the lot was interrupted by the war. more absolute in the sense that it PROHIBITS THE
lost all rights and a mere trespasser - May, 1945-Krivenko sought to accomplish said TRANSFER TO ALIENS OF ANY PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL
- Also, Benguet never brought under registration but the Register of Deeds of Manila (RDM) LAND INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL LAND WHATEVER ITS
civil or military government of the Spanish denied on the ground that he is an alien and cannot ORIGIN MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
Crown, so it is not certain whether acquire land in this jurisdiction. - This provision closes the only remaining avenue
registration granted was under Spanish - Krivenko filed as suit in the CFI of Manila by means of a through which agricultural resources may leak into
laws consulta. aliens' hands.
- Plaintiff argues: - CFI affirmed RDM's refusal hence this appeal. - This provision should be read in connection with
- Argument seems to amount to denial of - After the briefs have been presented, Krivenko filed a section 1 of Article XIII "natural resources, with the
native titles throughout an important Island of motion to withdraw the appeal. exception of public agricultural land, shall not be
Luzon - The case was already voted upon and the majority alienated" and with respect to public agricultural lands,
decision was being prepared. their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens.
ISSUE - Rule 52, section 4 of the Rules of Court: Court's - This provision secures the policy of nationalization in
WON Carino owns the land discretion to grant a withdrawal of appeal after the briefs Sec. 1 of Art. XIII.
have been presented. - It would be futile to prohibit the alienation of public
HELD - The motion for withdrawal stated no reason whatsoever lands to aliens if, after all, they may be freely so
and the Solicitor General was agreeable to it.
alienated upon their becoming private agricultural lands the Crown, and the present Constitution holds that it is application, up to the actual issuance of the sales patent
in the hands of the Filipino citizens. the state which possesses ownership (Cariño v Insular in his favor, the appellants did not put up any
- Ratio The Court shall rule that it cannot grant a motion Government). In Valenton v Murciano (1904), all lands opposition or adverse claim thereto. This is fatal to
withdrawing an appeal if such a withdrawal would result held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored them because after the registration and issuance of the
to a permanent offense to the Constitution. to us (the Spanish state) according as they belong to us, certificate and duplicate certificate of title based on a
- The Court shall rule that under the provisions of the in order that after reserving before all what to us or to public land patent, the land covered thereby
Constitution, aliens are not allowed to acquire the our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem automatically comes under the operation of RA 496
ownership of urban or residential lands in the Philippines necessary for public squares, ways, pastures and subject to all the safeguards provided therein.
and as a consequence, all acquisitions made in commons in those places which are peopled, taking into
contravention of the prohibitions since the Constitution consideration not only their present condition, but also After registration and issuance of the certificate and
became effective are null and void per se and ab initio. their future and their probable increase, and after duplicate certificate of title based on a public land
distributing to the natives what may be necessary for patent, the land is automatically covered by RA 496 ---
LEE HONG HOK V DAVID tillage and pasturage, confirming in them in what they RA 496 § 48 says that any question concerning the
now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest validity of the certificate of title based on fraud should
FERNANDO; December 27, 1972
of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us be raised within one year from the date of the issuance
to dispose of as we may wish. of the patent. Thereafter the certificate of title based
FACTS In Montano v Insular Government, unappropriated thereon becomes indefeasible.
- Pedro, Simeon, Rosita and Leoncio LEE HONG HOK, public lands constituting the public domain the sole
petitioners power is vested in Congress. In Aquino v Director of Lands (1919), “[t]he
- Aniano DAVID, the Hon. Secretary of Agriculture and The land in question is not private property; the Director proceedings under the Land Registration Law and under
Natural Resources, the Director of Lands and Court of of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural the provisions of Chapter VI of the Public Land Law are
Appeals Resources have always sustained the public character the same in that both are against the whole world, both
- APPEAL by certiorari from a decision of the Court of thereof by virtue of reclamation (and not by accretion take the nature of judicial proceedings, and for both the
Appeals. which the petitioners claim). decree of registration issued is conclusive and
- Petitioners wanted to declare null and void David’s Therefore, the only remedy for the appellants is an final.
Torrens Title (OCT No. 510) because they alleged to own action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud In Cabacug v Lao, “a holder of a land acquired under a
the disputed lot (226 m2 Lot 2892, which is a portion of committed by respondents. free patent is more favorably situated than that of an
Lot 2863 of the Naga Cadastre) through accretion. There was no fraud; everything was done in the open – owner of registered property. Not only does a free patent
- Jun 18, 1958 – Director of Lands issued David a sales notices were published, sale and awarding of land to have a force and effect of a Torrens Title, but in addition
patent of the lot David were public official acts of a Government officer. the person to whom it is granted has likewise in his favor
- Aug 26, 1959 – Undersecretary of Agricultural and the right to repurchase within a period of five years.”
Natural Resources issued David a Miscellaneous Sales The disputed lot is a result of reclamation,
Patent No. V-1209 therefore a public land. David’s application was a renewal of his deceased wife’s
- Oct 21, 1959 – Naga City Register of Deeds issued application, wherein his deceased wife occupied Lot
David OCT No. 510 2. Only the government, represented by the Director of 2892 since 1938.
Lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
ISSUES Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void The decision of Court of Appeals of January 31,
1. WON Lot 2892 came into being not by reclamation certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. 1961 and its resolution of March 14, 1969 are
but by accretion, therefore a private – not public - Plaintiffs are private parties and not government affirmed
domain (this court says it does not warrant any further officials, and therefore cannot institute for the
consideration) nullification of David’s Torrens Title, since they are not GONZALES V MARCOS
2. WON authoritative doctrines do not preclude a party the registered owners of the land and they had not been
other than the government to dispute the validity of a FERNANDO; July 31, 1975
declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings of Naga
grant (this court says it does) Cadastre after claiming it as their private property.
3. WON the indefeasible character of a public land FACTS
Maninang v Consolacion states that “[t]he fact that the
patent after one year should not be recognized (this - Gonzales assailed the validity of EO 30 as an
grant was made by the government is undisputed.
court says it should be). impermissible encroachment by the President on the
Whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not
legislative prerogative
is a question which the government may raise, but until
HELD - EO 30 has the creation of a trust for the benefit of the
it is raised by the government and set aside, the
1. Imperium is the government authority possessed by Filipino people under the name and style of the Cultural
defendant (in this case, the respondents) cannot
the state which is appropriately embraced in the concept Center of the Philippines to awaken our people’s
question it. The legality of the grant is a question
of sovereignty, and dominium is the state’s capacity to consciousness in the nation’s cultural heritage and
between the grantee and the government.”
own or acquire property. Dominium enables the state to encourage its preservation, promotion and development
provide for the exploitation and use of lands and other - In the Court of First Instance, stress was laid on the
Only the government can question the validity of
natural resources, including their disposition, except as funds administered by the Center as coming from
the title which it gave.
limited by the Constitution. The present Constitution donations and contributions and not a single centavo
adopts the modified concept of jure regalia, in which all raised by taxation
3. Since the filing of the sales application of David and
lands – in Spain and its earlier decrees – were held by during all the proceedings in connection with said
- Respondents argue EO 30 as: 1) legitimate exercise of ascription by others, who have continuously lived as HELD
executive power and that 2) this is supplementary to organized community on communally bounded and There was NO MAJORITY VOTE reached as the Justices
rather than a disregard of RA 4165 creating the National defined territory; were equally divided at 7-7. The case was then
Commission on Culture and that 3) petitioner Gonzales - Ancestral lands (sec.3b IPRA) redeliberated upon, but the voting still remained the
did not have the requisite personality to contest as a - Land occupied by members of the ICC/IP since time same. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED
taxpayer the validity of EO 30 as the funds held by the immemorial, by themselves or through their pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil
Cultural Center came from donations and contributions predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or Procedure.
and not one centavo came from taxation traditional group ownership,... including residential lots, - Those in favor of dismissing petition:
- Later, PD 15 was issued creating the Cultural Center of rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms, J. Kapunan, J. Davide Jr., J. Bellosillo, J. Quisumbing, J.
the Philippines and tree lots. Santiago, J. Puno, J. Mendoza
- Ancestral domains (sec.3a IPRA) - Those in favor of granting petition:
ISSUES - Areas generally belonging to ICC/IP comprising lands, J. Panganiban, J. Vitug, J. Melo, J. Pardo, J. Buena, J.
1. WON petitioner has standing inland waters, coastal areas and natural resources Gonzaga-Reyes, J. De Leon
2. WON EO 30 encroached on the legislative prerogative therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or
3. WON the issue on the validity of EO 30 became moot possessed by ICC/IP, by themselves or through their SEPARATE OPINIONS
and academic ancestors, communally or individually since time
immemorial continuously to the present... including
PUNO [dismiss]
HELD ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural,
- Development of the Regalian Doctrine in the
1. The court shall rule that taxpayer has no legal and other lands individually owned, hunting grounds,
Philippine Legal System
standing to question executive acts that do not involve burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral
A. Laws of the Indies: All lands became the exclusive
the use of public funds and other resources, and lands no longer occupied
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown.
2.The court shall rule that the President had the power exclusively by ICC but to which they had traditional
B. Valenton vs. Murciano (1904): "While the State has
to administer a trust created by an agreement with a access, particularly the home ranges of ICC who are still
always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if
foreign country nomadic or shifting cultivators.
he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time,
3.EO 30 was superseded by PD 15, hence the suit has - Procedure: CRUZ and EUROPA, as citizens and
yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof
assumed a moot and academic character taxpayers (upon the plea that questions raised are of
before the proper administrative officers, and obtain
"transcendental importance"), filed for PROHIBITION
from them his deed, and until he did that the State
Obiter (directing NCIP to cease from implementing IPRA and its
remained the absolute owner."
(1)-The funds administered by the President of the IR; DENR Secretary to cease from implementing Circular
C. Public Land Acts (PLA) and the Torrens System: Under
Philippines came from donations and contributions and 2; DBM Secretary to cease from disbursing public funds)
the PLA, "public land" referred to all lands of the public
not by taxation and MANDAMUS (commanding DENR Secretary to
domain whose title still remained in the government.
-There was that absence of the requisite pecuniary or comply with his duty of carrying out the State's
The Torrens system requires that the government issue
monetary interest constitutional mandate) assailing certain provisions
an official certificate of title attesting to the fact that the
(2) –As head of State, as Chief Executive, as spokesman of RA8371 (IPRA) as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
person named is the owner of such property described.
in domestic and foreign affairs, in behalf of the estate
The certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible.
as parens patriae, the President has authority to ISSUES
D. Philippine Constitutions: The Regalian Doctrine was
implement for the benefit of the Filipino people by The following provisions of RA8371 and its Implementing
established 1935 Constitution, and it was reiterated in
creating the Cultural Center consisting of private citizens Rules were questioned -
the 1973 and 1987 Consti.
to administer the private contributions and donations (1) Sections 3a, 3b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 57, 58 amount to an
-Provisions of IPRA do NOT contravene the Constitution
given not only by the US government but also by private unlawful deprivation of the State's ownership over
(1) AD and AL are the private property of the IP
persons LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (including the
and do not constitute part of the land of the
-Creation of rules governing the administration of a trust minerals and other natural resources therein) in violation
public domains, as they have acquired such
may be concurrently exercised by the President and of the REGALIAN DOCTRINE.
properties by NATIVE TITLE (AD/AL) and TORRENS
Congress (2) Sections 3a and 3b violate the RIGHTS OF
TITLE (AL).
Decision DISMISSED, No standing and even if there PRIVATE LANDOWNERS.
a. Native title presumes that the land is private and was
was, still no encroachment and that it is already moot (3) Sections 51, 52, 53, 59, 63, 65, 66 which define the
never public. Carino is the only case that specifically and
and academic powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and make customary
categorically recognizes native title.
law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving
b. For purposes of registration under the PLA and the
CRUZ V SECOF ENVIRONMENT AND ancestral domains and lands, violate the DUE
Land Registration Act, the IPRA expressly converts AL
PROCESS clause of the Constitution.
NATURAL RES into public agricultural land which may be disposed of by
(4) Rule 7, Part 2, Section 1 of the NCIP Admin. Order
PER CURIAM; 6 December 2000 No.1, which provides that "the administrative
the State. The necessary implication is that AL is private.
(2) The right of ownership and possession by the
relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is
FACTS ICC/IP to their AD is a LIMITED form of ownership
characterized as a lateral but autonomous relationship
- Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights and does not include the right to alienate such
for purposes of policy and program coordination", is
Act of 1997) AD.
invalid as it infringes upon the President's power of
- Indigenous peoples/cultural communities (IP/ICC) a. It is private because it is not part of the public domain.
control over executive departments.
-Group of people identified by self-ascription and But the AD is owned in common by the ICC/IP and not by
one particular person. Communal rights to the land are the hierarchy of courts, (petition should have been filed a. The property rights referred to in Sec.56 ("Existing
held not only by the present possessors but extends to in the lower court first) the Court assumes jurisdiction in property regimes should be protected") belong to those
all generations of the ICC/IP. view of the importance of the issues raised. acquired by individuals, whether indigenous or non-
b. Lands may be transferred only to the members of the ~Substantive issues- indigenous. Where the law does not distinguish, the
same ICC/IP; in accord with customary laws; and subject (1) The provisions recognizing ownership of IP courts should not distinguish.
to the right of redemption of IP for a period of 15 years if over the ancestral lands and domains are not b. The fact that NCIP shall be composed exclusively of
transferred to a non-member of IP. unconstitutional. members of IP does not mean that the NCIP is incapable,
c. The indigenous concept of ownership exists even a. The Regalian theory does not negate native title to or will appear to be so incapable, of delivering justice to
without a paper title. lands held in private ownership since time immemorial. the non-IP.
(3) The Regalian Doctrine has not been violated as b. Sec.1 Art.12 of 1935 Constitution does not state that c. The application of customary law is limited to disputes
the right of ICC/IP to develop lands and NR within certain lands which are "absolutely necessary for social concerning property rights or relations in determining
the AD does not deprive the State of ownership welfare and existence," shall then be owned by the the ownership and extent of the AD, where ALL parties
over the NR, and of control and supervision in State. involved are members of IP.
their development and exploitation. c. Sec.5 Art.12 expresses sovereign intent to "protect (2) Implementing Rules of IPRA does not infringe
a. Sec.7a limits the right of ownership of the IP. But the the rights of IP to their AL." Framers did not intend upon the President's power of control over the
Implementing Rules of IPRA included the term "natural Congress to decide whether AD shall be public or private Executive Department.
resources" in such rights of ownership which is property, as they have acknowledged that AD shall be Although NCIP is independent to a certain degree, it was
CONTRARY to Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Consti. treated as private property. placed by Congress "under the Office of the President"
b. The small-scale utilization of NR in Sec.7b of the IPRA (2) The provisions of RA8371 do not infringe upon and as such, is still subject to the President's power of
is allowed under par.3, Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Consti. the State's ownership over the natural resources control and supervision under Sec.17 Art.7 of the Consti.
Managing and conserving these resources, by their very within the ancestral domains.
nature, necessarily reject utilization in a large-scale. a. Sec.3a merely defines coverage of AD; its purpose is MENDOZA [dismiss]
c. The large-scale utilization of NR in Sec.57 of IPRA may definitional and not declarative of a right or title. It does (1) It is not a justiciable controversy.
be harmonized with par.1 and 4, Sec.2 Art.12 of the not ipso facto convert the character of such natural Judicial power cannot be extended to matters which do
1987 Consti. The grant of priority rights implies that resources as private property of the IP. not involve actual cases or controversies without
there is a superior entity that owns these resources and b. The concept of native title to natural resources, unlike upsetting balance of power.
who has the power to grant such preferential rights. native title to land, has NOT been recognized in the (2) Petitioners do not have legal standing.
(4) IPRA is a recognition of our active participation Philippines. In Tanada v. Tuvera, when the question is one of public
in the International Indigenous Movement. (3) The provisions of IPRA pertaining to the right and the object of mandamus is to procure the
utilization of natural resources are not enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as
VITUG [grant] unconstitutional. the real party in interest. But in this case, “what public
(1) IPRA effectively withdraws from the public domain a. Sec.2(3) Art.12 of the 1935 Consti allows small-scale right is there for petitioners to enforce when the IPRA
the ancestral domains, as the notion of community utilization of natural resources by its citizens. The State does not apply to them except in general and in
property involves matters of proprietary interest AND retains full control over such activities, through the common with other citizens??”
also some forms of self-governance over the property. imposition of requirements and conditions for the
(2) The decision of the US Court in Carino vs. Insular exploration, development and utilization of the NR.
PANGANIBAN [grant]
Government cannot override the collective will of the b. Under sec.7b, rights given to IP are duly
- RA8371 is unconstitutional in that-
people expressed in the Constitution. circumscribed and are limited:
A. It recognizes and grants rights of ownership
(3) Art.12 sec.5 par.2- "The constitutional aim is to get • to manage and conserve NR within territories; over "lands of the public domain which are owned
Congress to look closely into the customary laws and, • to benefit and share the profits from allocation by the State."
with specificity and by proper recitals, to hew them to, and utilization of NR; B. It lessens the authority of the State to oversee
and make them part of the stream of laws." There • to negotiate the terms and conditions for the "exploration, development, and utilization of
should be a balancing of interests between specific need exploration of NR in the area (refers only to the natural resources" which should under be the full
of IP and imperatives of national interest. preliminary activity of search and prospecting of control and supervision of the State."
mineral resources); (1) All Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to
KAPUNAN [dismiss] • to an informed and intelligent participation in the the Constitution. Because of the State's implementation
~Preliminary issues- formulation and implementation of any project of policies considered to be for the common good, all
(1) The petition presents an actual controversy. that will affect AD; those concerned have to give up, under certain
(2) Petitioners have the requisite standing. • to receive just and fair compensation for any conditions, even vested rights of ownership.
As citizens, they possess the public right to ensure that damages sustained by such projects; (2) The concept of ownership of ICC/IP, even if it is a
the national patrimony is not alienated and diminished in • to effective measures by the government to collective right, still perpetually withdraws such property
violation of the Constitution. As taxpayers, they possess prevent any interference with these rights from the control of the State and from its enjoyment by
the right to restrain officials from wasting public funds c. Priority rights do not mean exclusive rights. The grant other citizens of the Republic. Ownership of NR is in ALL
through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. of said priority rights is not a blanket authority to the Filipino people.
(3) The petition for prohibition and mandamus is not an disregard pertinent laws and regulations. (3) Sec.3 Art.12 of the Consti provides that Filipino
improper remedy. ~Corollary issues- citizens may acquire no more than 12 hectares of
(4) Notwithstanding the failure of petitioners to observe (1) IPRA does not violate the Due Process clause. alienable public land, but RA8371 speaks of no area or
term limits to ancestral lands and domains. Based on immune from suit (even w/o consent of the Aurora Rarang was an employee in the Office of the
ethnographic surveys, solicitor general estimates that State). Provost Marshal assigned as the merchandise control
AD cover 80% of our mineral resources and between 8 2. WoN the respondents are guilty of guard.
and 10 million of the 30 milion hectares of land in the discrimination against petitioner Shauf. Wylie, as one of his duties, supervised the publication of
country. 3. WoN Shauf should be awarded compensatory the “Plan of the Day” a daily publication that featured
(4) Sec.2 Art.12 of the Consti provides that the State damages. among others, an “action line inquiry”. On feb.3,1978,
may directly undertake exploration, development and an inquiry was published saying that confiscated goods
utilization of NR or it could enter into co-production, joint HELD were being consumed/ used for personal benefit by the
venture or production-sharing agreements with Filipino As expressed in Art. XVI, Section 3 of the 1987 Consti, merchandise control inspector and that a certain
citizens or entities at least 60% Filipino-owned (and such the state may not be sued without its consent. This is a “Auring” was, in herself, a disgrace to the office. Rarang,
agreements shall not exceed 25 years). RA 8371 generally accepted principle of International law under being the only person named Auring in the said office,
relinquishes this power in favor of ICC/IP and they may Art II, Section 2. The case at hand may be construed as a went to press an action for damages against Wylie and
even exercise such right without any time limit. suit against the US, since the damages to Shauf will be Williams and the US Naval Base. (That Rarang was
(5) Yes, ICC/IP should be given priority in the use of their taken from funds of the US. However, it is also applicable indeed the Auring mentioned in the inquiry was proven
AD and AL but they should not be granted perpetual to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts by the apology letter issued by Wylie for the inadvertent
ownership and control of the nation's substantial wealth allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their publication.)
to the exclusion of other law-abiding Filipino citizens. duties. Unauthorized acts of government officials are not She alleged that the article constituted false, injurious,
acts of the State, and an action against the officials by and malicious defamation and libel tending to impeach
SUITS AGAINST THE STATE one whose rights have been invaded by such offenses, is
not a suit against the State covered by the rule of
her honesty, virtue and reputation exposing her to public
hatred, contempt and ridicule.
immunity. The respondents are being sued in their Defendants alleged that (1) defendants acted in
ART XVI GENERAL PROVISIONS private and personal capacity. The rationale for this performance of their official functions as officers of the
ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity US Navy and are thus immune from suit (2) US Naval
Sec 3: The State shall not be sued without its consent cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating Base is immune from suit being an instrumentality of the
an injustice. A public official may be liable in his US Government and (3) the RTC has no jurisdiction over
personal private capacity for whatever damage he the subject matter and the parties involved.
SHAUF V COURT OF APPEALS may have caused by his act done with malice and Lower court ruling: defendants pay damages because
REGALADO; November 27, 1990 in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority acts were not official acts of the US government, but
or jurisdiction. personal and tortious acts (which are not included in the
FACTS rule that a sovereign country can’t be sued without its
Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married Doctrine Yes. Regalado is concurred with by Melencio- consent). Suit against US Naval Base was dismissed.
to an American who is a member of the United States Air Herrera, Paras, Padilla, and Sarmiento.
Force, applied for the vacant position of Guidance 1. The US officers are NOT IMMUNE from suit even ISSUES
Counselor, GS 1710-9, in the Base Education Office at without the consent of the State. 1. WON officials of the US Naval Base inside Philippine
Clark Air Base, for which she is eminently qualified. She 2. Yes the petitioners are guilty of discrimination Territory, in discharge of their official duties, are immune
had functioned as a Guidance Counselor at the Clark Air against Shauf. Despite Shauf’s qualifications, from suit.
Base at the GS 1710-9 level for approximately four years Persi did not even consider the former’s 2. Are US officers who commit a crime or tortious act
at the time she applied for the same position in 1976. application. Since the petitioner was able to while discharging official functions still covered by the
her application was forwarded to Anthony Persi, who had prove the discrimination in the non- principle of state immunity from suit?
some reservations regarding Shauf’s work experience. consideration of her application, the burden
Persi then requested the Civilian Personnel Office to shifted to the respondents. The respondents HELD
initiate immediate inquiry to the Central Oversea however answered with mere denials of the 1. Yes, they are immune.
Rotation and Recruiting Office (CORRO). Persi was then charges. Ratio Officers of the US Navy as instrumentalities of the
informed by CORRO that an Edward B. Isakson was US government are immune from suit (but only when
selected for the position. Isakson was placed on the rolls
3. Shauf need not be awarded compensatory
damages. There was no proof that she really they are acting/ discharging their official functions. 
at Clark Air Base on January 1977. this is part of the second issue)
By reason of her non-selection to the position, was to earn $39,662 if she was employed at the
time. Damages which are merely possible Art.XVI, sec.3 of 1987 consti provides that state may not
Loida Shauf filed an equal employment opportunity be sued without its consent. But even without this
complain against respondents for alleged discrimination are speculative. There must be an actual
proof of loss. affirmation, court is still bound by the doctrine of
against the former by reason of her nationality and sex. incorporation4. The doctrine is applicable not only to
Trial court held in favor of Shauf, while Court of Appeals suits against the state but also to complaints filed
reversed decision. WYLIE V RARANG against officials for acts allegedly performed by them in
GUTIERREZ; May 28, 1992 discharge of their official duties.
ISSUES
1. WoN the officers of the US Armed Forces FACTS 4
performing official functions in accordance with Petitioners Wylie and Williams were the assistant principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a
the powers vested in them under the Philippine condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations.
administrative officer and commanding officer, Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically obligated to
American Military Bases Agreement are respectively, of the US Naval base in Subic. Respondent comply with these principles in its relations with other states
The traditional rule of immunity excepts a State from - Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary special agents of the United States Air Force Office of
being sued in the courts of another State without its injunction to review the decision of the RTC of Angeles Special Operations, for violating R.A. 6425, or the
consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence City Dangerous Drugs Act.
of the principles of independence and equality of States. - This case is a consolidation of four separate cases, all - Bautista was dismissed from employment.
Because the activities of states have multiplied, it has involving state immunity. - He then filed a complaint for damages against
been necessary to distinguish them –– between individual petitioners.
sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and G.R. No. 76607 - Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the
private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). - Private respondents Valencia, Tanglao and del Pilar complaint on the ground that the defendants were
The result is that State immunity now extends only to sued officers of the U.S. Air Force in Clark Air Base in acting in their official capacity when they did the
acts jure imperii. connection with the bidding conducted by them for acts complained of and that the suit was against
There is no question, therefore, that the petitioners contracts for barbering services in the said base. the United States without its consent.
actively participated in screening the features and - Respondents sought to compel the Philippine Area - Motion was denied by respondent judge.
articles in the POD as part of their official functions. Exchange (PHAX) and individual petitioners to cancel the - Petitioners filed for certiorari and prohibition
Under the rule that U.S. officials in the performance of award to defendant Dizon, to conduct rebidding and to with preliminary injunction in the SC.
their official functions are immune from suit, then it allow respondents by a writ of preliminary injunction to
should follow that the petitioners may not be held liable continue operating concessions pending litigation. G.R. No. 80258
for the questioned publication. - Respondent court issued an order directing petitioners - Private respondents filed a complaint for damages for
It is to be noted, however, that the petitioners were sued to maintain the status quo. injuries sustained as a result of the acts of herein
in their personal capacities for their alleged tortious acts - Petitioners filed motion to dismiss and petitioners.
in publishing a libelous article. opposition to the petition for preliminary - According to plaintiffs (herein respondents), defendants
injunction on the ground that the action was a suit (herein petitioners) beat them up, handcuffed them and
2. No. against the United States, which has not waived unleashed dogs on them which bit them and caused
Ratio Our laws and, we presume, those of the United its non-suability, and that as officials/employees them extensive injuries.
States do not allow the commission of crimes in the of the U.S. Air Force, defendants were also - According to defendants, the plaintiffs were arrested
name of official duty. The general rule is that public immune from suit. for theft and were bitten by the dogs because they were
officials can be held personally accountable for acts - Trial Court denied the application for a writ of struggling and resisting arrest.
claimed to have been performed in connection with preliminary injunction as well as the motion to dismiss. - The United States of America and the
official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where - Petitioners filed for certiorari and prohibition individually named defendants moved to dismiss
there is showing of bad faith. Immunity from suit cannot with preliminary injunction in the SC. the case and argued that the suit was in effect a
institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability suit against the United States which has not given
nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other G.R. No. 79470 its consent to be sued. The defendants also
official of the Republic. - Genove filed a complaint for damages against claimed immunity for acts done by them in the
Under Art. 2176 of the civil code, whoever by act or Lamachia, Belsa, Cartalla and Orascion for his dismissal performance of their official functions.
omission, causes damage to another, there being fault as cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at John - Trial court denied the motion to dismiss, as well as the
or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. Hay Air Station in Baguio City. After investigation, the ff: motion for reconsideration.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing facts were ascertained: - Petitioners filed for certiorari and prohibition
contractual relation between the parties, is called a - Genove poured urine into the soup stock used in with preliminary injunction in the SC.
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this cooking vegetables served to club customers.
Chapter. - Lamachia, as club manager, suspended Genove ISSUES
Indeed the imputation of theft contained in the POD and referred the case to the Board of Arbitrators, 1. WON the cases against the petitioners were suits
dated February 3, 1978 is a defamation against the which found him guilty and recommended his against the United States, to which it has not consented
character and reputation of the private respondent. dismissal. 2. WON the individual petitioners may invoke immunity
Petitioner Wylie himself admitted that the Office of the - Defendants, joined by the United States of from suit by mere assertion that the acts were done by
Provost Marshal explicitly recommended the deletion of America, moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging them in the performance of their official functions as
the name Auring if the article were published. The that Lamachia, as an officer of the U.S. Air Force, officers or agents of the United States
petitioners, however, were negligent because under was immune from suit, and that the suit was in
their direction they issued the publication without effect against the United States, which has not HELD
deleting the name "Auring." Such act or omission is ultra given its consent to be sued. 1) Ratio If the case involves the state entering into a
vires and cannot be part of official duty. It was a tortious - Said motion was denied. contract in the discharge of its commercial, proprietary
act which ridiculed the private respondent. The - Petitioners filed for certiorari and prohibition and private function, then the state will be deemed to
petitioners, alone, in their personal capacities are liable with preliminary injunction in the SC. have impliedly consented to the suit.
for the damages they caused the private respondent. Reasoning
G.R. No. 80018 - The rule that a state may not be sued without its
- Luis Bautista, was employed as barracks boy in Camp consent now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3, of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V GUINTO
O’ Donnel, an extension of Clark Air Base. 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted
CRUZ; February 26, 1990 - He was arrested following a buy-bust operation principles of international law.
conducted by individual petitioners King, Dye and - All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
FACTS Bostick, officers of the United States Air Force and jurisdiction over the other.
- The rule says that a state may not be sued without its - Petition is granted, case against petitioners is governmental activities. The mantle of state immunity
consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it dismissed. cannot be extended to commercial, private and
consents. G.R. No. 80258 proprietary acts.
- Consent may be express or implied. - The court hesitates to make a conclusion because the Reasoning
- Express-embodied in a general or special law record is too meager to indicate if the individual - When JUSMAG took the services of Sacramento, it was
- Implied-when the state enters into a contract or it petitioners were acting in the discharge of their official performing a governmental function on behalf of the US
commences litigation functions, or had actually exceeded their authority. pursuant to the Military Assistance Agreement. The suit
- However, not all contracts operate as a waiver of non- - Only after needed inquiry in the lower court shall have is, in effect, one against the US and, considering that the
suability—a distinction must be made between contracts determined in what capacity the individual petitioners US has not waived or consented to the suit, the
entered into in a state’s governmental and sovereign were acting will the Court determine if the doctrine of complaint cannot prosper.
capacity or private, proprietary and commercial capacity state immunity is applicable. - Immunity of State from suit is one of the universally
- The latter implies waiver of non-suability, the former - Petition is dismissed and the respondent court is recognized principles of international law that the Phils.
does not. directed to proceed with the hearing and decision. Recognizes and adopts as part of the law of the land.
* If it is not proven that the acts were done by the This is anchored on the principle of sovereign equality of
individual petitioners in the performance of their official states (an equal has no power over an equal).
JUSMAG PHILIPPINES V. NLRC
functions as officers or agents of the United States, then Discussion
they may not invoke immunity form suit. PUNO; December 15, 1994 - Historical Background of JUSMAG
- The doctrine of state immunity is also applicable - was created pursuant to the Military Assistance
to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts FACTS Agreement dated March 21, 1947 between the
allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their - Florencio Sacramento was one of the 74 security Philippines and the US; primary task was to advise
duties. assistance support personnel (SASP) working at JUSMAG and assist the Philippines on air force, army and
- The fact that the acts were done by the Phils.; he had been with JUSMAG for more than 20yrs naval matters
individual petitioners in the performance of their (1969-1992); was dismissed on April 27, 1992 - in 1991, US manifested its preparedness to provide
official functions as officers or agents of the - He filed a complaint with the Dept. of Labor and funds to cover the salaries of SASP and security
United States is a matter of evidence, and charges Employment (March 31, 1992) on the ground that he guards, the rent of bldgs, and housing, and cost of
against them may not be dismissed just by mere was illegally suspended and dismissed; asked for utilities
assertion. If the individual petitioners are found liable for reinstatement - Memorandum of Agreement between AFP and
personal torts in which the US itself is not involved, then - JUSMAG filed a Motion to Dismiss invoking its JUSMAG-Phils
they alone must satisfy the judgment. immunity from suit as an agency of US; also alleged - Salaries- for security guards and SASP
2) Ruling: (Application of ratio in the different cases) lack of employer-employee rel’p and it has no juridical - SASP are employees of the AFP; under the
G.R. No. 76607 personality to sue and be sued total operational control of the Chief JUSMAG-
- Barbershops subject of the concessions granted by US - Labor Arbiter Daniel Cueto dismissed complaint for Phils; AFP to assume the severance/retirement
are commercial enterprises operated by private persons. want of jurisdiction pay liability for all appointed SASP
The contracts being decidedly commercial, petitioners - NLRC reversed—JUSMAG had lost its right not to be - It is apparent that when JUSMAG took the services
cannot plead any immunity. sued based on: 1) estoppel- JUSMAG failed to refute the of private respondent, it was performing a
- Petition is dismissed. employer-employee rel’p under the control test and 2) it governmental function on behalf of the US. Hence,
G.R. No. 79470 has waived its right to immunity from suit when it hired the suit is, in effect, one against the US
- Restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station Sacramento’s services. Government.
partake of the nature of a business enterprise - NLRC relied on Harry Lyons vs. USA (“US Govt - In this jurisdiction, Immunity of State is a
undertaken by the US government in its proprietary waived its immunity from suit by entering into a universally accepted principle. Immunity is
capacity. Petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of state contract of stevedoring services, and thus, it understood as the exemption of the state and its
immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit submitted itself to the jurisdiction of local courts”) organs from the judicial jurisdiction of another state.
against them. - JUSMAG now contends that the NLRC committed - A state cannot be sued in the courts of another
- However, notwithstanding these considerations, grave abuse of discretion in reversing the labor state, without its consent or waiver. An exception
complaint in the court below must still be dismissed. arbiter’s decision, in saying that JUSMAG waived its to the doctrine, however, was recognized in Santos,
Although suable, the petitioners are not liable because of immunity from suit, in finding an employer- et al vs. Santos, et al: “the state itself may be sued,
the strength of evidence that they acted properly in employee relp between JUSMAG and Sacramento, even without its consent, because by entering into a
terminating Genove for his disgusting offense. and in considering JUSMAG estopped from denying contract, the sovereign state has descended the
- Petition is granted, case against petitioners is that respondent is its employee for failure to level of the citizen and its consent to be sued is
dismissed. present proof. implied from the very act of entering into such
G.R. No. 80018 contract.”
- Individually-named petitioners were acting in the ISSUE - it was in this light that the state immunity issue in
exercise of their official functions, and not in their Is the Joint United States Military Assistance Group to the Harry Lyons vs. USA was decided
private or unofficial capacity. RP (JUSMAG-PHIL) immune from suit? - Exception evolved: existence of contract does
- It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of not, per se, mean that sovereign states may, at all
the United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for HELD times, be sued in local courts.
acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its Ratio As it stands now, the application of the doctrine of
consent to be sued. immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or
- US vs. Ruiz: “...does not apply where the HELD Court of Appeals affirmed Trial Court’s decision. Hence,
No. There’s no grave abuse of discretion. this petition for review on certiorari.
contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign
Ratio
functions”
1. RA No. 4201 has already repealed Commonwealth ISSUES
- US vs. Hon. Rodrigo, et al: “petitioners cannot Act No. 103, and under this law, it is now the Clerk of (1) WON the Cruz spouses had, in fact, violated their real
invoke the doctrine of state immunity...the this Court that is at the same time the Ex-Officio Sheriff. estate mortgage contract with the SSS as would have
reason is that by entering into the employment Therefore, the Clerk of this Court has the authority to warranted the publications of the notices of as would
contract with Genove in the discharge of its issue writs of execution and notices have foreclosure
proprietary functions, it impliedly divested itself 2. First, the tone in asserting this argument was even (2) WON the SSS is immune from suit
of its sovereign immunity from suit.” irresolute. And 2nd, the People’s Homesite and Housing (3) WON SSS can be held liable for damages.
- SASP are employees of the AFP as consistently Corporation had a juridical existence enabling it to sue
contended by JUSMAG, thus it is not estopped from and be sued. The premise that the funds spoken of are HELD
denying employer-employee relationship public in character may be accepted in the sense that it (1) Ratio On questions of appreciation of evidence,
Dispositive Petition for certiori is granted, resolution of was government-owned. However, it does not follow factual findings of the lower court are not subject to
NLRC is reversed and set aside that they were exempt from garnishment. review by this Court.
Reasoning The reasoning used precedence to arrive at
PNB V CIR SSS v CA this ratio. Applying the rule, it can be said therefore, that
FERNANDO; January 31, 1978 the findings of the Court of Appeals that the mortgage-
MELENCIO-HERRERA; February 21. 1983
debtors have not in fact violated their contract because
SSS accepted their installment payments although given
FACTS FACTS
late will not be disturbed on appeal.
- Petitioner PNB received a notice of garnishment which - In March 1963, spouses David B. Cruz and Socorro
(2) Ratio An entity performing governmental functions,
was served upon its branch on QC by an authorized Cancio Cruz applied for and were granted a real estate
by virtue of the explicit provision of an enabling law, is
deputy sheriff of the court loan by the SSS with their residential lot located at
deemed to have waived immunity from suit, although it
*** What was sought to be garnished was the money of Lozada Street, Sto. Rosario, Pateros, Rizal covered by
does not thereby concede its liability.
the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2000 of the Register of
Reasoning Again, the leg of reasoning is ratio by
deposited at the petitioner’s branch in QC in order to Deeds of Rizal its collateral. Pursuant to this real estate
precedence, citing Rayo v. Court of First Instance of
satisfy the decision of the respondent court loan said spouses executed on March 26, 1963 the
Bulacan, (110 SCRA 457), which involved the National
- PNB filed a motion to quash the notice based on 2 corresponding real estate mortgage originally in the
Power Corporation as an entity performing governmental
grounds: amount of P39,500.00 which was later increased to
functions. In that case it said, “It is sufficient to say that
1. the appointment of respondent Gilbert Lorenzo P48,000.00 covering said property.
the government has organized a private corporation, put
as authorized deputy sheriff to serve the writ of - On July 9, 1968, defendant SSS filed an application with
money in it and has allowed it to site and be sued in any
execution was contrary to law the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the foreclosure of the
court under its charter.” The enabling law is R.A. No.
*** PNB contends that the service of notice by the real estate mortgage executed by the plaintiffs on the
6395. Applying this rule in the present case, the SSS’
authorized deputy sheriff of this court contravenes Sec. ground, among others that the conditions of the
own organic act specifically provides that it can sue and
11 of Commonwealth Act No. 1055 mortgage have been broken since October 1967 with the
be sued in Court, the enabling law being R.A. 1161 and
*** It argues that it is the sheriff of QC and not the default on the part of the mortgagor to pay in full the
P.D. 24. Hence, there’s a statutory consent by the SSS to
Clerk of this court who is its Ex-officio Sheriff, that installments then due and payable on the principal debt
waive right of immunity from suit.
has the authority to serve the notice of garnishment and and the interest thereon, and all of the monthly
(3) Ratio No moral and/or temperate damages is to be
that the actual service of the latter officer of said notice installments due and payable thereafter up to the
adjudged against a party which commenced foreclosure
is therefore not in order present date. Notice of the Sheriff's Sale of the
proceedings in view of the irregular payments of the
2. the funds subject of the character “may be mortgaged property was initially published in the Sunday
debtor of his installments.
public in character” Chronicle in its issue of July 14, 1968 announcing the
Decision (1) The ruling of the lower courts remain.
- COIR denied PNB’s motion to quash a notice of sale at public auction of the said mortgaged property.
While it is true that the payments of the monthly
garnishment Despite plaintiff’s letter to defendant demanding the
installments were previously not regular, it is a fact that
latter to withdraw foreclosure and discontinue the
as of June 30, 1968 the appellee, David B. Cruz and
ISSUE publication of the notice of sale of their property
Socorro Concio-Cruz were up-to-date and current in the
WON an order of Court of Industrial Relations (COIR) claiming that plaintiffs were up-to date in the payment of
payment of their monthly installments. Having accepted
denying, for lack of merit, petitioner PNB’s motion to their monthly amortizations, defendant SSS still went on
the prior late payments of the monthly installments, the
quash a notice of garnishment6 can be stigmatized as a to publish second and third publications of foreclosure.
appellant could no longer suddenly and without prior
grave abuse of discretion. - On July 24, 1968, the plaintiff Cruz spouses instituted
notice to the mortgagors apply for the extra-judicial
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal an action for
foreclosure of the mortgage.
damages and attorney's fees against the SSS and the
(2) SSS is deemed to have waived its immunity from
5
“All writs and processes issued by the court shall be served and executed Provincial Sheriff of Rizal alleging, among other things,
suit.
free of charge by provincial sheriffs or by any person authorized by this that they had fully and religiously paid their monthly
(3) SSS cannot be held liable for damages.
court, in the same manner as writs and processes of Courts of First Instance amortizations and had not defaulted in any payment.
6 Voting 10 justices concur, 1 dissent, 3 took no part.
Garnishment – a legal warning concerning the attachment of property to Trial Court rendered judgment against defendant SSS.
satisfy a debt
-- also the attachment of such property
SEPARATE OPINION 1. WON the compensation awarded by the court is members, for instance the appointment of one Tecson as
proper justice of the peace and the branding of Trinidad H.
MAKASIAR [dissent] 2. WON the attorney’s fees awarded were exorbitant Pardo de Tavera as a coward and a rascal, were
• What was committed in this case was a tortious act explicitly raised among others. Hence, this appeal.
(grossly negligent bordering on malice or bad faith) of HELD
the employees of the SSS in foreclosing the mortgage 1) In a review of the relevant Article of the New Civil ISSUES
of the wrong mortgage-debtor Code, the Court noted that the provision applies only if 1. What is meant in section 8 of Act No. 292 by the
• SSS cannot be held liable for the damages caused by there was a contract or agreement. Using the precedent, expression “the Insular Government of the Philippines”?8
the tortious acts of its employees in the performance Velasco vs Manila Electric (L-19390 December 29, 1971), 2. Whether the article constitutes an offense under
of their regular functions the court expressed the view that the taking of private section 8 of Act No. 292?
property by the government in the exercise of its
• SSS as a public instrumentality for social welfare is
eminent domain does not give rise to a contractual HELD
immune from suit despite its Charter provision that it
obligation. Since there is no contract to speak of 1. Ratio The term “government” as employed in Act
can sue and be sued.
because the obligation of the government sought to be No. 292 of the United States Philippine Commission is
• SSS exercises purely governmental functions and enforced does not originate from contract, then Article used in the abstract sense of the existing political
cannot be sued without its consent for the tortious 1250 does not apply. The just compensation is the value system as distinguished from the concrete organism of
acts of its personnel of the property at the time it was taken. the Government – the Houses of Congress and the
- Amigable is still entitled to interest on the price of Executive.
COMMISIONER OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS the land as there was no motion of reconsideration Reasoning There are two admissible meanings of the
V BURGOS from the Solicitor General before the decision term “government” provided: a. in a general and
DE CASTRO; March 31, 1980 became final. abstract sense, the existing laws and institutions of the
2) The Court noted that Amgable only sked for Islands, or b. the aggregate of the individuals by whom
FACTS P5,000 attorney’s fees and hence the amount the Government of the Islands is, for the time being,
- Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of requested is reasonable. administered. The first admissible definition is derived
Cebu from the act of (the U.S.) Congress on July 14, 1798,
- The facts of the case is as per above except that the Dispositive Judgment appealed is reversed as to the commonly known as the Sedition Act)9
compensation determined is now the issue. The value of basis of determining the price of the land. And the price
the property was pegged at P 2.37 per square meter of P2.37 per square meter or total amount is P14,615.79 2. Ratio The publication of an article can not be
based on the price used in the conveyance of several plus six percent per annum interest reckoned from the punished under Act No. 292 of the United States
pieces of property in the same area at about the same time the property was taken to the time the Philippine Commission as having seditious tendencies
time. However, the court a quo in determining due compensation is paid. unless it has a tendency to produce disaffection or a
compensation, considered the value of the pesos to the feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to
the Government and obedient to its laws.
dollar at the time the case was being decided. So GOVERNMENT - The publication of an article abusive of the United
instead of just P14,615.79 the amount awarded became
P49,459.34. (the original amount of 14,615.79 divided States Philippine Commission and its members is not a
UNITED STATES V DORR libel upon the Government and does not fall within said
by 2 {the exchange rate at the time of the taking to be
P2.00 to US$1.00} and the product being multiplied by LADD; May 19, 1903 Act No. 292 of the United States Philippine Commission.
6.775). Based on this amount, the court determined Reasoning The article in question contains no attack
interest to be P145,410.44. Total due from the FACTS upon the government system of the U.S., and though
government, including attorney’s fee of ten percent The defendants, Fred Dorr et al., have been convicted grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a
amounted to P214,356.75. upon a complaint charging them with the offense of body and some of its individual members, it contains no
- Apparently, the court a quo, in revising upward the writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous libel attack upon the governmental system by which
compensation, relied on Article 1250 of the New Civil against the Government of the United States or the authority of the U.S. is enforced in these Islands.
Code which provides for payment of an obligation in an Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. The Furthermore, it is the character of the men who are
amount different from what has been agreed on because complaint is based upon section 8 of Act No. 292 of the intrusted with the administration of the government that
of the supervention of extra-ordinary inflation or Commission7. The alleged libel was published as an the writer is seeking to bring into disrepute by
deflation. editorial in the issue of “Manila Freedom” of April 6, impugning the purity of their motives, their public
- The government, through the Solicitor General, 1902. Virulent attacks on the Civil Commission and its integrity, and their private morals, and the wisdom of
appealed the decision contending that the court a quo 8
7 N.B. We need to answer this question first in order to be able to resolve
erred in applying its method and violated the high “Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish,
the next issue.
court’s order to make as a basis of compensation the or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or 9
the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or “It is made an offense to write, print, utter, publish or cause to procure to
price or the value of the land when it was taken. The obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate be written, printed, uttered, or published or to knowingly and willingly assist
Solicitor General also took issue with the award of ten others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous, and
percent as attorney’s fees as exhorbitant considering incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United States,
against the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the community, the or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said
that Amigable only sought P5,000.00. safety and order of the Government, or who shall unknowingly conceal such Government, or either House of said Congress, or the said President, or to
evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute, or to excite
ISSUES dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the against them or either any of them the hatred of the good people of the
discretion of the court.” (Italics mine)  United States…"
their policy. The publication of the article therefore, no has acquired dominion and sovereignty. Approved - It also restricts other countries from exercising the
seditious tendency being apparent, constitutes no September 18, 1968. rights above in our EEZ.
offense under section 8 of Act No. 292) - Recognizes that other countries have EEZs
Dispositive The judgment of conviction is reversed and PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1596 - The President may authorize a government agency to
the defendants are acquitted. promulgate rules for the purposes of this decree
- Anyone who violates any provision of the decree shall
June 11, 1978 - Pres. Marcos issued P.D. 1596 declaring
TERRITORY certain area (the Kalayaan Island Group or more
be subject to a fine (P2,000-P100,000) or imprisonment
(6 mos – 10 yrs) or both. Vessels and other equipment or
ART I NATIONAL TERRITORY commonly known as the “Spratly Islands”) as Philippine
articles used shall be confiscated.
territory as well as providing for its Government and
Administration.
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and water embraced • said area is vital to the security and economic PEOPLE
therein, and all other territories over which the survival of the Philippines and much of it is part PREAMBLE
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of of the continental margin of the Phil.
its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its archipelago
• the area does not legally belong to any state or We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, nation and by reason of history, indispensable
need, effective occupation and control society and establish s Government that shall embody
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of established in accordance with international
law, said area (including its sea-bed, subsoil, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to
the internal waters of the Philippines. ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of
continental margin and air space) must be
deemed to belong to and subject to the independence and democracy under the rule of law and
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046 sovereignty of the Phil. a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and
An Act to Define the Baselines of the peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
• other states’ claims to some of the area cannot
Territorial Sea of the Philippines prevail over the claims of the Philippines on
legal, historical, and equitable grounds ART II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
- Approved: 17 June 1961 • named it “Kalayaan” and constituted it as a AND STATE POLICIES
Whereas clauses – distinct and separate municipality of Palawan
1. The following form part of territorial sea of the Phils: • administration and government shall be vested Sec 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican
• All waters within limits set forth in Treaty of in the Secretary of National Defense or in other State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
Paris (1898), US-Spain treaty (1900), and US- Civil govt. or AFP officers as may be designated government authority emanates from them.
Britain treaty (1930). by the Pres.
• All waters around, between and connecting the Sec 4: The prime duty of the Government is to serve and
various islands of the archipelago. protect the people. The Government may call upon the
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1599
• All waters beyond outermost islands of people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof,
archipelago but within limits of boundaries set Establishing an Exclusive Economic all citizens may be required, under conditions provided
forth in such treaties. Zone and for Other Purposes by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
2. The baselines from which the territorial sea of
Philippines is determined consist of straight lines joining - Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a seazone over which Sec 15: The State shall protect and promote the right to
appropriate points of the outermost islands of the a state has special rights over the exploration and use of health of the people and instill health consciousness
archipelago. marine resources – Wikipedia among them.
Section 1 – It defines and describes the baselines for the - It extends from two hundred nautical miles beyond and
territorial sea of the Phils. from the baselines from which the territorial sea Sec 16: The State shall protect and advance the right of
Section 2 – All waters within the baselines provided in - when it overlaps another EEZ, the common boundaries the people to a balanced and healthful
sec1 are considered inland or internal waters of the shall be determined by countries
Phils. - What can be exercised in EEZ? ART III BILL OF RIGHTS
o Sovereignty rights for the purpose of exploration
and exploitation, conservation and management Sec 2:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446 of the natural resources Sec 7:
o Exclusive rights and jurisdiction with respect to
R.A. 5446 is simply an Act to correct typographical
the establishment and utilization of artificial ART VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
errors in Section 1 of R.A. 3046 defining the baselines of
islands, off-shore terminals, installations and
the territorial sea of the Philippines. It further says that
structures, the preservation of the marine
the definition of the baselines of the territorial seas of Sec 4:
environment, including the prevention and control
the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is
of pollution, and scientific research
without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of
o Other rights recognized by international law or ART XVI GENERAL PROVISIONS
the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated
in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Phils. state practice
Sec 2:
- In the January 19, 2004 hearing before the COMELEC, certificate of candidacy that he was a natural-born
ART XVIII TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Fornier presented the following pieces of evidence: Filipino?
- Copy of the certificate of birth of FPJ
- Certified photocopy of an affidavit by Paulita HELD
Sec 25:
Gomez-Poe attesting that she had filed a bigamy 1. Ratio Jurisdiction issue
case against Allan F. Poe because of his - The COMELEC’s decision on disqualified cases
TECSON V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS relationship with Kelley (in Spanish) involving a presidential candidate could be
VITUG; March 3, 2004 English translation of (b) elevated to and could be taken cognizance by the
- Certified copy of the certificate of birth of Allan Supreme Court.
FACTS F. Poe - The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would not
- On December 31, 2003, FPJ filed his certificate of - Certification from the director of the Records include cases directly brought before it
candidacy for the position of President of the Philippines Management and Archives Office stating that a questioning the qualifications of a candidate for
under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP). Lorenzo Poe/Pou resided in the Philippines before the presidency or vice-presidency before the
- In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ represented 1907 elections are held.
himself to be a natural-born citizen. - Certification from OIC of the Archives Division of Reasoning
- His real name was stated to be “Fernando, Jr.” or the National Archives stating that there was no - Does the Court have jurisdiction over the three cases
“Ronald Allan” Poe, born in Manila on August 20, available information regarding the birth of Allan filed?
1939. F. Poe - Fornier petition - Yes
- On January 9, 2004, Victorino X. Fornier filed a petition - FPJ presented the following pieces of evidence among - In seeking the disqualification of FPJ before the
before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due others: COMELEC, Fornier relied on the following:
course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy on the - Certification that there was no available - “A verified petition seeking to deny due
ground that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his information regarding the birth of Allan F. Poe in course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy
certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born the registry of births for San Carlos, Pangasinan may be filed by any person exclusively on the
Filipino citizen. - Certification by the OIC of the Archives Division ground that any material representation
- According to Fornier, FPJ’s parents were of the National Archives that there was no contained therein as required under Section
foreigners – his mother Bessie Kelley Poe was an available information about the marriage of Allan 74 is false…” (Omnibus Election Code, Sec.
American and his father Allan F. Poe was a F. Poe and Paulita Gomez 78)
Spanish national being a son of Lorenzo Pou, a - Certificate of birth of Ronald Allan F. Poe - “…the Commission shall have exclusive
Spanish subject. - Original Certificate of Title if the Registry Deeds charge of the enforcement and
- Even if Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he of Pangasinan in the name of Lorenzo Pou, administration of all laws relative to the
could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship - Copies of tax declarations under the name of conduct of elections for the purpose of
to FPJ because FPJ was illegitimate. Lorenzo Pou enduring free, orderly and honest
- Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to - Copy of certificate of death of Lorenzo Pou elections…” (Sec. 52, same)
a certain Paulita Gomez before marrying - Copy of marriage contract of Fernando Pou and - “any interested party” authorized to file a
Bessie Kelley according to an “uncertified” Bessie Kelley verified petition to deny or cancel the
copy of a supposed certification of the - Certification issued by the City Civil Registrar of certificate of candidacy of any nuisance
marriage in July 5, 1936. San Carlos, Pangasinan stating that the records of candidate (Art. 69, same)
- Even if no such prior marriage existed, the birth of the said office from 1900 to May 1946 - Decisions of the COMELEC on disqualification
Allan F. Poe married Bessey Kelley only a were destroyed during World War II cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court
year after the birth of FPJ. The marriage - January 23, 2004 – COMELEC dismissed the Fornier under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule
certificate of their marriage reflected the petition for lack of merit and Fornier filed a motion for 65). Aside from that, according to Art. 9, Sec. 7 of
date of their marriage to be on September reconsideration on January 26, 2004. The motion was the Constitution, “any decision, order or ruling of
16, 1940 where Allan was 25, unmarried denied by the COMELEC en banc on February 6, 2004. each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
and Filipino, and Bessie was 22, unmarried - February 10, 2004 – Fornier filed a petition before the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
and American. Supreme Court, praying for TRO, a writ of preliminary thirty days from receipt thereof.”
- FPJ’s earliest established ascendant was his injunction or any other resolution that would stay the - Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court
grandfather Lorenzo Pou. finality and/or execution of the COMELEC resolutions. which includes the duty of the courts to settle
- No birth certificate for Lorenzo but his death - The two other petitions (Tecson and Desidero v. actual controversies involving rights which are
certificate issued upon his death in September 11, COMELEC and Velez v. Poe) challenge the jurisdiction of legally demandable and enforceable and to
1954 at age 84 identified him as a Filipino the COMELEC and assert that only the Supreme Court determine whether or not there has been grave
residing in San Carlos, Pangasinan. has original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
- Lorenzo married Marta Reyes and their son Allan basic issue on the case. jurisdiction on the part of any branch of
was born on May 17, 1915. The birth certificate of instrumentality of the government. (Art. 8, Sec. 1,
Allan showed that his father was an Español ISSUES Constitution).
father and to a mestiza Español mother. 1. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the three cases - Tecson petition and Velez petition - No
filed? - The Tecson and Velez petitions make use of Art.
Procedure 2. Can FPJ be disqualified as a presidential candidate on 7, Sec 4(7) of the Constitution in assailing the
the ground that he materially misrepresented in his COMELEC’s jurisdiction when it took cognizance of
the Fornier petition because the “Supreme Court - In the 18th century, the concept was civil citizens of the Philippines entitled to
sitting en banc shall be the sole judge of all citizenship which established the rights protection of the US.
contests relating to the election, returns and necessary for necessary for individual - Philippine Organic Act of 1902 – first appearance
qualifications of the President or Vice President freedom (eg. Rights to property, personal of the term “citizens of the Philippine islands.” A
and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.” liberty and justice) citizen of the Philippine islands under this Act
- A “contest” refers to a post-election scenario. - In the 19th century, it expanded to include was:
Election contests are either election protests or a political citizenship which encompassed the - An inhabitant of the Philippines and a
quo warranto which would have the objective of right to participate in the exercise of political Spanish subject on April 11, 1899.
dislodging the winner from office. The Rules of power. - An inhabitant meant:
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal state: - In the 20th century, there was the - A native born inhabitant
- “Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all development of social citizenship which laid - An inhabitant who was a native of Spain
contests…relating to qualifications of the emphasis on the right of the citizen to - An inhabitant who obtained Spanish
President or Vice-President of the economic well-being and social security. papers on or before April 11, 1899.
Philippines.” (Rule 12) - Internationalization of citizenship is an - Controversy as to the citizenship of a child
- “An election contest is initiated by the filing ongoing development. born between April 11, 1899 and July 1, 1902
of an election contest or a petition for quo- as there was no citizenship law in the
warranto against the President or Vice- - Citizenship in the Philippines from the Spanish Philippines. The common law principle jus
President.” (Rule 13) times to the present soli (principle of territoriality) was said to
- “Only the registered candidate for President - During the Spanish period, no such term as govern those born in the Philippines during
or Vice-President who received the second or “Philippine citizens,” only “Spanish subjects.” In this time.
third highest number of votes may contest church records, natives were identified as - Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) – A native
the election of the President or the Vice- “indios.” born inhabitant of the Philippines was deemed to
President…by filing a verified petition…within - Spanish laws on citizenship included: be a citizen of the Philippines as of April 11, 1899
30 days after the proclamation of the - Order de la Regencia of 1841 if:
winner.” (Rule 14) - Royal Decree of 23 August 1868 (defined - A Spanish subject on April 11, 1899
- The rules speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal the political status of children born in the - Residing in the Philippines on the said date
over contests relating to the election, returns and Philippines) - Since that date, not a citizen of another
qualifications of the President and the Vice - Ley Extranjera de Ultramar of 1870 country
President and not candidates for President or - The 1876 Spanish Constitution was not - 1935 Constitution – provided that jus sanguinis
Vice-President. extended to the Philippines because the (blood relationship) be the basis for citizenship, as
colony was to be governed by special laws. stated in Sec. 1, Art. 3:
2. Ratio FPJ’s citizenship issue (Voting 6 concur, 7 - According to the Civil Code of Spain, the - Those who are citizens of the Philippine
dissent, 1 abstention and 1 separate opinion) following were Spanish citizens: Islands at the time of the adoption of the
- The distinctions between legitimacy and - Persons born in Spanish territory Constitution
illegitimacy should only remain in the sphere of - Children of a Spanish father or mother - Those born in the Philippine Islands of
civil law and should not unduly impinge on the even if they were born outside Spain foreign parents who, before the adoption of
domain of political law. - Foreigners who have obtained this Constitution, had been elected to public
- The 1935 Constitution confers citizenship to all naturalization papers office in the Philippine Islands
persons whose fathers are Filipino regardless of - Those who, without such papers, may - Those whose fathers are citizens of the
whether such children are legitimate of have become domiciled inhabitants of any Philippines
illegitimate. town of the Monarchy - Those whose mothers are citizens of the
Reasoning - Article 10 of the Treaty of Paris stated that the Philippines and upon reaching the age of
- Can FPJ be disqualified as a presidential candidate on civil and political status of the native inhabitants majority, elect Philippine citizenship
the ground that he materially misrepresented in his would be determined by the US Congress. - Those who are naturalized in accordance
certificate of candidacy that he was a natural-born Spanish subjects and natives who choose to with law
Filipino? remain in the territory may preserve their - 1973 Constitution – Corrected Sec. 1, Art. 3 (4)
- Concept of citizenship allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making a of the 1935 Constitution, which, when taken
- Aristotle described a citizen as a man who declaration of their decision within a year from together with the existing civil law provisions
shared in the administration of justice and in the the date of the ratification of the treaty. If no would provide that women would automatically
holding of an office and the state would be such declaration is made, their allegiance shall be lose their Filipino citizenship and acquire that of
composed of such individuals in order to achieve held renounced and they would have adopted the their foreign husbands. This was deemed
a self-sufficient existence. nationality of the territory in which they reside. discriminatory in that it incapacitated the Filipino
- Citizenship deals with rights and entitlements on - Upon ratification of the treaty, the native woman from transmitting her citizenship to her
the one hand and with concomitant obligations on inhabitants of the Philippines became Spanish legitimate children and required illegitimate
the other. subjects. children of Filipino mothers to still elect Filipino
- Citizenship underwent changes in the 18th to 20th - They did not become American citizens but citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
centuries. were issued passports describing them to be The provisions of Sec. 1, Art. 3 of the 1973
Constitution state that the following are citizens of - At the time of his death on in this case. The duly notarized declaration
the Philippines: September 11, 1954, Lorenzo Poe was by Ruby Kelley Mangahas, FPJ’s maternal
- Those who are citizens of the Philippines at 84 years old. aunt and sister of his mother Bessie, proving
the time of the adoption of this Constitution - The public documents submitted are the acts of Allan F. Poe, recognizing his own
- Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens deemed trustworthy. paternal relationship with FPJ (living with
of the Philippines - The three documents (birth Bessie and the children in one house as one
- Those who elect Philippine citizenship certificate of FPJ, marriage certificate family) would be accepted.
pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 of Bessie and Allan and the death - Fornier argues that the mandatory rules
Constitution certificate of Lorenzo) were certified under civil rule should apply because FPJ was
- Those who are naturalized in accordance true copies of the originals. an illegitimate son.
with law - The Rules of Court (130, Section 3) - Acknowledgement needed to
- Add Sec. 2 of the same article which state that when the subject of the establish paternity (eg.
provided that a female citizen of the inquiry is the content of the document, Acknowledgement in the birth
Philippines who marries an alien retainers her no evidence shall be admissible except certificate by signing name)
Philippine citizenship unless by her act or the original document itself. One of - In the FPJ case, there was no
omission she is deemed to have renounced the exceptions however is when the signature of Allan F. Poe in the birth
her citizenship under the law. original is a public record in the certificate of FPJ.
- 1987 Constitution – aimed to correct the custody of a public office is recorded in - 1950 Civil Code – acknowledgement
irregular situation generated by the questionable a public office. of illegitimate children of three types
proviso in the 1935 Constitution which outlines in - As public documents, the three which had to be done during the
Article 4, Sec. 1 that the following are Filipino documents are prima facie proof of lifetime of the presumed parent:
citizens: their contents as stated in the Rules of - Voluntary (expressly made in
- Those who are citizens of the Philippines at Court (130, Section 44) that the entries record birth, will or a statement
the time of the adoption of this Constitution in official records made by a public before the court in authentic
- Those whose fathers and mothers are officer in the performance of his duty writing)
citizens of the Philippines are prima facie evidence of the facts - Legal (in favor of full blood
- Those born before January 17, 1973 of stated therein. This is grounded on:’ brothers and sisters of an
Filipino mothers who elect Philippine of official duty in the preparation of the illegitimate child who was
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority statement made. The penalty affixed recognized as natural)
- Those who are naturalized in accordance to a breach of that duty. Routine and - Compulsory (demanded
with law. disinterested origin of most such generally in cases when the child
statements. Publicity of the record had in his favor any evidence to
- The Constitution requires that the President of the which makes more likely the prior prove filiation)
Philippines should be, among the many exposure of such errors as might have - The Family Code has liberalized
requirements, a natural-born citizen of the occurred the rules as stated in Articles 172,
Philippines (Art. 7, Sec. 2). - It is safe to assume that Lorenzo Pou’s 173 and 175 and the rules have
- Natural born citizen – citizens of the Philippines place of residence at the time of death was retroactive effect (Article 255).
from birth without having to perform any act to the same as his residence before death in These provisions are there to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship the absence of evidence that would attest govern the private and personal
- Citizenship of FPJ in relation to grandfather otherwise. In that case, Lorenzo Pou would affairs of the family. There is little
Lorenzo Pou’s citizenship and father Allan F. Poe’s have benefited from the “en masse indication that this should also
citizenship Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill govern his political rights.
- Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen because effected in 1902. This citizenship would - This should be taken in the context of civil
his father Lorenzo was also Filipino. then extend to his son Allan F. Poe, FPJ’s law, being that branch of law which is
- Conclusions with some degree of certainty father. concerned with the organization of the
to be drawn from the documents - Lorenzo born sometime in 1870 family and regulation of property. The
presented: during the Spanish colonization period. relevance of citizenship is exemplified in
- The parents of FPJ were Allen Poe and - Fornier argues that Lorenzo was not Art. 15 of the Civil Code.
Bessie Kelley. in the Philippines during the crucial - The proof of filiation for purposes of
- FPJ was born to them on August 20, period of 1898 to 1902 but there is no determining citizenship status should be
1939. existing record to attest to that claim. deemed independent from those
- Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were - Fornier failed to show that Lorenzo prescribed for civil code purposes. The
married to each other on September was out of the country during that ordinary rules should govern.
16, 1940. same time period. - DNA testing to prove paternity could also
- The father of Allan F. Poe was - Lorenzo’s residence at the time of be resorted to.
Lorenzo Pou. death was in San Carlos, Pangasinan. - There is no jurisprudence to prove that an
- For proof of filiation or paternity, the illegitimate child cannot inherit his father’s
mandatory rules of civil law would not apply citizenship.
- Fornier argues that even if Allan F. Poe were - Tecson and Valdez petitions – petitioners cannot - Poe from the time of his involuntary birth has
Filipino, Allan’s citizenship would not have invoke Art VII S4 of the Constitution because the always conducted himself as Filipino
been transmitted to FPJ because FPJ was word “contest” means that the Court can only be - “For failure of the petitioner to discharge the
illegitimate. invoked after the election and proclamation of a burden of proof, Poe is entitled to an outright
- FPJ was alleged to be illegitimate because of President or Vice President. There can be no dismissal of the Fornier petition.” Poe does not
the bigamous marriage between his parents “contest” before a winner is proclaimed. need to present contrary evidence for the burden
Allan and Bessie for the reason that Allan - Fornier petition – as a review under R64 in of proof is not shifted to him.
allegedly had a prior existing marriage to a relation to R65 of the RoC, Court has jurisdiction. - Assuming that COMELEC gravely abused its jurisdiction
certain Paulita Gomez. The Court held that - COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and the issue of whether respondent Poe is a natural-
the veracity of this marriage between Paulita when it ruled that petitioner failed to prove by born citizen Filipino should now be resolved, the Fornier
and Allan is doubtful. substantial evidence that FPJ deliberately petition need not be remanded to the COMELEC for
- Fornier also contended that even if Allan misrepresented that he is a natural-born Filipino citizan further reception of evidence
and Bessie’s marriage was not bigamous, FPJ in his CoC - Remand to the COMELEC to give the petitioner a
was still illegitimate because his parents were - Certiorari power of the SC to review COMELEC second opportunity to prove his case is a palpable error
married after he was born. Fornier based his decisions is a limited power - “In light of these erudite opinions of our amici
arguments on the cases of Morano v. Vivo, - Can only reverse or change the COMELEC curae, it is daylight clear that petitioner Fornier is
Chiongbian v. de Leon and Serra v. Republic. decision on the ground that COMELEC committed not only wring with his facts but also wrong with
- In the cases cited above, it is grave abuse of discretion (despotic, arbitrary or his law.
important to note the lis mota in each capricious) - Remand means a new round of litigation in the
case. If the pronouncement of jus - The ruling of the COMELEC denying the petition to COMELEC when its proceedings have long been
sangunis was in the lis mota, it would disqualify respondent Poe is based on substantial closed and terminated; to give another chance to
constitute doctrine courtesy of stare evidence, hence is not despotic, whimsical or capricious prove facts which he failed to prove before
decisis. If not, it is mere obiter dictum. - Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC – - Favors of remand cannot be extended to the
- In all of the mentioned cases, there misrepresentation must not only be material but litigant because of political neutrality
was no jus sanguinis in the lis mota of also deliberate and willful - Remand will change the nature of a Sec 78 proceeding
the cases. If there was jus sangunis - Petitioner has burden to prove evidence to show by judicial legislation, hence, unconstitutional
mentioned, it was mere obiter dictum. that (1) respondent made misrepresentation in his - Principal issue: whether respondent deliberately
- The pronouncement that an illegitimate CoC, (2) that misrepresentation is material to the made a material misrepresentation in his CoC
child cannot inherit the father’s citizenship position to which he is candidate and (3) that when he wrote that he is a natural-born Filipino
has no textual basis in the Constitution and material misrepresentation was made deliberately citizen
violates the equal protection clause. and willfully - Remanding the case to COMELEC will change the
- For jurisprudence that regarded an - Analysis of petitioner’s evidence character of a S78 proceeding (WON FOJ is a
illegitimate child to inherit the mother’s - Certificate of birth – only proved the date of birth natural-born Filipino citizen will be the main issue
citizenship, it was there to ensure a Filipino of FPJ, not that he is not a natural-born citizen and not just an issue incidental to the issue of
nationality for the child with the assumption - Sworn statements of Paulita Gomez charging material misrepresentation)
that the mother would gain custody. Allan Poe with bigamy and marriage license of - SC cannot engage in judicial legislation as it is
- The 1935 Constitution applies to FPJ since between Allan Poe and Paulita Gomez, presented something only legislature can change by another
he was born during that time period and it thru Dir. Manapat – pulled out because they were law
states that Filipino citizens include those fabricated - Remand will violate respondent Poe’s right to due
whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. - Respondent submitted affidavits that show process, hence, unconstitutional
that the files submitted by the petitioner are - If case were remanded to the COMELEC, the
Decision fabricated by Manapat’s instructions body is no longer an impartial tribunal is there are
1. The evidence does not establish conclusively FPJ’s - Petitioner claims that the affidavits must not three of the seven members of the commission
citizenship but the evidence preponderates in his favor be considered because of technical grounds that have given firm view that Poe is not a
to hold that he could not be guilty of misrepresentation - SC ruled that the COMELEC is a quasi- natural-born Filipino citizen
in his certificate of candidacy. Fornier v. COMELEC judicial body and are not bound by the - Remand will delay the resolution of the issue of
DISMISSED for failure to show grave abuse of discretion technical rules of evidence. whether respondent Poe is qualified. Delay will also
on the part of the COMELEC for dismissing the original - Birth certificate of Allan Poe – also fabricated; prejudice his candidacy and will favor his political
petition. does not prove anything besides birth opponents.
2. Tecson v. COMELEC and Velez v, Poe DISMISSED for - Certification of Dir. Manapat that the National - “The right to run for public office includes the
want of jurisdiction. Archives has no record that Lorenzo Pou entered right to equal chance to compete. The right to run
or resided in the Philippines before 1907 – is empty if the chance to win is diminished of
manufactured denied a candidate.
SEPARATE OPINION
- Certification of Estrella Domingo, OIC Archives - To avoid delay, the court should itself decide the issue
Div that the Register of Births that there is no and declare respondent Poe as a natural-born citizen on
PUNO information on the National Archives on the birth the basis of the evidence adduced before the COMELEC
Jurisdiction of Allan Poe to the spouse Lorenzo Pou and Marta
- SC is unanimous on the issue of jurisdiction Reyes – lack of information is not proof
- Whether respondent Poe is illegitimate is irrelevant in the better policy approach is to let the people decide - SC has jurisdiction over the case under (Art IX-A
determining his status as natural-born citizen --- that is who will be the next President. For on political S7 Consti )
the law. questions, this Court may err but the sovereign people - SC can take cognizance of issue of WON
- The law does not make any distinction in will not. To be sure, the Constitution did not grant to the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
applying jus sanguinis to illegitimate children. unelected members of this Court the right to elect in amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the
- Morano v Vivo – WON the stepson was to file the behalf of the people. challenged resolution by virtue of (ArtVIII S1
natural cerebral house. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 161434, Consti)
- Chiongbian v de Leon – a legitimate son whose 161634 and 161824 are DISMISSED. WON FPJ is a natural-born Filipino Citizen
father became Filipino because of election to a Facts:
public office before the 1935 constitution DAVIDE 1. FPJ was born on 20 August 1939 in Manila,
- Serra v Republic – an illegitimate son of a FACTS Philippines.
Chinese father and a Filipino mother - January 9, 2004 – Fornier filed petition to disqualify FPJ 2. FPJ was born to Allan Poe and Bessie Kelley.
- Paa v Chan – Quintin claims that his father is and to cancel his certificate of candidacy for the May 10 3. Bessie Kelley and Allan Poe were married on 16
Filipino because his grandmother is a Filipina. The elections because of he is not a natural-born Filipino September 1940.
court ruled that since there is no proof that his citizen 4. Allan Poe was a Filipino because his father, Lorenzo
grandmother is Filipino then his father is not - January 23, 2004 – COMELEC dismissed the case Poe, albeit a Spanish subject, was not shown to have
Filipino thereby not making him Filipino as well. declaring that its jurisdiction is limited to all matters declared his allegiance to Spain by virtue of the Treaty
The court’s ruling should have stopped here but relating to election, returns and qualifications of all of Paris and the Philippine Bill of 1902.
the SC followed with an obiter dictum that even if elective regional, provincial and city officials, but not
Quintin’s father were Filipino, he would not be those of national officials like the president. Ratio For the purposes of citizenship, an illegitimate
Filipino because he was illegitimate. - but it has jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of child whose father is Filipino and whose mother is an
- The statements on the illegitimate child citizenship of national officials under sec 78 of alien, proof of paternity or filiation is enough for the child
were unnecessary and were just obiter dicta OECon petitions to deny due course or cancel to follow the citizenship of the father
and not ratio decidendi, therefore do not certificates of candidacy on the ground of false COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion
constitute stare decisis. material representation. in holding that FPJ is a Filipino citizen pursuant to Art IV
- Obiter dicta do not establish doctrine even if - Findings: S1 per 3 consti. The provision did not make any
repeated endlessly. - Fornier evidence is not substantial distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children
- Reasons why court should create new doctrine: - FPJ did not commit any falsehood in material of Filipino fathers.
- There is no textual foundation representation when he stated that he is a Petitions are dismissed.
- It violates the equal protection clause natural-born Filipino citizen
- People v Cayat – established the doctrine on - Tecson and Desiderio, Jr prayed special civil action of SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
constitutionally allowable distinctions. Such certiorari under R65 RoC to challenge jurisdiction of May court exercise judicial power to disqualify a
distinction must be germane to the purpose COMELEC over the issue of FPJ’s citizenship. They claim candidate before the election?
of the law. that only the Sc has jurisdiction (ArtVII S4, consti) - Court may not. It will wreck the constitutional right of
- Tan Chong v Secretary of Labor – “The duty - January 29, 2004 - Velez filed petition with the ff issues: the people to choose their candidates.
of this Court is to forsake and abandon any - Whether COMELEC has jurisdiction over the Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC
doctrine or rule found to be in violation of the petitions to deny due course or cancel certificated - Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, a retired member of
law in force.” of candidacy of Presidential candidates this Court, in his Separate Opinion said, “In my view, the
- Ubi les non distinguit ne nos distinguere - Whether SC has jurisdiction over the petitions of issue in this case is whether the Commission on
debemus, especially if the distinction has no Tecson, Velez and Fornier Elections has the power to disqualify candidates on the
textual - Whether FPJ is a Filipino citizen, and if so, if he’s ground that they lack eligibility for the office to which
- Merlin Magallona – transmissive essence of a natural-born Filipino citizen they seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that
citizenship Jurisdiction the qualifications of candidates may be questioned only
- To establish that respondent Poe is a natural-born - Tecson and Velez petitions in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo
citizen, all that is needed is proof of his filiation to his - The provision in the constitution only refers to warranto or an election protest in the appropriate
father Allan Poe, a Filipino citizen --- that is the critical past-election remedies, they should have resorted forum.”
fact. to pre-election remedies in the OEC which are - Ruling of COMELEC is the same as Mandoza opinion.
- Filipino citizenship of Allan Poe, respondent’s father is implemented by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure - Disqualifying respondent Poe will be viewed as directed
well established. - Pre-election remedies are not within the against the “masses,” a situation not allowed by the
- To disqualify respondent Poe because he is illegitimate jurisdiction of the SC Constitution. The SC may become like the Iranian
will violate our treaty obligation. - Under the OEC, COMELEC has original Guardian Council.This Court, as the last guardian of
Dispositive Whether respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. is jurisdiction to determine whether a candidate for democracy, has the duty to protect the right of our
qualified to run for President involves a constitutional an elective office ineligible for the office for which nation to a genuine, free and fair election.
issue but its political tone is no less dominant. The Court he filed his certificate of candidacy because of
is split down the middle on the citizenship of respondent any of the recognized grounds for disqualification. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
Poe, an issue of first impression made more difficult by - Fornier petition discretion in dismissinG Fornier’s petition for
the interplay of national and international law. Given the
disqualification against respondent
indecisiveness of the votes of the members of this Court,
- Salcedo v COMELEC – the only instance when a petition - Petitioners claim that Allan Fernando Poe is a 3) Whether FPJ is a natural-born Filipino and therefore
raising the qualifications of a registered candidate is citizen of Spain because his qualified to seek election as President.
before election (S78 OEC) - Marriage Contract with Paulita Gomez shows
- To justify the cancellation of CoC, false that his parents are citizens of Spain. 1) Jurisdiction:
representation mentioned must pertain to - The marriage certificate was shown to have - Petitions in G.R. Nos. 161464 and 161634
material matter been falsified. - Petitioners Tecson et al. and Velez assert that
- There must be deliberate attempt to mislead, - Fornier did not dispute that Allan Fernando Poe this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to
misinform, or hide fact which would render a is the father of FPJ determine whether FPJ is qualified to be a
candidate ineligible - Allan’s father, Lorenzo Pou is a Spanish subject candidate for President: paragraph 7, Section 4
- Fornier petition brought under R65 RoCP – where and an inhabitant of the Philippines on April 11, of Article VII of the Constitution:
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in Jan 23 1899 when Spain ceded the Philippines (Treaty of - The Supreme Court, sitting en banc,
and Feb 6 resolutions holding that “considering the Paris, Phil Bill 1902 and Jones Law) shall be the sole judge of all contests
evidence presented by the petitioner is not substantial, - In re Bosque – expiration of the term of 18 months relating to the election, returns, and
we declare that the respondent did not commit any without making an express declaration of intention to qualifications of the President or Vice-
material misrepresentation when he stated in his CoC retain their Spanish nationality resulted in the loss of the President, and may promulgate its rules
that he is a natural born Filipino citizen” latter and thereby becoming subjects of the new for the purpose.
Allegations in the COMELEC petition: sovereign in the same manner as the natives of these - refers to this Court’s jurisdiction over
1. Respondent Poe committed false material islands electoral contests relating to the election,
representation by stating in his Certificate of - Palanca v Republic – returns and qualifications of the President,
Candidacy that he is a natural born Filipino - “A person, who was an inhabitant of the and not to the qualifications or
citizen; and Philippine Islands and a naturalized subject of disqualifications of a presidential
2. He knowingly made such false representation. Spain on the 11th day of April 1899, is a Filipino candidate. FPJ is still just a candidate;
- FPJ is not a citizen because both his parents are citizen, by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the petition: premature.
aliens. Act of Congress on 1 July 1902 and of Sec. 2 of - Petitioners Tecson et al. and Velez claim that
- Director Manapat of the National Archives the Act of Congress of 29 August 1916. Under the the issue of FPJ’s qualification for the
falsified the marriage contract of FPJ’s parents Constitution, he is also a citizen of the Philippines Presidency may also be brought directly to this
and his father’s birth certificate. because he was such at the time of the adoption Court on the basis of Section 1 of Article VIII of
- Ei incumbit probation qui decit, non que negat. – of the Constitution.” the Constitution through a petition for certiorari
he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove; - Constitution did not specify in referring to those under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, specially
S1 R131 RroE; Borlongan v Madrideo – burden of whose fathers are Filipino citizens as to whether considering that the instant case is one of
proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of this only applies to legitimate children or not. transcendental importance.
an issue - Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere - a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
- Fornier failed to prove allegations; writ of debemus, especially if the distinction has no the Rules of Court is not available where
certiorari can only be granted if it can be proven textual foundation in the Constitution, serves no there is another plain, speedy and
that COMELEC committed a grave abuse of state interest, and even imposes an injustice on adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
discretion; an innocent child. (Fr Bernas) law—like in this case: (to intervene in the
-Grave abuse of discretion – capricious and - To introduce a distinction between legitimacy or Petition for Disqualification)
whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and illegitimacy in the status of the child vis-à-vis the - in determining whether procedural rules,
gross that it amounted to an evasion of derivation of his citizenship from the father such as standing, should be relaxed on the
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform defeats the transmissive essence of citizenship in ground of “transcendental importance,” the
the duty enjoined or to act at all in blood relationship. (Dean Merlin Magalona) following should be considered: the lack of
contemplation of law In fine, I reiterate that the COMELEC did not gravely any other party with a more direct and
- We cannot discern from the records any indication that abuse its discretion in rendering its assailed Resolutions specific interest in raising the questions
the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing dated January 23, 2004 and February 6, 2004. being raised. Considering that the
Fornier’s petition. Indeed, his availment of the WHEREFORE, I concur with Justice Jose C. Vitug in his substantive issues raised by petitioners
extraordinary writ of certiorari is grossly misplaced. ponencia and with Senior Justice Reynato S. Puno in his Tecson et al. and Velez in G.R. Nos. 161434
Whether the respondent committed a material and false Separate Opinion DISMISSING Fornier’s petition and 161634, respectively, are virtually
representation when he declared in his CoC that he is a identical to those raised by petitioner
natural-bron Filipino citizen CARPIO-MORALES Fornier in G.R. No. 161824, this Court is not
- COMELEC held that the FPJ did not commit any material Issues for Resolution: convinced that the “transcendental
misrepresentation in his CoC because his father is a 1) Whether this Court has original and exclusive importance” of the issues raised herein
Filipino by virtue of jus sanguinis and under the 1935 jurisdiction to pass upon the qualifications of presidential justifies a direct resort to this Court under
constitution. candidates; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court or the
- Valles v COMELEC – Philippine law on citizenship 2) Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of exercise of its expanded certiorari
adheres to jus sanguinis discretion when it issues its Resolutions of Jan. 23, 2004 jurisdiction under Sec. 1, Article VIII of the
- FPJ is Filipino citizen, having been born to a and Feb. 6, 2004, dismissing the Petition for Constitution.
Filipino father Disqualification; - Petition in G.R. No. 161824
- this Court definitely has jurisdiction over the - the evidence presented does not show that nothing more to do to acquire or perfect his
petition for Certiorari questioning the Lorenzo Pou acquired Philippine citizenship by citizenship (nothing more to do to acquire
Resolutions of Jan. 23, 2004 and Feb. 6, 2004, virtue of the Treaty of Paris or the Organic Acts citizenship = natural born).
issued by COMELEC: Section 7 of Art. IX-A of the covering the Philippine Islands. (no evidence as - no evidence has been submitted to show that
Constitution vests this Court with the power of to his residence, only prima facie evidence.) Allan F. Poe did indeed acknowledge FPJ as his
review over decisions, orders, or rulings of the (2) Whether Allan F. Poe, the putative father of FPJ own son at birth
COMELEC. was a Filipino at the time of the birth of the latter; - Since FPJ then was born out of wedlock and
- COMELEC’s Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter of - Claim: Allan F. Poe acquired Filipino citizenship was not acknowledged by his father, the only
the Petition for Disqualification Under Section 78 of independently of his father’s by virtue of jus possible Filipino parent, at the time of his
the Omnibus Election Code. soli, Allan F. Poe having been allegedly born in birth, the inescapable conclusion is that he is
- not really a constitutional question… the Philippines on November 27, 1916. not a natural-born Philippine citizen.
2) Whether The COMELEC Acted with Grave Abuse - even assuming arguendo that Allan F. Poe was Conclusion WHEREFORE, I vote to: (1) DISMISS the
of Discretion in Dismissing the Petition for is born in the Philippines on November 27, 1916, petitions in G.R. Nos. 161434 and 161634 for being
qualification for Lack of Merit. such fact, per se, would not suffice to prove premature, (2) DECLARE COMELEC Resolutions dated
- the COMELEC did indeed act with grave abuse of that he was a citizen of the Philippine Islands January 23, 2004 and February 6, 2004, rendered in
discretion in issuing them: absent a showing that he was judicially COMELEC SPA No. 04-003 NULL AND VOID, and (3)
- By resolving to dismiss the petition in the Petition declared to be a Filipino citizen: In Tan Chong v. DIRECT the COMELEC to cancel the Certificate of
for Disqualification without stating the factual bases Secretary of Labor, this Court ruled that the Candidacy of Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, a.k.a. Fernando
therefore: principle jus soli or acquisition of citizenship by Poe Jr., for containing a false material representation.
- Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution place of birth was never extended or applied in
provides that “[n]o decision shall be rendered the Philippine Islands: IN RE: CHING
by any court without expressing therein clearly (3) Whether FPJ is a legitimate or illegitimate child;
KAPUNAN; October 1, 1999
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it - FPJ’s birth certificate indicates that his parents
is based.” were married, and that he is a legitimate child.
FACTS
- By resolving to dismiss the Petition for However, the Marriage Contract of his putative
- Petition for Admission to the Phil Bar
Disqualification without ruling categorically on the parents, Fernando R. Pou and Bessie Kelley, is
- April 1964: Vicente D Ching born as the legitimate son
issue of FPJ’s citizenship. dated September 16, 1940, thereby indicating
of sps Tat Ching, Chinese citizen, and Prescila Dulay,
- To justify its evasion of the duty to rule that he was born out of wedlock. Since, in the
Filipina, in La Union. Since birth, Ching has resided in
squarely on the issue of citizenship, the Marriage Contract, the two contracting parties,
the Phils
COMELEC relies on this Court’s ruling in Salcedo Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley, participated in
- During this time, the governing charter is the 1935
II v. Commission on Elections, and held that its execution, the entry therein with respect to
Constitution. Father’s citizenship is followed, with a
held that Fornier should have presented “proof the date of their marriage should be given
right to elect citizenship upon reaching the age of
of misrepresentation with a deliberate attempt greater weight than the birth certificate, which
majority
to mislead” on the part of FPJ— confined the was executed by a physician who had to rely on
- July 1998: Ching, after graduating from St. Louis
issue in the Petition for Disqualification to hearsay as regards FPJ’s legitimacy.
University in Baguio City, filed an application to take the
whether FPJ “must have known or have been - FPJ was born out of wedlock, and was thus an
’98 Bar Examinations.
aware of the falsehood as [allegedly] appearing illegitimate child at birth.
- Sept 1998: Court allowed Ching to take the exams
on his certificate.” (4) Whether Allan F. Poe has been legally
provided he must submit proof of his Phil citizenship
- Carpio-Morales: it is impossible for the determined to be the father of FPJ (Assuming
- Nov 1998: Ching submitted certification that he is CPA,
COMELEC to determine whether FPJ was aware arguendo that Allan F. Poe has been shown to have
Voter Cert from COMELEC, and Cert as a member of the
of a false material representation in his acquired Philippine citizenship)
Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union also from
Certificate of Candidacy without first - As proof of his filiation, FPJ relies upon (1) the
COMELEC.
determining whether such material stipulation by petitioner Fornier, both before the
- April 1999: results of Bar Exams were released and
representation (in this case, his claim of COMELEC and this Court that Allan F. Poe is
Ching passed. He was further required to submit more
natural-born citizenship) was false. The fact indeed the father of FPJ; (2) the declaration of
proof of citizenship.
alone that there is a public document (i.e., his Ruby Kelley Mangahas; and (3) a certified copy
- July 1999: Ching filed Manifestation w/ Affidavit of
birth certificate) which FPJ might have relied of an affidavit of “Fernando R. Poe” for
Election of Phil Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance.
upon in averring natural-born citizenship does Philippine Army Personnel.
- OSG commented that Ching being the “legitimate child
not automatically exclude the possibility that - none of the proofs supplied are sufficient
of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother and born under
(a) there is other evidence to show that such proofs of filiation under Article 172 of the
the 1935 Consti was a Chinese citizen and continued to
averment is false, and (b) that FPJ was aware of Family Code.
be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he
such evidence. (5) Whether FPJ is a natural-born Filipino Citizen.
elected Phil citizenship. If Ching formally elects Phil
3) Whether FPJ is a natural-born Filipino - Carpio-Morales adopts the rule that an
citizenship, it would already be beyond the reasonable
- Five crucial factual questions illegitimate, child of an alien-mother who
time allowed by present jurisprudence
(1) Whether Lorenzo Pou has been established to claims to be an offspring of a Filipino father
- Two conditions of an effective election of Phil
be a Filipino citizen at the time of the birth of his may be considered a natural-born citizen if he
citizenship (from OSG):
son, Allan F. Poe; was duly acknowledged by the latter at
birth, thus leaving the illegitimate child with
1st – the mother of the person making the election 5, 1985 he enlisted in the US Marine Corps without the marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien,
must be a Phil citizen consent of the Republic of the Philippines. He took an and political and economic necessity.
2nd – election must be made upon reaching the age oath of allegiance to the US and as a consequence he Process: taking an oath of allegiance to the
of majority (w/c means a reasonable time lost his Filipino Citizenship because under the RP and registering it in the Local Civil
interpreted by the Sec of Justice as 3 yrs, from the Commonwealth Act no. 63 a Filipino may lose his Registrar of the place where the person
Velayo case; in Cuenco, noted that this pd not citizenship by rendering service to or accepting concerned resides or last resided.
inflexible, however, held in the same case that 7 yrs commission in the armed forces of a foreign country. - Repatriation would result in the recovery of the original
not reasonable time) Any doubts as to his citizenship at the time was settled nationality. He will be restored to his former status as a
- Ching, to support his cause, invokes these special by his naturalization as a US citizen on June 5, 1990. natural-born citizen. Cruz recovered his original status
circumstances: continuous and uninterrupted say in the - May 17, 1994 he reacquired his citizenship through as a natural-born citizen because of his repatriation.
Philippines, being a CPA, a registered voter, and elected repatriation under RA 2630. Note: As distinguished from the lengthy process of
public official - He was elected as the Representative of the Second naturalization, repatriation simply consists of taking
District of Pangasinan in 1998 and his opponent was an oath of allegiance to the RP and registering said
ISSUE Bengson. oath with the Local Civil Registry
1. WON Ching has elected Phil citizenship w/in a - Bengson filed a case Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with - 1987 Constitution does not provide a separate category
reasonable time HRET claiming Cruz, not being a natural-born citizen by for persons who after losing Philippine citizenship,
and if so, WON his citizenship has retroacted to the time the contention that Aricle IV, Sec 2 of the Consti defines subsequently reacquires it because they are either
he took the bar. natural-born citizens as “citizens from birth without natural born or naturalized depending on the reason for
2. WON Ching’s special circumstances entitle him to having to perform any act to acquire or perfect such the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by
citizenship citizenship, was not eligible to be member of the House. the applicable law for reacquisition.
- Cruz was not required by law to go through
ISSUES naturalization proceedings in order to reacquire his
HELD 1. WON Cruz, a natural born Filipino who became an citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born Filipino.
1. No, Ching’s election was clearly beyond, by any American citizen, can still be considered a natural-born 2. No.
reasonable yardstick, the allowable pd w/in which to Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship Ratio HRET has been empowered by the Consti to be
exercise the privilege. Being born in April 1964, he was via Repatriation, so that the question of WON he is the “sole judge” of all contests relating to the elction,
already 35 yrs old when he complied w/ the eligible to be a member of the House might be returns and qualifications of the members of the House.
requirements of C.A. No 625 in June ’99. He was already addressed Court’s jurisdiction is merely to check WON there has
more then 14 yrs over the age of majority. 2. - WON the HRET committed serious erros and grave been grave abuse; absent such showing, there is no
Although the Court is sympathetic of his plight, abuse of discreation amounting to excess of jurisdiction occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power
controlling statues and jurisprudence compel the Court in ruling in favour of Cruz as natural-born citizen
in its decision. Also, Ching has offered no reason why he SEPARATE OPINION
delayed his election of Phil citizenship, the latter not HELD
being a tedious and painstaking process. 1. Yes.
Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a Ratio Two ways of acquiring Filipino citizenship SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
commodity that can be claimed when needed and o By birth – natural born citizens Additional Facts:
suppressed when convenient. It should be availed of o Naturalization – Naturalized citizens (those - In the 1995 local elections, Cruz filed his certificate of
with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude. who become Filipino citizens through candidacy for Mayor declaring himself to be a
2. No, the abovementioned special circumstances naturalization, generally under the naturalized Filipino citizen
cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law Commonwealth Act no. 473. To be naturalized, - Thereafter, Cruz ran for Congres, this time declaring
specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of an applicant has to prove that he possesses all himself as natural-born
Philippine citizenship by election. the qualifications and none of the - Petitioner and respondent present opposing
Decision Court denies Vicente D Ching’s application for disqualifications interpretation of the phrase “from birth” in Art IV, Sec 2
admission to the Philippine Bar - 1987 Constitution only provides for 2 classes of of the Consti
citizens: - Petitioner avers: means starting from a definite
point and must be continuous, constant and without
BENGZON III V HOUSE OF o Natural born
Naturalized interruption
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL o
- Respondent contends: refers to the innate,
- Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may
TRIBUNAL inherent and inborn characteristic of being a
reacquire it by naturalization, repatriation or by direct
KAPUNAN; May 7, 2001 “natural-born”
act of Congress.
- J. Sandoval-Gutierrez holds:
o Naturalization – mode for acquisition and
FACTS - Natural-born citizens are so by virtue of birth
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
- Constitutional requirement for members of the House without performing any acts. To repatriate, Cruz
o Repatriation – available for those who have
of Representatives: “no person shall be a Member of the had to perform certain acts before he could again
lost their citizenship due to desertion of the become a Filipino citizen. Therefore, he does not
House of Representatives unless he is a natural born armed forces, service in the armed forces
citizen.” reaquire natural-born citizenship
of the allied forces in WWII, service in the - The history of the Consti shows that the meaning
- Teodoro Cruz is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. armed forces of the US at any other time,
He was born in Tarlac on April 27, 1960. On November and application of the requirement of being natural-
born have become more narrow and qualified over 4. engaged as a teacher in the Philippines for >2 +present and former places of residence
the years, more stringent; and the decision of HRET yrs +occupation
in the case at bar reverses the historical trend and school: public/recognized private school + not +place and date of birth
clear intendment of the Consti, a matter which can established for exclusive instruction of children of +status; if married and the father, include name, age,
only be accomplished through consti amendment; persons of particular nationality/race birthplace and residence of wife and each child
clearly, HRET has acted with grave abuse of 5. born in the Philippines +approximate date of his/her arrival in the Philippines
discretion. Sec 4: Who are disqualified? Persons… +name of the port of debarkation + name of ship (if
a. opposed to organized government/affiliated remembered)
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 473 with any association or group of persons who +declaration of qualifications and non-disqualification
uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized +declaration that he has complied with sec. 5
An Act to Provide for the Acquisition of
gov’t +declaration of continuous residence in RP from date
the Citizenship by Naturalization, and to b. defending/teaching the necessity or propriety of of filing petition to admission as RP Citizen
repeal Acts 2927 and 3448 violence/personal assault/assassination for the *2 photographs of petitioner
success and predominance of their ideas *petition signed by applicant + supported by affidavit of
Sec 1: Title: “Revised Naturalization Law” Sec 2: c. Polygamists/believers of polygamy at least 2 credible persons (see provision for
Qualifications: Who may become citizens of the d. Convicted of crimes (moral turpitude) requirements)
Philippines by naturalization? e. Suffering from mental alienation/incurable Sec 8. Competent court: CFI of province in w/c the
1. >21 years old at the day of the hearing of the contagious disease petitioner has resided for at least 1 yr immediately
petition f. Not mingled socially w/ Filipinos, have not preceding the filing of the petition
2. resided in the Philippines for CONTINUOUS evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace Sec 9. Notification and appearance. Tasks of clerk of
period of >10yrs customs, traditions, and ideals of Filipinos court
3. of good moral character g. Citizens/subjects of nations w/whom US and the …publish petition for 3 consecutive weeks in OG and in
+ believes in principles underlying the Philippine Philippines are at war – during such war one of gen circulation newspapers in the province where
Constitution (1935 Consti) h. Citizens/subjects of foreign country [OTHER petitioner resides
+ conducted himself in proper and irreproachable …post copies of petitions in conspicuous places (contain
THAN US!] whose laws don’t grant Filipinos
manner during entire period of residence in the name, birthplace and residence of petitioner, date and
right to become naturalized citizens/subjects
Philippines in relation with constituted government and place of arrival, names of witnesses, date of hearing the
Sec 5. Declaration of intention: file declaration
community with community in which he is living petition)
that it is his bona fide intention to become a
4. (must own real estate in the Philippines > *hearing shall not be held w/n 90 days from date of last
citizen of the Philippines
P5000) or Philippine currency or lucrative publication of notice
- under oath
trade/profession/lawful occupation …forward copies of the petition, sentence,
- 1 year prior to the filing of petition for admission to
5. able to speak and write English/Spanish + any naturalization certificate and pertinent data to
Philippine citizenship
one of the principal Philippine language Department of the Interior, Bureau of Justice, Provincial
of the Bureau of Justice
6. enrolled his MINOR children of school age in any Inspector of the Philippine Constabulary of the province,
-contents+ name
of the public schools/private schools during the and justice of peace of the municipality where petitioner
+ age
entire period of residence in the Philippines resides
+ occupation
required of him prior to the hearing of his Sec 10. Hearing of the petition.
+ personal description
petition *no hearing w/n 30 days preceding any election
+ place of birth
…School: *public hearing
+last foreign residence and allegiance
- recognized by the Office of Private Education of *Solicitor-General/representative/provincial fiscal
+date of arrival
the Philippines appear for Commonwealth at all proceedings
+name of vessel/aircraft (if any) in which he came to
- teaches Philippine history, government and civics *upon belief of court of qualifications and non-
the Philippines
and prescribes it as part of the school curriculum disqualification of petitioner, court order proper
+place of residence in the Philippines at the time of
Sec 3: Special qualifications: when the 10 year naturalization certificate in proper civil registry (required
making the declaration *to be valid: establish lawful
qualification required in Sec2(2) could be reduced in Sec. 10, Act No. 3753)
entry for permanent residence + issued certificate
to a continuous 5 years? Sec 11. Appeal: to the SC
showing date, place, and manner of arrival
1. had honorably held office under the Sec 12: Issuance of the Certificate of
*also state that he had enrolled his minor children in
Government of the Philippines/ under that of Naturalization: 30 days after and from date of notice
school (see sec2(6))
any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or to the parties (in case of appeal, SC confirmed deci),
*2 pictures of himself
political subdivisions thereof [aliens, particularly clerk of court issue naturalization certificate
Sec 6. Widow and minor children of aliens dying
American citizens, were the ones who were contents of certificate of naturalization”
after declaration of intention not required to file
governing the country prior to the *file no. of petition
declaration of intention
Commonwealth] *number of naturalization certificate
Sec 7. Petition for citizenship: requirements filed
2. established new industry/ introduced a useful *signature of the person naturalized affixed in the
with competent court
invention in the Philippines presence of the clerk of court
*a petition in triplicate
3. married to a Filipino woman *personal circumstances of the person naturalized
contents of petition:
*dates of filing of declaration of intention and petition
+name and surname
*date of decision granting petition
*name of the judge who rendered deci *Solicitor-General, subject to approval of Secretary of concerned, at the time of rendering said service/or
*photograph of peti with dry seal of court w/c granted Justice: naturalization certificate blanks, etc. acceptance of said commission, & taking the oath of
petition Sec 22. Repealing clause: Repeals Act. No. 2927 as allegiance incident thereto, states that he does so
*oath declared in open court [refer to the original] amended by Act No. 3448 [Naturalization Law] only in connection with his service to said foreign
Sec 13. Record Books: clerk of court keep 2 books: (1) country: & provided that any Filipino citizen who is
record of petition and declarations of intentions in REPUBLIC ACT NO. 530 rendering service to/or is commissioned in, the
chronological order; (2) record of naturalization armed forces of foreign country under (a) or (b),
An Act Making Additional Provisions for
certificate shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in any
Sec 14. Fees. Naturalization election of RP during period of service
*P30.00 (for recording of petition and for proceedings + to/commission in, the armed forces of said foreign
issuance of certificate) - Requires the publication of petitions for citizenship country. automatically entitled to full enjoyment of
*P24.00 (for each appeal and for connected services (also required by previous law, prob. Act 423, below) civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen upon his
rendered) - Court will hear petitions for citizenship 6 months after discharge;
sec 15. Effect of naturalization on wife and children the publication (5) cancellation of certificates of naturalization;
*on wife: shall be deemed a citizen of Philippines (if just - Decisions granting the application become executory (6) having been declared by competent authority, a
married or also naturalized) only after 2 years, and deserter of the AFP in time of war, unless pardon or
*on minor children: - The Solicitor General or his representative finds that granted amnesty; &
…if born in the Philippines: Filipino during the intervening time, applicant has: (7) woman: marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the
…if foreign-born but dwelling in the Philippines  NOT left the Philippines laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires his
during naturalization of parent: Filipino  Dedicated himself continuously to nationality.
…if foreign-born, not dwelling in the Philippines lawful calling or profession *** Sec 1 amended by RA 106, section 1, approved June
during naturalization of parent: Filipino  NOT been convicted of any offense or 2, 1947
during minority, unless resides in the violation of govt. rules *when dual citizenship was allowed at that time:
Philippines permanently and still a minor,  NOT committed any act prejudicial to …acquisition of citizenship by natural born Filipino
then legally Filipino upon age of majority the interest of the nation or contrary to any citizen from Iberian/democratic Ibero-American
…if foreign-born after naturalization of parent: govt. announced policies countries/ United Kingdom if the law of that country
Filipino unless fails to register and take - After the finding, the order of the court granting grants same privilege to its citizens –agreed upon by
oath 1 yr after age of majority citizenship will be registered and the oath taken by the treaty between the Philippines and foreign country
Sec 16. Right of widow and children of applicant before he will be entitled to the privileges of from which citizenship is acquired.
petitioners_who_have_died: continue proceedings, citizenship. Section. 2. How citizenship may be reacquired.
same legal effect - Repealed inconsistent parts of Act No. 423. (1) naturalization: applicant possess none of the
Sec 17. Renunciation of title or orders of nobility: - Approved, June 16, 1950. disqualification's prescribed in sec 2, Act No. 2927
unless w/ express consent of the National Assembly (repealed by CA 473 – so sec 4)
Sec 18. Cancellation of naturalization certificates (2) repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air
issued
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 63 Corp: Provided, woman by sec 1(7) may be repatriated
*upon motion made in proper proceedings by Solicitor- An Act Providing for the Ways in which in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the
General/representative/proper provincial fiscal Philippine Citizenship may be lost or termination of the marital status;(see PD 725 for more
*cancelled by competent judge on the ff. grounds: reacquired details)
a. naturalization certificate obtained (3) direct act of the National Assembly.
fraudulently/illegally Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. Section 3. Procedure incident to reacquisition of
b. person naturalized establishes permanent residence (1) naturalization in a foreign country; Philippine citizenship. Apply Act No. 2927 (now CA
outside Philippines w/n 5 yrs after issuance of (2) express renunciation of citizenship; 473) to the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by
naturalization certificate (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support naturalization provided for in the next preceding sec:
c. petition made on invalid declaration of intention constitution or laws of foreign country upon +21y.o.: a Provided, qualifications and special qualifications
d. minor children shown to have failed to graduate Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship prescribed in sec 3 & 4 of Act 2927 shall not be required
from school in sec 2 (6) through fault of parents either while the RP is at war; (sorry guys, I can’t find a copy of Act 2927 in the net so I
by neglect to support or by transferring them to (4) rendering services to/accepting commission in, the don’t know what these sections are in CA 473): further,
another school(s) armed forces of foreign country: rendering of service applicant…
e. naturalized citizen only used as a dummy to violate to/the acceptance of such commission in, the armed (1) at least 21 y.o. + resided in RP at least 6 mos. before
constitutional or legal provision requiring Philippine forces of foreign country, and the taking of an oath of he applies for naturalization;
citizenship allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of RP, (2) have conducted himself in proper and irreproachable
Sec 19 Penalties for violation of this Act: fine < shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if manner during
P5,000.00 or imprisonment< 5 yrs or both, naturalization either of the ff. is present: +the entire period of his residence in RP
cancelled (a) RP has defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance +in his relations with the constituted government
Sec 20. Prescription: file complaint w/n 5 yrs from with the said foreign country; or +with the community in which he is living; and
detection/discovery of commission of offense (b) said foreign country maintains armed forces on (3) subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to
Sec. 21. Regulation and blanks. Philippine territory w/ consent of RP: Filipino citizen renounce absolutely and perpetually all faith and
*Secretary of Justice: issue necessary regulations
allegiance to the foreign authority/state/sovereignty of Yes. Motion for release from detention denied. TRO mere use of passport or different citizenship has been
which he was a citizen or subject. lifted. signed. SC is not a trier of facts. Yu’s morality is beside
Section 4. Repatriation: effected by merely taking the Ratio the point. He deserves his full day in court.
necessary oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth of - Renunciation – made known distinctly & explicitly and
the Philippines (RP) and registration in the proper civil not left to interference or implication (BI Commissioners CORTES [dissent]
registry. (used in the Bengzon Case) vs. Go Gallano). His resumption/reacquisition of his CID findings are subject to judicial review. Loss of Yu’s
Section 5. Similar to Sec 21 of CA 473 Portuguese citizenship and passport and representation Filipino citizenship has not been established. Evidence
as a Portuguese even after he has acquired Filipino presented were not authenticated by proper Philippine
YU V DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO citizenship are proof enough of his renunciation. consul, thus not substantial and are inadequate.
- He does not dispute the facts. He was given the
PADILLA; January 24, 1989
opportunity to show proof of continued Philippine
PEOPLE V AVENGOZA
citizenship but he failed. There is no denial of due
FACTS
process. RELOVA; December 7, 1982
- Petition for Habeas Corpus FACTS
- Trial court should have jurisdiction over this case. But
- 1971 – Yu was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971 - Criminal Case; Appeal from Decision of CFI of
due to petitioner’s insistence, SC had to do it.
valid for 5 years & renewed for same period upon Camarines Sur
- Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or were to be
presentment before Portuguese consular officer - Anselma Avengoza and husband Go Gam, a Chinese,
displayed when required and suppressed when
- Feb. 10, 1978 – He was naturalized as a Phil. citizen together with the former’s mother Gavina Avengoza and
convenient.
- April 1980 – signed commercial documents in Hong Rafaela Anfante are being charged with violation of the
Kong (Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate, Ltd.) and Anti-Dummy Law on transactions for the spouses to own
he declared his nationality as Portuguese SEPARATE OPINION agricultural lands in the Philippines.
- July 21, 1981 – He applied & was issued another - Anselma Avengoza, upon marriage to Go Gam,
Portuguese passport in Tokyo. Passport will expire July acquired Chinese citizenship
CRUZ [concur]
20, 1986. - The Anti-Dummy Law provides that only Filipino
Yu has failed to overcome presumption that he has
Procedural Facts: citizens may own local agricultural land.
forfeited his status as naturalized Filipino by obtaining
- July 4, 1988 – He filed for a petition for habeas corpus. - Pending litigation, Go Gam and Gavina passed away.
Portuguese passport. Passports are generally issued only
He was detained because the Commission on - Upon Go Gam’s passing, Anselma executed an oath of
to nationals. No proof of Yu’s unequivocal & deliberate
Immigration & Deportation was processing his allegiance to the RP and filed it with the Office of the
renunciation of Phi. Citizenship w/ full awareness of its
deportation. CID claims that his acts are tantamount to Municipal Treasurer for the purpose of reacquiring her
significance & consequences as provided for in CA No.
an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. citizenship by repatriation, averring by reason whereof
63. Commercial documents signed are not proof enough
- July 20, 1988 – oral arguments that her criminal liability is thereby extinguished; and
of renunciation.
- Nov. 10, 1988 – SC resolution denied petition for that the issue of the criminal case is rendered moot and
habeas corpus & resolved issued on jurisdiction of CID academic
over naturalized Filipino citizen & validity of warrantless FERNAN [dissent]
- Trial court dismissed case principally predicated on its
arrest & detention. Yu filed MFR, denied w/finality. Filed Summary procedure & pieces of documentary evidence
opinion that Anselma had validly reacquired Philippine
urgent motion for issuance of restraining order, denied. are not enough to reach such decision. Evidence must
citizenship
- Dec. 5, 1988 – Yu filed motion for clarification w/prayer be clear & express w/o room for interference or
for restraining order. implication. In a deportation proceeding where alien
ISSUES
- Dec. 7, 1988 – SC issued TRO. CID ordered to cease & claims citizenship w/substantial evidence, he’s entitled
1. WON Anselma reacquired citizenship after executing
desist from deporting Yu pending conclusion of hearings to have his status determined by judicial & not an
an oath of allegiance to the RP and filing it with the
before Board of Special Inquiry of CID. executive tribunal. He deserves a full-blown trial under
Municipal Treasurer
- Dec. 13, 1988 – Respondent commissioner filed motion more rigid rules of evidence in a court proceeding. SC is
2. if so, WON such reacquisition of citizenship exempted
to lift TRO saying the commission already issued a not a trier of facts.
her from liability for the violation of the Anti-Dummy Law
summary judgment of deportation against Yu on Dec. 2,
88. GUTIERREZ [dissent] HELD
- Dec. 13, 1988 – Yu filed an urgent motion for release Summary procedure would not suffice. Something as 1. No.
from arbitrary detention. Opposed vigorously to lifting of important as denaturalization should be filed & Ratio Mere taking of oath of allegiance insufficient for
TRO. prosecuted in proper trial court in accordance w/the due reacquisition of Filipino citizenship. Would-be repatriate
- Yu ordered to explain why he should still be considered process clause. When a person pleads vigorously that he should show conclusive proof that she has the
a Phil citizen. He complied. His reply revealed has not renounced his citizenship, he should at least be qualifications to be so repatriated. Anselma became an
aforementioned substantive facts. given a full trial where his actions may be explored & the alien by reason of her lawful marriage to a Chinese
facts fully ascertained. Dangerous precedent to allow citizen; however this does not necessarily mean that she
ISSUE administrative officials to rule that one has renounced was a Filipino citizen prior to such marriage.
WON the acts of Yu constitute an express renunciation of his citizenship based on informal evidence. Mere use of a 2. No.
his Philippine citizenship. foreign passport is not express renunciation. He may Ratio Even had she been considered repatriated, like
have passport for other purposes (employment, an alien who became a naturalized Filipino citizen, her
HELD convenience). Some high gov’t officials have done acts repatriation will not exempt her from criminal liability for
w/c are more indicative of express renunciation than violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
FACTS Ratio The forcible taking, isolation, and transfer of the
- Manila Mayor, Justo Lukban, wanting to exterminate women is constitutive of deprivation of freedom of
JAO V REPUBLIC vice, ordered the closing of the city’s red light district. locomotion.
VASQUEZ; March 29, 1983 The brothels were closed and the workers (170 women) Reasoning The essential object and purpose of the writ
were rounded up and kept confined to their houses in of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
FACTS the district by the police for a little more than a week. involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary and
- Modesta Jao claims to be a Philippine citizen because On the night of Oct.25, 1918, the women were forcibly to relieve a person from such restraint if it is illegal. Any
she was born of a Chinese father and an illiterate Filipina hustled aboard the steamers Corregidor and Negros and restraint which will preclude freedom of action is
mother who were not legally married. - She married a sent off to Davao to work as laborers without their sufficient.
Chinese man and therefore lost her Philippine citizenship consent, without opportunity to consult with
but he is now dead. friends/family or to defend their rights. They reached 2. 1st order: No. Respondents were not able to bring
- Her handicapped mother erroneously registered her as Davao 4 days later and were met by Francisco Sales, the women before the court on the day named. The
an alien and she was issued an Alien Certificate of governor of Davao and by hacendero Feliciano Yñigo and court could have sent the respondents to jail however,
Registration (ACR). Rafael Castillo, etc. the court forebore drastic action because it did not want
- She is claiming back her Phil. citizenship, by way of a - During their voyage, the women’s relatives and friends the public to see a clash between executive officials and
petition for repatriation filed in CFI of Davao. initiated an application for habeas corpus, alleging that the judiciary and because it wanted to give the
- CFI issued an order declaring petitioner as “judicially Justo Lukban, along with Anton Hohmann (the police respondents another chance to demonstrate their good
repatriated,” and ordered cancelled her ACR. chief), and others deprived the women of their liberty. faith and to mitigate their wrong.
- Provincial Fiscal in behalf of the Republic, appealed the The court awarded the writ of habeas corpus (w of hc) 2nd order: Yes. Respondents (through better effort) were
case. and ordered Lukban and co. to bring the women before able to produce 8 women. The mandate called for all of
the court. Although they returned with none of the the women not in Manila. However, the court decided
ISSUE women, they were given another chance. The court that there was substantial compliance, noting the effort
WON the judicial decree by the RTC was necessary for issued another order this time calling for the (placards were posted, police helped, free shipping to
repatriation. respondents to produce all of the women not in Manila. Manila was provided) and the fact that they had a
The respondents were only able to bring forward 8 sincere desire to see the unhappy incident finally closed.
HELD women and challenged the issuance of the writ.
Ratio Proceedings to declare a person as “judicially 3. Ratio Only Lukban is guilty of contempt. His
repatriated” are a complete nullity. There is no law ISSUES intentions were commendable, his methods were
requiring or authorizing that repatriation should be 1. Re: the proper granting of the writ: unlawful. An officer’s failure to produce the body of a
effected by a judicial proceeding. a. WON the petitioners had standing person in obedience to a writ of habeas corpus, when he
Reasoning In Lim v. Republic, 37 SCRA 783, it was held b. WON the S.C. erred in assuming jurisdiction has power to do so, is contempt committed in the face of
that “there is no proceeding established by law or the c. WON the women were actually restrained of their the court.
rules by which any person claiming to be a citizen may liberty Reasoning He was primarily responsible for setting
get a declaration in a court of justice to that effect or in 2. WON there was compliance with the court orders forth this whole chain of events and had under his power
regard to his citizenship.” All that is needed for a female 3. On contempt of court as head of the city government to facilitate the return of
citizen of the Phil. who lost her citizenship to an alien to the women to Manila but failed. The rest of the
reacquire her Phil. citizen, upon the termination of her HELD respondents other than Lukban are not guilty of
martial status, “is for her to take necessary oath of 1a. Yes contempt. Some were merely following the orders of
allegiance to the Republic of the Phil. and to register the Ratio When it is is impossible for a party to sign an their superiors or merely fulfilling a duty. Another was
said oath in the proper civil registry.” application for the w of hc, another person may submit it merely drawn into the case through miscommunication.
Disposition Decision appealed from is revoked and set in his/her behalf. Disposition No further action on the w of hc. Lukban
aside. 5 Justices concur. Reasoning It was impossible for the women to have found in contempt of court and shall pay Php 100 within
Obiter Petitioner’s claim of Phil. citizenship prior to her signed a petition for habeas corpus with the way their 5 days. Rest of respondents found not to be in contempt
marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a expulsion was conducted. They were first isolated from of court.
Chinese father and a Filipina mother may not be society and then shipped. It was consequently proper for
established in an action where the mother or her heirs the writ to be submitted by persons in their behalf. KURODA JALANDONI
are not parties. It is the consistent rule in this jurisdiction 1b No
MORAN; March 26, 1949
that Phil. citizenship may not be declared in a non- Ratio The w of hc may be granted by the Supreme
adversary suit where the persons whose rights are Court or any judge thereof enforcible anywhere in the
FACTS
affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as Philippines. The SC can decide upon where the writ shall
Kuroda, a high ranking Japanese army official is being
an action for declaratory relief, petition for judicial be made returnable to (whether before the SC or before
charged by the Military Commission with failure to
repatriation, or an action to cancel registration as an a lower court).
perform duties as commander in preventing
alien. Reasoning The CFI of Davao was not in session. The
crimes/atrocities against civilians, and POWs. In defense,
case involves parties from different parts of the country.
he is alleging that Executive Order No. 68 (EO68) which
Habeas Corpus was devised as a speedy and effectual
VILLAVICENCIO V LUKBAN established a Natl. War Crimes Office is unconstitutional
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.
MALCOLM; March 25, 1919 1c. Yes
and that 2 prosecuting attorneys, Hussey and Port (both
American) have no authority to practice law in the
country. As such, the respondents should be prohibited - The Legislature enacted RA 1180 entitled ”An Act to HELD
from proceeding with this case. Regulate the Retail Business.” It prohibits aliens and 1. No. The act does not transcend the limit of equal
associations, partnerships, or corporations, which are not protection established by the Constitution if there is a
ISSUES wholly owned by citizens, to engage directly or indirectly question of public interest involved or pursued and the
1. WON EO68 is unconstitutional in the retail trade. In effect it nationalizes the retail classification or distinction used by the legislature, in
2. Re: Attys. Hussey and Port business. this case between nationals and aliens, is actual, real
A. WON they are qualified to practice in accordance with - Procedure Lao Ichong, in his own behalf and in behalf and reasonable, and all persons of one class are treated
the Rules of Court of other alien residents, corporations, and partnerships alike, and as it cannot be said that classification is
B. WoN their appointment as prosecutors is violative of adversely affected by RA 1180 filed a petition for patently unreasonable and unfounded.
the Constitution Injunction and Mandamus against Jaime Hernandez, Reasoning
Secretary of Finance and Marcelino Sarmiento, City a. Based on experience of the country, alien retailer has
HELD Treasurer of Manila. shown disregard for his customers and the people on
1. Ratio The President as Commander in Chief is fully - Preliminary consideration of legal principles whom he makes his profit. Aliens lack spirit of loyalty
empowered to consummate an unfinished aspect of war involved and enthusiasm for the country. Alien participation in the
which is the trial and punishment of war criminals A. Police Power retail trade has been attended by intolerable practices
through the issuance and enforcement of EO68. - the most positive and active of all governmental like the ff:
Reasoning EO68 was issued by the President to processes, the most essential, insistent and illimitable - hoarding essential commodities
establish a Natl. War Crimes Office and provide for rules - necessary esp. in a modern democratic framework - violating price control laws
and regulations in trying accused war criminals. It B. Equal Protection Clause - boycotting honest merchants and traders who
conforms to the generally accepted principles/policies of - against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as would not cater or yield to their demands
international law, including the Hague Convention and well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of - believed to have evaded tax laws
the Geneva Convention, which are part of the law of the inequality; it requires that all persons shall be treated - bribing public officials
nation. Its promulgation was an exercise of the President alike, under like circumstances and conditions b. Economic reason – alien retailer never really makes a
of his powers as Commander in Chief of the whole armed - is not infringed by legislation which applies only to genuine contribution to national income and wealth
forces. Iin Yamashita v. Tyer, the court held that “the those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies since the gains and profits he makes are not invested in
power to create a military commission for the trial and alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable industries that would help the country’s economy and
punishment of war criminals is an aspect of waging war. grounds exists for making distinction between those who increase national wealth.
A military commission has jurisdiction so long as a fall within such class and those who do not. c. precedents
technical state of war continues.” - Criteria for Test of EPC Smith Bell & Co. vs. Natividad, Gibbon vs. Ongden
2A. Ratio The Military Commission is special military 1. presence of public interest and welfare Commonwealth vs. Hana, Anton vs. Van Winkle, Templar
tribunal governed by a special law and not by the Rules 2. existence of reasonable relation between vs. Michigan State Board of Examiners
of Court. purposes and means - Essentially held that the difference in status
Reasoning There is nothing in EO68 which requires that 3. existence of reasonable basis for distinction and between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for
counsel appearing before said commissions must be classification made reasonable classification in the exercise of police
attys. qualified to practice law in the Phil. in accordance C. Due Process clause power.
with the Rules of Court. - has to do with reasonableness of legislation enacted in Takahashi vs. Fish and game Commission, Fraser vs.
2B. No pursuance of the police power McConway & Tarley
Ratio The appointment of the 2 American attorneys is - Questions for test: - held that the distinction between aliens and
not violative of our national sovereignty. 1. Is there is a public interest/purpose? citizens is not valid because the laws were found to
Reasoning It is only fair and proper that the US, which 2. Is the Act is reasonably necessary for the be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious, or were the
has submitted the vindication of crimes against her govt. accomplishment of the legislature’s purpose; is it result or product of racial antagonism and hostility,
and her people to a tribunal of our nation, should be not unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive? and there was no question of public interest
allowed representation in the trial of those very crimes. 3. Can the aims conceived be achieved by the involved or pursued.
Disposition The Military Commission having been means used or is it merely an unjustified
convened by virtue of a valid law, with jurisdiction over interference with private interest? 2. No. There is due process if the laws passed are seen
the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of to have reasonable relation to a proper legislative
Executive Order No. 68, and having jurisdiction over the ISSUES purpose, the means are reasonably necessary for the
person of the petitioner by having said petitioner in its 1. WON RA 1180 denies to alien residents the equal accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly
custody, this Court will not interfere with the due protection of the laws. oppressive upon individuals.
processes of such Military Commission. Petition denied. 2. WON RA 1180 deprives alien residents of their liberty Reasoning
With costs de oficio. and property without due process of law. a. legitimacy of the purpose of the law
3. WON the title of the Act is misleading or deceptive, as - Its purpose is to prevent persons who are not citizens
ICHONG V HERNANDEZ AND SARMIENTO it conceals the real purpose of the bill, which is to of the Philippines from having a strangle hold upon our
nationalize the retail business and prohibit aliens from economic life\
LABRADOR; May 31, 1957
engaging therein. - Freedom and liberty are not real and positive if the
4. WON RA 1108 violates international and treaty people are subject to the economic control and
FACTS
obligations of the Republic of the Philippines. domination of others, especially if not of their own race
- Injunction and Mandamus
or country.
b Nationalistic protective policy laid down in the - Also, they say it’s not under RA 3452 bec. the RAs
Constitution prohibit importation of rice and corn by “government FACTS
- Section 8 of Article XIV provides that “no franchise, agency” and not the government itself. - The Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social
certificate, or any other form of authorization for the - Even if the proposed importation violated the RAs, it justice to "insure the well-being and economic security
operation of a public utility shall be granted except to can still be permitted because it is for the benefit of the of all the people," especially the, less privileged.
citizens of the Philippines” people. - In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal adding
c. Provisions of law not unreasonable - The Phils is already under executive agreements with specifically that "the State shall regulate the acquisition,
- The legislature is primarily the judge of the necessity of contracts for purchase of rice with Vietnam and Burma. ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private
an enactment or of any of its provisions, and every In case of conflict between the RAs and the contracts, property and equitably diffuse property ownership and
presumption is in favor of its validity, and though the the contracts should prevail because it came later. profits. Significantly, there was also the specific
Court may hold views inconsistent with the wisdom of These contracts have been consummated bec. the Phils. injunction to "formulate and implement an agrarian
the law, it may not annul the legislation if not in excess has already paid. reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from
of the legislative power. the bondage of the soil."
ISSUE - The 1987 Constitution, besides echoing these
3. No. The provisions of the law are clearly embraced in WON respondents are acting without jurisdiction or in sentiments, also adopted one whole and separate Article
the title. The general rule is for the use of general terms excess of jurisdiction XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights. One of its
in the title of the bill and the title need not be an index sections:
to the entire contents of the law. HELD - SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian
Reasoning - RA 3452 says that the gov’t policy is to purchase basic reform program founded on the right of farmers and
a. The term regulate is a broader term than either foods directly from farmers in Phils. Petitioner has regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
prohibition or nationalization. Both of these have always sufficient interest. collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
been included within the term regulation. - Case at bar involves question which is a purely legal farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof
one. It falls under the exemption from the doctrine of To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
4. No treaty has actually been entered into on the exhaustion of administrative remedies. just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such
subject and the police power may not be curtailed or - The proposed importation is governed by RA 2207 and priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional RA 3452 bec it covers “all importations of rice and corn Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
agreement. into the Phils.” developmental, or equity considerations and subject to
- RA 2207 and 3452 also applies to importations of the the payment of just compensation. In determining
government itself bec. RA 2207 talks about imports retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
GONZALES V HECHANOVA
authorized by the President, by and on behalf of landowners. The State shall further provide incentives
CONCEPCION; October 22, 1963 government. RA 3452 also indicates that only private for voluntary landsharing.
parties may import rice under its provisions. These RAs - R.A, No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural
FACTS are only in addition to Commonwealth Act No. 138 which Land Reform Code, had already been enacted by the
- Respondent Exec. Sec. authorized importation of says that in all purchases by gov’t, incl. those for armed Congress of the Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line
foreign rice and created rice procurement committee. forces, preference is given to materials produced in the with the above-stated principles. This was substantially
Gonzales, a rice planter and President of Iloilo Palay and Phils. superseded almost a decade later by P.D. No. 27,
Corn Planters Association, filed petition. - The “benefit of the people” argument can’t be which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with
Procedure Case is an original action for prohibition accepted because there is no local rice shortage. And martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of
with preliminary injunction to restrain implementation of the importation is said to be for stockpile of Army, not private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and
decision of Exec. Sec. to import rice. Respondents were for the civilian population. to specify maximum retention limits for landowners.
required to file answer and hearing was set. - The contracts w/ Vietnam and Burma are not executive - On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
- on WON respondents are acting without jurisdiction or agreements. Even if they were, they are unlawful, being E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of
in excess of jurisdiction against the RAs. The alleged consummation does not the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the
Petitioner’s stand: render this case academic. The contracts may have valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree
- Yes, bec. RA 3452 explicitly prohibits importation of already been entered into and the payment may have as well as the manner of their payment. This was
rice and corn by Rice and Corn Administration and any been made but the actual importation has not yet taken followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential
other gov’t agency. place. Proclamation No. 131, instituting a comprehensive
Respondents’ stand: Disposition- For lack of requisite majority, injunction agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229,
- Petitioner has no sufficient interest to file petition. prayed for is DENIED. providing the mechanics for its implementation.
- Petitioner has not exhausted all administrative - It is declared that Exec. Sec. has no power to authorize - With its formal organization, the revived Congress of
remedies available before coming to court. importation in question and he exceeded jurisdiction in the Philippines (formally convened on July 27, 1987) took
- Petitioner’s action is not sufficient and not governed granting authority. The importation is not sanctioned by over legislative power from the President and started its
by RA 3452 because importation was authorized by law and is contrary to its provisions. own deliberations, including extensive public hearings,
President as Commander in Chief for military stock pile on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The
purposes. As such, Pres must prepare for threats
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS result, after almost a year of spirited debate, was the
without waiting for any special authority. enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the
V SECRETARY OF DAR
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,
CRUZ; July 14, 1989 which President Aquino signed on June 10, 1988. This
law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned corresponding taxes on the land, in violation of the the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. The
enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect uniformity rule.10 argument that not only landowners but also owners of
insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. k. E.O. No. 229 violates the constitutional requirement other properties must be made to share the burden of
that a bill shall have only one subject, to be expressed in implementing land reform must be rejected. There is a
ISSUES its title. substantial distinction between these two classes of
1. WON petitions are justiciable. owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not
2. WON P.D. No. 27, Presidential Proclamation No. 131, HELD see.12
E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 and R.A. 6657 contravene the 1. RD: Yes. The Court will assume jurisdiction over a 2e. The CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession
Constitution on the grounds inter alia of separation of constitutional question only if it is shown that the and ownership of the land to the government on receipt
powers, due process, equal protection and the essential requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the
constitutional limitation that no private property shall be question are first satisfied but even if they are not deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP
taken for public use without just compensation. covered by the definition, it is still within the wide bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains
Sub issues discretion of the Court to waive the requirement and so with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is
a. The determination of just compensation may be made remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving contemplated either.
only by a court of justice and not by the President of the the serious constitutional questions raised. 2f. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc.
Philippines. 2a. The determination made by the DAR is only No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 was authorized
b. The just compensation contemplated by the Bill of preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Rights is payable only in money or in cash but not in the Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to Constitution. It is not correct to say that these measures
form of bonds or other things of value. review with finality the said determination in the ceased to be valid when she lost her legislative power
c. In considering rentals as advance payment on the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. (Sec. for, like any statute, they continue to be in force unless
land, E.O. No. 228 deprives the petitioners of their 16f) modified or repealed by subsequent law or declared
property rights as protected by due process. 2b. It cannot be denied that the traditional medium for invalid by the courts. A statute does not ipso facto
d. The equal protection clause is violated when the the payment of just compensation is money and no become inoperative simply because of the dissolution of
burden of solving the agrarian problems is placed on the other. And so, conformably, has just compensation been the legislature that enacted it. Significantly, the
owners only of agricultural lands. paid in the past solely in that medium. However, we do Congress she is alleged to have undercut has not
e. In declaring the beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 to be not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power rejected but in fact substantially affirmed the challenged
the owners of the lands occupied by them, E.O. No. 228 of eminent domain.11 This is not an ordinary measures and has specifically provided that they shall
ignored judicial prerogatives and so violated due expropriation where only a specific property of relatively be suppletory to R.A. No. 6657 whenever not
process. limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its inconsistent with its provisions.
f. The power to provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we 2g. Proc. No. 131 is not an appropriation measure even
Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. if it does provide for the creation of said fund, for that is
to Congress and not the President. Although petitioners 2c. When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its not its principal purpose. An appropriation law is one the
agree that the President could exercise legislative power Section 1 that: primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize the
until the Congress was convened, they contend that she All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full release of public funds from the treasury. The creation of
could do so only to enact emergency measures during owners as of October 21, 1972 of the land they acquired the fund is only incidental to the main objective of the
the period. by virtue of P.D. No. 27. proclamation, which is agrarian reform. Section 24 and
g. The money needed to create the P50 billon special It was obviously referring to lands already validly Section 25(4) of Article VI, are not applicable. With
fund under Proc. No. 131 is in futuro, not in esse, i.e., it acquired under the said decree, after proof of full- particular reference to Section 24, this obviously could
has yet to be raised and cannot be appropriated at that fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives and not have been complied with for the simple reason that
time. full payment of just compensation. Hence, it was also the House of Representatives, which now has the
h. The sugar planters argued that they are a separate perfectly proper for the Order to also provide in its exclusive power to initiate appropriation measures, had
group with problems exclusively their own and by being Section 2 that the "lease rentals paid to the landowner not yet been convened when the proclamation was
lumped in the same legislation with other farmers, their by the farmer-beneficiary after October 21, 1972 issued. The legislative power was then solely vested in
right to equal protection has been violated. (pending transfer of ownership after full payment of just the President of the Philippines, who embodied, as it
i. There was a failure to establish by clear and compensation), shall be considered as advance payment were, both houses of Congress.
convincing evidence the necessity for the exercise of the for the land. 2h. No evidence has been submitted to the Court that
powers of eminent domain, and the violation of the 2d. Equal protection simply means that all persons or the requisites of a valid classification have been
fundamental right to own property. things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to violated. Classification has been defined as the grouping
j. The petitioners also decry the penalty for non- of persons or things similar to each other in certain
registration of the lands, which is the expropriation of 10
particulars and different from each other in these same
the said land for an amount equal to the government This was not discussed directly but may be construed as being under No. particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following
1 above. It will still be the courts who will decide what just compensation
assessor's valuation of the land for tax purposes. On the would be.
requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial
other hand, if the landowner declares his own valuation, 11 distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of
The power of eminent domain is one of the three inherent powers of the
he is unjustly required to immediately pay the State. It is the power “to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public
use upon payment of just compensation to the owner.” It is inherent 12
because it exists without need for legislation, i.e., even if it is not Frankly, I don’t like the way this ponente argues. He’s like saying, now I
sanctioned by any law or even the Constitution, the State may exercise it. don’t want to explain why. If you can’t see the reasoning it’s your fault.
Why? Because these powers are necessary for a state to exist. The other Anyway, we’re infallible remember?  His next sentence: There is no need
two are police power and taxation. to elaborate on this matter. Tsk…
the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions - 6/10/88: Pres. Aquino approved RA 6657 or the meaning aside) was never meant to include livestock
only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which includes the and poultry industries in its coverage;
the class. The Court finds that all these requisites have raising of livestock, swine and poultry there is no reason to include livestock and poultry lands
been met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary 1/2/89: Sec. of Agrarian Reform (SAR) promulgated in agrarian reform
and discriminatory. Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and -S13 & 32 calling for production-sharing is confiscatory
2i. The power of expropriation is by no means absolute. Profit Sharing for RA 6657 (S13 & S32) and is thus violative of due process
The limitation is found in the constitutional injunction - 1/9/89: SAR promulgated Rules and Regulations
that "private property shall not be taken for public use implementing S11 (commercial farms) SEPARATE OPINION
without just compensation" and in the abundant -Luz Farms, petitioner, is a corporation engaged in
jurisprudence that has evolved from the interpretation of livestock/poultry, adversely affected by RA 6657
this principle. Basically, the requirements for a proper -petition prays that RA be declared unconstitutional; it is SARMIENTO
exercise of the power are: (1) public use and (2) just also prayed that a preliminary injunction be issued to -agrees that petition be granted but not that main issue
compensation.13 enjoin the enforcement of the said law (injunction is one of consti construction and interpretation
Some of the petitioners invoked their right of maximum denied) A13, S4: “..in case of other farm workers, to receive a
retention under Art. XIII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution and 8/24/89: court granted motion for reconsideration on just share of the fruits thereof…”—this phrase provides a
under P.D. 316 which was promulgated in injunctive relief possible coverage of livestock, poultry and swine
implementation of P.D. 27. -Luz Farms questions the following provisions of RA -every presumption should be indulged in favor of the
2j. R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such limits now in 6657: constitutionality of a statute
Sec. 6 of the law, which in fact is one of its most • S3(b): includes raising of livestock in definition of ISSUE: WON assailed provisions violate equal protection
controversial provisions. (Sec 6: Max per landowner is 5 “Agricultural Enterprise/Activity” clause of the consti
hec. 3 hec may be awarded to each child at least 15 yrs • S11: defines “commercial farms” as “agricultural -clearly, livestock & poultry lands and crop & tree farms
old and actually tilling or directly managing the land) lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and are not similarly situated, hence the inclusion of the
2k. It is settled that the title of a bill does not have to be swine raising former in CARP would be violative of the equal
a catalogue of its contents and will suffice if the protection clause
• S13: calls for production-sharing plan (distribute 3%
matters embodied in the text are relevant to of gross sales & 10% of gross profits to workers as
each other. additional compensation) GARCIA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Decision • S16(d) & 17: vests in DAR authority to determine CRUZ; December 2, 1991
WHEREFORE, the Court holds as follows: compensation to be paid for lands covered by RA
1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. 6657 FACTS
Nos. 228 and 229 are SUSTAINED against all the Petitioner challenges RA7042 on the ground that:
• S32: spells out production-sharing plan in S13
constitutional objections raised in the herein petitions. - It defeats the constitutional policy of developing a self-
-the constitutional provision under consideration is A13,
2. Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred reliant and independent national economy effectively
S4, “Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform”
to the State only upon full payment of compensation to controlled by Filipinos and the protection of Filipino
which grants farmers and farm-workers who are
their respective owners. enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
landless, the right to directly or collectively own the land
3. All rights previously acquired by the tenant-farmers practices
they are tilling
under P.D. No. 27 are retained and recognized. - He claims that the law abdicates all regulation of
-livestock and poultry raising is different from crop
4. Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights foreign enterprises in this country and gives them unfair
farming in that land is not a primary input in the former
of retention under P.D. No. 27 shall enjoy the retention advantages over local investments which are practically
rights granted by R.A. No. 6657 under the conditions elbowed out in their own land with the complicity of their
ISSUE
therein prescribed. own government
WON S3(b), 11, 13 & 32 of RA 6657 are constitutional
5. Subject to the above-mentioned rulings, all the - Under Section 5 of the said law a foreign investor may
insofar as said law includes the raising of livestock,
petitions are DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to do business in the Philippines or invest in a domestic
poultry and swine in its coverage as well as in its
costs. enterprise up to 100% of its capital without need of prior
Implementing Rules and Guidelines
SO ORDERED. (Unanimous court) approval
HELD o All that it has to do is register with the Securities
LUZ FARMS V SECRETARY OF DAR Instant petition GRANTED. S3(b), 11, 13 & 32 of RA 6657 and Exchange Commission or the Bureau of Trade
PARAS; December 4, 1990 are constitutional insofar as said law includes the raising Regulation and Consumer Protection in the case
of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as of a single proprietorship
in its Implementing Rules and Guidelines are hereby o “The SEC or BTRCP, as the case may be, shall not
FACTS
- Petition for prohibition to review the decision of the declared null and void for being unconstitutional and the impose any limitations on the extent of foreign
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform writ of preliminary injunction issued is hereby made ownership in an enterprise additional to those
permanent provided in the Act”
Ratio the question raised is one of constitutional - Under Section 7, “non-Philippine nationals may own up
13 construction; in construing any ambiguous provisions, to one hundred percent (100%) of domestic market
There was a shift in subject after this. He tackled the argument on why
the courts may look to the debates of the concon enterprises unless foreign ownership therein is
the State did not distribute public lands only by pointing out the
Constitution’s “the just distribution of all agricultural lands” clause. Then -the transcripts of the 1986 concon clearly show that the prohibited or limited by existing law or the Foreign
he plays the political question card on the issue of why the distribution meaning of the word “agricultural” (its dictionary Investment Negative List under Section 8 hereof."
would be private lands first.
- However, the system of negative list under Section 8 Book I was such that the total participation by o Provision is designed to protect the consumers as
abandons the positive aspect of regulation and exercise non-Philippine nationals in the outstanding capital not all existing enterprises satisfy the criteria
of authority over foreign investments. In effect, it thereof exceeded 40%, prior authority from the inclusion in List C.
assumes that so long as foreign investments are not in BOI was required. - Regarding the repealing of provisions of the Omnibus
areas covered by the list, such investments are not - With the introduction of the Negative List under Investment Code
detrimental to but are good for the national economy. Sections 8 & 15, the areas of investments not open to o purposely removed because the determination of
o List A – merely enumerate areas of activities foreign investors are already determined and outlined; the areas of investment open to foreign investors
already reserved to Philippine nationals by hence, registration with the SEC or BTRCP, as the case is made easy by the Foreign Investment Negative
mandate of the Constitution and specific laws may be, is now the initial step to be taken by foreign List formulated and recommended by NEDA
o List B - contain areas of activities and enterprises investors. following the process and criteria provided in
already regulated according to law and includes - This registration constitutes regulation and exercise of Sections 8 & 9 of the Act
small and medium-sized domestic market authority over foreign investments. Under SEC and - Re the Transitory Foreign Investment Negative List
enterprises or export enterprises which utilize raw BTRCP rules and regulations, foreign investors must first o it practically includes the same areas of
materials from depleting natural resources with comply with certain requirements before they can be investment reserved to Filipino under Section 5",
paid-in equity capital of less than the equivalent issued a license to do business in the Philippines. and the “SEC shall disallow registration of the
of US$500,000.00; meaning, SMEs are for - Section 7 of RA 7042 allows non-Philippine nationals to applying non-Philippine national if the existing
Filipinos. Or even, Filipinos are not encouraged to own up to 100% of domestic market enterprises only in joint venture enterprises, particularly the Filipino
go big. areas of investments outside the prohibitions and partners therein, can reasonably prove they are
o List C - contain areas of investment m which limitations imposed by law to protect Filipino ownership capable to make the investment needed for the
"existing enterprises already serve adequately the and interest. domestic market activities to be undertaken by
needs of the economy and the consumers and do - The Foreign Investment Negative List under Section 8 the competing applicant.
not need further foreign investments."; However, reserves to Filipinos sensitive areas of investments. List Senator Paterno as Intervenor:
existing enterprises must be qualified as Filipino, C prohibits foreign investors from engaging in areas of - the over-all strategy embodied in the Act to develop a
if not, it shall protect foreign enterprises too activities where existing enterprises already serve self-reliant economy, as well as the provisions designed
- Section 9 is also attacked, because if a Philippine adequately the needs of the economy and the to promote full employment for Filipinos
national believes that an area of investment should be consumer. - suggests that the constitutional challenge should be
included in list C, the burden is on him to show that o The Act opens the door to foreign investments rejected outright for noncompliance with the requisites
the criteria enumerated in said section are met only after securing to Filipinos their rights and of a judicial inquiry into a constitutional question, to wit:
- Articles 2, 32, & 35 of the Omnibus Investments Code interests over the national economy. (1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the
of 1982 are done away with by RA 7042. o List A – The provisions of the Constitution and constitutional question must be raised by a proper party;
- By repealing Articles 49, 50, 54 and 56 of the 1987 other specific laws regulate or limit the extent of (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the
Omnibus Investments Code, RA No. 7042 further foreign ownership in enterprises engaged in areas earliest opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the
abandons the regulation of foreign investments by doing of activity reserved for Filipinos constitutional question must be necessary to the
away with important requirements for doing business in o List B - contains areas already regulated pursuant decision of the case.
the Philippines. to law already makes it clear that it is regulatory.
- The Transitory provisions of RA 7042, which allow It channels efforts at promoting foreign ISSUES
practically unlimited entry of foreign investments for investments to bigger enterprises where there is 1. WON there is actual controversy
three years, subject only to a supposed Transitory an acute lack of Filipino capital; scheme is for 2. WON petitioners have legal standing
Foreign Investment Negative List, not only completely foreign investments to supplement Filipino capital 3. WON constitutionality lis mota of the case
deregulates foreign investments but would place Filipino in big enterprises. 4. WON this entails a political question
enterprises at a fatal disadvantage in their own country. o List C - to allow healthy competition, Activities
Sol-Gen answers: which do not adequately meet-the needs of the HELD
- phrase "without need of prior approval" applies to consumers should not be included in list C; if not, 1. There is at this point no actual case or controversy,
equity restrictions alone consumers would be at the mercy of unscrupulous particularly because of the absence of the
o prior to the effectivity of RA 7042, producers implementing rules that are supposed to carry the Act
Article 46 of the Omnibus Investments Code of o Foreign Corporations under a valid license prior to into effect
1987 (EO No. 226), provided that a non-Philippine the enactment of RA 7042 necessarily come a. A controversy must be one that is appropriate or
national could, without need of prior authority within the protection of the law. "ripe" for determination, not conjectural or
from the Board of Investments (BOI), invest in: (1) - Section 9 provides for the criteria to be used by NEDA anticipatory
any enterprise registered under Book I in determining the areas of investment for inclusion in 2. The petitioner, as a citizen and taxpayer, and
(Investments with Incentives); and (2) enterprises List C particularly as a member of the House of
not registered under Book I, to the extent that the o Petition for inclusion therein requires "a public Representatives, comes under the definition that a
total investment of the non-Philippine national did hearing at which affected parties will have the proper party is one who has sustained or is in danger
not exceed 40% of the outstanding capital opportunity to show whether the petitioner of sustaining an injury as a result of the act
o On the other hand, under Article industry adequately serves the economy and the complained of.
47 thereof, if an investment by a non-Philippine consumers." 3. The constitutional question has not been raised tardily
nationals in an enterprise not registered under but in fact, as just remarked, prematurely.
- The constitutional challenge must be rejected for - Commonwealth Act No. 548 gives the Director of Public occupation if the said laws are intended to promote the
failure to show that there is an indubitable ground for it, Works, with the approval of the Secretary of the Public welfare of the public. (police power of the State)
not to say even a necessity to resolve it. Works and Communications the authority to promulgate Reasoning
a. Policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on
constitutional questions and to presume that the
rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of
and traffic on national roads.
1. precedents (US vs. Gomez, Dobbins vs.
Los Angeles & People vs. Pomar)
acts of the political departments are valid in the
absence of a clear and unmistakable showing to Procedure Maximo Calang, in his capacity as private 2. Paradox - The apparent curtailment of
the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila, filed a petition for a liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its
b. based on the doctrine of separation of powers writ of prohibition against the Chairman of NTC, Director preservation
which enjoins upon each department a becoming of PW, Acting Secretary of PWC, Mayor of Manila and
respect for the acts of the other departments Acting Chielf of Police of Manila. 3. No. Social justice is promoted if the greatest good is
c. theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the brought about to the greatest number.
President of the Philippines, a law has been ISSUES
carefully studied and determined to be in 1. WON Commonwealth Act No. 548 is unconstitutional
BASCO V PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND
accordance with the fundamental law before it because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
was finally enacted. power. GAMING CORPORATION
- the cause of unconstitutionality has not been proved by 2. WON the rules and regulations promulgated PARAS; May 14, 1991
the petitioner constitute an unlawful interference with legitimate
d. Act does not violate any of the constitutional business or trade and abridge the right to personal FACTS
provisions the petitioner has mentioned liberty and freedom of locomotion. - PAGCOR was created by virtue of PD 1067-A and was
4. What we see here is a debate on the wisdom or the 3. WON the rules and regulations complained of infringe granted franchise under PD 1067-B to establish, operate
efficacy of the Act, but this is a matter on which we the upon the constitutional precept regarding the and maintain gambling casinos. PAGCOR proved to be a
are not competent to rule. promotion of social justice to insure the well-being of all potential source of revenue. Thus, PD 1399 was passed
a. In Angara v Electoral Commission: "the judiciary the people. for PAGCOR to fully attain its objectives. PD 1869 was
does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice passed later on to enable PAGCOR/government to
or expediency of legislation." HELD regulate and centralize all games of chance, giving it
b. allowed only "to settle actual controversies 1. No.The Legislature cannot delegate power to make territorial jurisdiction all over the Philippines.
involving rights which are legally demandable and law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to PAGCOR became 3rd largest source of gov’t revenue,
enforceable," 5 and may not annul an act of the determine some fact or state of things upon which the next to BIR and Bureau of Customs. It sponsored socio-
political departments simply because we feel it is law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. cultural and charitable projects and at that time
unwise or impractical. Reasoning employed 4,494 employees in its 9 casinos.
c. There is no irregularity also, that shows that there 1. adherence to precedent Procedure This is petition seeking to annul the
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, Wayman vs. PAGCOR charter – PD 1869
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any Southard – it was held here that discretion may be
branch or instrumentality of the Government. delegated to executive departments or subordinate ISSUES
Decision Petition dismissed. officials the execution of certain acts, final on Procedural Issue
questions of fact. WON petitioners, as taxpayers and practicing lawyers
2. textual interpretation of Commonwealth Act No. 548 can question and seek the annulment of PD 1869
CALALANG vs. WILLIAMS
The provision that “….the Director of Public Works, with Substantive Issue/s
LAUREL; December 2, 1940 the approval of the Secretary of the Public Works and WON PD 1869 should be annulled based on the ff
Communications, shall promulgate rules and grounds:
FACTS regulations to regulate and control the use of and 1. it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and
- The Secretary of Public Works and Communications traffic on national roads…”, is an administrative order
(PWC) approved with modification the recommendation function which cannot be directly discharged by the 2. it waived and intruded into the Manila City
that originated from the National Traffic Commission National Assembly. government’s right to impose taxes and license fees
(NTC), which was favorably indorsed by the Director of 3. practicality 3. it violates equal protection clause in that it legalizes
Public Works (PW), that Rosario Street and Rizal Avenue The complexities of modern governments, the PAGCOR but outlaws other forms of gambling and vices
be closed to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles, between multiplication of the subjects of govt’l regulations, and 4. it violates trend of government away from
the points and during the hours from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., the increased difficulty in administering the law give monopolistic and crony economy
for a period of one year from the date of the opening of rise to the adoption, within certain limits, the
the Colgante Bridge to traffic; that the Mayor of Manila delegation of greater powers by the legislative and HELD
and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced vesting a larger amount of discretion in administrative Procedural Issue:
and caused to be enforced the rules and regulations thus and executive officials, not only in the execution of the - Considering transcendental public interest and the
adopted; that as a consequence of such enforcement, all laws, but also in the promulgation of certain rules and Court’s duty to check on limits of other branches of
animal drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick regulations. gov’t, SC brushed aside technicalities of procedure and
up passengers in the places above-mentioned to the took cognizance of the petition.
detriment not only of their owners but of the riding 2. No. The state may enact laws that may interfere with Substantive Issues:
public as well. personal liberty, with property, and with business and
1. Gambling, unless allowed by law, is prohibited. But - In 1991 a case was filed by minors (represented by 3. Merits: WON the respondent judge committed grave
prohibition does not mean that gov’t can’t regulate it in their parents) and the Philippine Ecological Network abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by
exercise of police power. Police power is “state (PENI) against the then Secretary of the Department of declaring the petitioners to have no legal right?
authority to enact legislation that may interfere with Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Fulgencio 4. Whether or not granting the petition would violate the
personal liberty or property in order to promote general Factoran, Jr. who was substituted by the new secretary, non-impairment clause found in the Constitution?
welfare.” PAGCOR has been beneficial, not just to gov’t, Angel Alcala. The complaint was instituted to be a
but to society as well. taxpayer’s class suit as it alleges that all citizen’s of the HELD
2. Manila, being a mere municipal corporation, has no Philippines are entitled to benefit, use and enjoyment of 1. Yes it is a class suit because the subject matter of the
inherent right to impose taxes, its power to tax must the country’s virgin tropical rainforests. The suit also complaint is of common and general interest to all
always yield to a legislative act. Municipal corporations alleges that this suit represents people who are sharing citizens of the Philippines and that it would be
are mere creatures of Congress, therefore Charter of the same sentiment towards the preservation of our impracticable to bring them all to court. The plaintiffs in
Manila is subject to control by Congress. If Congress can natural resources (since not all of them could go before this case are numerous and representative enough to
grant a municipal corporation the power to tax, it can the court). Furthermore, this was also asserted to be ensure that all interests is protected.
also provide exemptions or even take back the power. representative of the current generation and generation 2. Yes they can, following the concept of
Also, Manila’s power to impose license fees on gambling that are yet to be born. intergenerational responsibility. Every generation has a
has long been revoked. The power is now vested - The suit calls for two primary actions that orders the responsibility to the next to preserve the rhythm and
exclusively on national government. Department of Environment and Natural Resources harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
Local governments, too, have no power to tax (DENR), its agents, representatives, and those acting on healthful environment.
instrumentalities of national government, such as its behalf to, 1. Cancel all existing timber license 3. Yes respondent judge committed grave abuse of
PAGCOR. PAGCOR is exempt from local taxes. agreements in the country and 2. to cease and desist discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction because it
The power of local gov’t to impose taxes and fees is from receiving, accepting, processing, and renewing or failed to recognize the legal right of the petitioners
always subject to limits w/c Congress may provide. It approving new timber license agreements. which is the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
can’t be violative, but consistent with principle of local - The suit starts off with statement of facts regarding the that is incorporated in the 1987 Constitution under
autonomy. country, the country’s islands, its natural resources, and Section 16 Article II.
Local autonomy doesn’t make local gov’t sovereign w/in scientific evidences pointing to the requirement for the - Moreover, this rights need not be written in the
state; it simply means decentralization. The local gov’t country to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology Constitution for this deals with rights that are assumed
has been described as a political subdivision of state (54% should be use for forest cover and 46% for from the very inception oh humankind. The reason why
constituted by law and has substantial control of local agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial, and it was written was because the framers feared that
affairs. It can only be an intra sovereign subdivision of a other uses). They asserted that deforestation resulted in, without a mandate as stated in the state policies future
sovereign nation, it can’t be an imperium in imperio. a. water shortages b. salinization c. massive erosion and generations would inherit nothing to sustain life. It is
3. Equal protection doesn’t preclude classification of loss of soil fertility d. extinction of some of the countries clear then that there is a legal right for a balanced
individuals who may be accorded diff. treatment as long flora and fauna e. disturbance and dislocation of healthful ecology and the right to health. Given that it
as classification is not unreasonable/arbitrary. The fact indigenous cultures f. siltation of rivers and seabed g. could also be said that this right is further supported by
that some gambling activities (e.g. sweepstakes, lottery, drought h. increasing velocity of typhoon winds i. Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of
races, cockfighting, etc.) are legalized while others are flooding of lowlands j. siltation and shortening of the life 1987 making the cause of action existent.
prohibited does not render applicable laws such as PD span of dams k. reduction of earth’s capacity to process 4. No it does not violate the non-impairment clause
1869 unconstitutional. carbon dioxide. because licenses are not contracts, properties or a
Whether or not PD 1869 is a wise legislation is up for - Initially the petition was dismissed on the grounds of property right that is protected by the due process
Congress to determine. But as of now, every law has in lack of cause of action, of being political question, and of clause of the Constitution. As the court held in Tan v.
its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For a law causing the impairment of contracts. The petitioners Director of Forestry, a license is merely a permit or
to be nullified, there must be a showing of clear and filed for certiorari hence this case. They contend that privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful and is
unequivocal breach of Constitution. there is a cause of action using articles 19, 20, and 21 of not a contract. It is not irrevocable. The Chief Executive
4. If PD 1869 runs counter to gov’t policies, it is for the Civil Code (the right to a sound environment), may validly amend, modify, replace, or rescind licenses
Executive to recommend to Congress its repeal or Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192 that calls for the when national interests so require.
amendment. Judiciary does not settle policy issues. creation of the Department of Environment and Natural Given that it is not a contract, the non-impairment
Disposition Petition is DISMISSED. Resources (DENR) to safeguard the people’s right to a clause cannot be invoked.
healthful environment, Section 3 of Presidential Decree - Even if the licenses are contracts, the action stated in
No. 1151 ( Philippine Environmental Policy), and Section the case still does not affect it given that no law or
OPOSA V FACTORAN
16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution that recognizes the action by the Chief Executive to amend, modify, replace,
DAVIDE; July 30, 1993 right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. or rescind licenses so it is could not as of the moment be
As well as the concept of generational genocide in invoked. And furthermore, if there would be a law
FACTS Criminal Law and the concept of man’s inalienable right passed it would not be considered as a violation of the
- The overarching theme of the case deals with the to self-preservation and self-perpetuation in natural law. non-impairment clause as the very nature of the law
prevention the misappropriation or impairment of deals with the exercising of the police power of the state
Philippine rainforests and arrest the unabated ISSUES to advance the right of the people to a balanced and
hemorrhage of the country’s vital life support systems 1. Locus Standi: WON the case is a class suit? healthful ecology. The non-impairment clause yields to
and continued rape of Mother Earth. 2. WON minors can assert that they represent other the police power of the state.
generations and those succeeding theirs?
Decision Petition is granted. Petitioners may amend regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to
complaint to implead as defendants the holders or practice medicine.
grantees of the questioned timber license agreements. 2. The police power of the State is validly exercised CARINO V INSULAR GOVERNMENT
if MALCOLM; February 23, 1909
DECS V SAN DIEGO - (a) the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require FACTS
CRUZ; December 21, 1989
the interference of the State <lawful subject>; & - An appeal to review the judgment of the Supreme
(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to Court of the Philippine Islands which affirmed a
FACTS
the attainment of the object sought to be judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of
- decided en banc, unanimous decision
accomplished, not unduly oppressive upon individuals Benguet, dismissing an application for the registration of
- Respondent Roberto Rey C. San Diego is a BS Zoology
<lawful method> certain land.
graduate from UE. He has taken the NMAT four times
- The case at bar complies with this requisites... - Mateo Carino, an Igorot, filed an application for the
and flunked it as many times. His application to take a
<subject> It is the right and indeed the responsibility registration of a certain land in the Province of Benguet.
fifth examination was denied by petitioner DECS on the
of the State to insure that the medical profession is For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, in
basis of the “three-flunk rule” under MECS Order #12,
not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may 1899, the applicant and his ancestors had held the land
Series of 1972.
unwarily entrust their lives and health. as owners. His grandfather had lived upon it and
San Diego filed a petition for mandamus at the
<method> The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate maintained fences sufficient for the holding of cattle. His
Valenzuela RTC, invoking his constitutional rights to
the medical schools and ultimately the medical father had cultivated parts and had used parts for
academic freedom and quality education. In an amended
profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to pasturing cattle. He had received the land from his
complaint, he raised the additional grounds of due
be doctors. father in accordance with Igorot customs and had used it
process and equal protection and also challenged the
3. The right to quality education is NOT absolute. for pasture. They all had been recognized as owners of
constitutionality of the aforementioned order.
The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the the land by the Igorots. No document of title, however,
- Pendente lite, with the agreement of both parties, he
right to choose a profession or course of study, subject had issued from the Spanish crown and although I, in
was allowed to take a fifth attempt at NMAT. This
to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and 1893-1894, and again in 1896-1897, he made
attempt he also failed.
academic requirements." application for one under the royal decrees then in force,
- RTC decision released 4 July 1989 granted the petition
- It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality nothing has come of it. In 1901, he filed a petition,
and declared the challenged order invalid. It held that
education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the
the petitioner had been deprived of his right to pursue a
must show that he is entitled to it because of his lands were registered to him, that process establishing
medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the
preparation and promise. only a possessory title.
police power.
4. What the equal protection clause requires is - Applicant claims that he now owns the land, and is
equality among equals. A law does not have to operate entitled to registration under the Philippine
ISSUE
with equal force on all persons or things to be Commission’s Act No,496 of 1902, which established a
WON a person who has thrice failed the National Medical
conformable to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. court for that purpose with jurisdiction throughout the
Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again.
- A substantial distinction exists between medical Philippine Archipelago, and authorized in general terms
Or, WON the three-flunk rule is a proper exercise of the
students and other students who are not subjected to applications to be made by persons claiming to own the
police power of the State
the NMAT and the three-flunk rule. The medical land.
profession directly affects the very lives of the people, - The government claims that Spain had title to all the
HELD
unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not land in the Philippines except so far as it saw fit to
Ratio Measures, such as admission exams and the
require more vigilant regulation. The accountant, for permit private titles to be acquired; that there was no
three flunk rule, designed to gauge the
example, while belonging to an equally respectable prescription against the crown and that, if there was, a
academic preparation of an applicant fall within
profession, does not hold the same delicate decree of June 25, 1880, required registration within a
the valid exercise of the police power of the
responsibility as that of the physician and so need not limited time to make the title good; that the applicant’s
State.
be similarly treated. land was not registered, and therefore became public
Reasoning
- There would be unequal protection if some land; that he United States succeeded to the title of
1. use of precedent: In Tablarin v. Gutierrez,
applicants who have passed the tests are admitted Spain, and that the he has no rights that the Philippine
unanimous Court upheld the constitutionality of the
and others who have also qualified are denied government is bound to respect.
NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to
entrance.
medical schools only to those who have initially proved
Note While every person is entitled to aspire to be a ISSUE
their competence and preparation for a medical
doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a WON the applicant owns the land
education.
doctor. The Court suggests the notion of appropriate
- analogy: Tablarin case & case at bar – issue is
calling. It is time indeed that the State took decisive HELD
academic preparation of the applicant. Admission test
steps to regulate and enrich our system of education by - Yes. By the Organic Act of July 1, 1902, all the property
and the three-flunk rule are both valid measures in the
directing the student to the course for which he is best and rights acquired by the United States are to be
regulation of the medical profession. The regulation of
suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations. administered for the benefits of the inhabitants of the
the practice of medicine in all its branches is a
Decision Petition is granted. Decision of Valenzuela Philippines. Thus, when, as far back as testimony or
reasonable method of protecting the health and safety
RTC reversed. Costs against private respondent San memory goes, the land has been held by individuals
of the public. This power to regulate and control the
Diego. under a claim of private ownership, it shall be presumed
practice of medicine also includes the power to
to have been held in the same way before the Spanish habeas corpus in this court, alleging that they are vs. California [1883], 110 U. S., 516.) "Due process of
conquest, and never to have been public land. deprived of their liberty in violation of law. law" means simply * * * "first, that there shall be a law
- Under the laws of Spain, there is no clear proof that he - The return of the Solicitor-General alleges that on prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the
does not own the land. Spain did not assume to convert February 1, 1917, the provincial board of Mindoro legislative department of the Government; second, that
all the native inhabitant of the Philippines into adopted resolution No. 25 signed by the provincial this law shall be reasonable in its operation; third, that it
trespassers or even into tenants at will. The fact was governor, Hon. Juan Morente, jr.. The law’s primary shall be enforced according to the regular methods of
that titles were admitted to exist that owed nothing to objective is the advancement of the welfare of the non- procedure prescribed; and fourth, that it shall be
the powers of Spain. Christian people of Mindoro. In one of the Whereas applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of
- Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754 – Where such clauses, it was stated that the provincial governor is of a class." (U. S. vs. Ling Su Fan [1908], 10 Phil., 104,
possessor shall not be able to produce title deeds, it the opinion that the sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan is a affirmed on appeal to the United States Supreme
shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient place most convenient for the Mangyanes to live on. Court.1) "What is due process of law depends on
possession, as valid title by prescription. As prescription, Pursuant to the Governor’s powers under section 2077 of circumstances it varies with the subject-matter and
even against the Crown, was recognized by the laws of the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in necessities of the situation." (Moyer vs. Peabody [1909],
Spain, the court sees no sufficient reason to admit that it the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake was selected as a site 212 U. S., 82.)
was recognized in the Philippines in regard to lands over for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro - There is no doubt in my mind that this people has not a
which Spain had only a paper sovereignty. subject to the approval of the Honorable Secretary of the right conception of liberty and does not practise liberty
- Decree of June 25, 1880 – For private ownership, there Interior. Under the resolution of the Provincial Board, any in a rightful way. They understand liberty as the right to
must have been a grant by competent authority. For all Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall do anything they will-going from one place to another in
legal effects, those who have been in possession for upon conviction be imprisoned not exceeding sixty days the mountains, burning and destroying forests and
certain times shall be deemed owners. For cultivated in accordance with section 2759 of the revised making illegal caiñgins thereon. Not knowing what true
land, 20 years; for uncultivated, 30 years. When this Administrative Code. The resolution of the provincial liberty is and not practicing the same rightfully, how can
decree went into effect, the applicant’s father was owner board of Mindoro copied in paragraph 1 and the they allege that they are being deprived thereof without
of the land by the very terms of the decree. This being executive order of the governor of the same province due process of law?
the case and the fact that his possession was not copied in paragraph 3, were necessary measures for the - But does the Constitutional guaranty that no person
unlawful (no attempt at any such proceedings against protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of
him or his father was ever made), the regulation for the protection of public forests in which they roam, and to law apply to a class of persons who do not have a
registration of royal land wrongfully occupied does not introduce civilized customs among them. correct idea of what liberty is and do not practice liberty
apply to him. Moreover, the decree was not calculated in a rightful way?
to the mind of an Igorot Chief the notion that ancient ISSUES - To say that it does will mean to sanction and defend an
family possessions were in danger, if he had read every 1. WON the Mangyan’s were deprived of due process erroneous idea of such class of persons as to what
word of it. when their liberty to choose their homes were limited by liberty is. It will mean, in the case at bar, that the
Disposition Judgment reversed. Law and justice the law. Government should not adopt any measures looking to
require that the applicant should be granted what he 2. WON the Legislature exceeded its authority in the welfare and advancement of the class of persons in
seeks, and should not be deprived of what by practice enacting the law mandating the forcible transfer of the question. It will mean that this people should be let
and belief of those among whom he live, was his Mangyanes. alone in the mountains and in a permanent state of
property. savagery without even the remotest hope of coming to
HELD understand liberty in its true and noble sense. In dealing
RUBI V PROVINCIAL BOARD OF 1. NO. None of the rights of the citizen can be taken with the backward population, like the Manguianes, the
away except by due process of law. Daniel Webster, in Government has been placed in the alternative of either
MINDORO
the course of the argument in the Dartmouth College letting them alone or guiding them in the path of
MALCOLM; February 28, 1919 Case before the United States Supreme Court, since a civilization. The latter measure was adopted as the one
classic in forensic literature, said that the meaning of more in accord with humanity and with national
FACTS "due process of law" is, that "every citizen shall hold his conscience.
- Rubi and various other Manguianes in the Province of life, liberty, property, and immunities under the - The Mangyans will ultimately become a heavy burden
Mindoro were ordered by the provincial governor of protection of the general rules which govern society." To to the State and on account of their ignorance they will
Mindoro to remove their residence from their native constitute "due process of law," as has been often held, commit crimes and make depredations, or if not they will
habitat and to establish themselves on a reservation at a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In some be subjected to involuntary servitude by those who may
Tigbao in the Province of Mindoro and to remain there, instances, even a hearing and notice are not requisite, a want to abuse them.. They understand liberty as the
or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. This rule which is especially true where much must be left to right to do anything they will-going from one place to
reservation, as appears from the resolution of the the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a another in the mountains, burning and destroying forests
provincial board, extends over an area of 800 hectares law to particular cases. (See McGehee, Due Process of and making illegal caiñgins thereon. To allow them to
of land, which is approximately 2,000 acres, on which Law, p. 371.) Neither is due process a stationary and successfully invoke that Constitutional guaranty at this
about three hundred Manguianes are confined. One of blind sentinel of liberty. "Any legal proceeding enforced time will leave the Government without recourse to
the Manguianes, Dabalos, escaped from the reservation by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and pursue the works of civilizing them and making them
and was taken in hand by the provincial sheriff and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the useful citizens. They will thus be left in a permanent
placed in prison at Calapan, solely because he escaped legislative power in furtherance of the public good which state of savagery and become a vulnerable point of
from the reservation. The Manguianes sued out a writ of regards and preserves these principles of liberty and attack by those who doubt, may challenge the ability of
justice must be held to be due process of law." (Hurtado the nation to deal with our backward brothers.
- Further, one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen that term is used in the Philippine statute-book, is that provincial governor of the Province of Mindoro attempted
is unduly interfered with when the degree of civilization degree of civilization which results in a mode of life to take them from their native habitat and to hold them
of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for within the tribe, such that it is feasible and practicable to on the little reservation of about 800 hectares, he
their own good and the general good of the Philippines. extend to, and enforce upon its membership the general deprived them of their rights and their liberty without
Nor can one say that due process of law, has not been laws and regulations, administrative, legislative, and due process of law, and they were denied the equal
followed. To go back to our definition of due process of judicial, which control the conduct of the admittedly protection of the law. The majority opinion says "they
law and equal protection of the laws, there exists a law; civilized inhabitants of the Islands; a mode of life, are restrained for their own good and the general good
the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according furthermore, which does not find expression in tribal of the Philippines." They are to be made to accept the
to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and it customs or practices which tend to brutalize or debauch civilization of the more advanced Filipinos whether they
applies alike to all of a class. the members of the tribe indulging in such customs or want it or not. They are backward and deficient in
practices, or to expose to loss or peril the lives or culture and must be moved from their homes, however
2. NO. Considered, therefore, purely as an exercise of property of those who may be brought in contact with humble they may be and "brought under the bells" and
the police power, the courts cannot fairly say that the the members of the tribe. made to stay on a reservation. Are these petitioners
Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. It is, - So the standard of civilization to which any given charged with any crime? There is no mention in the
indeed, an unusual exercise of that power. But a great number or group of inhabitants of a particular province return of the Solicitor-General of the Philippine Islands of
malady requires an equally drastic remedy. in these Islands, or any individual member of such a any crime having been committed by these "peaceful,
- As a point which has been left for the end of this group must be found to have advanced, in order to timid, primitive, semi-nomadic people."
decision and which in case of doubt, would lead to the remove such group or individual from the class - It has been said that this is a government of laws and
determination that section 2145 is valid, is the attitude embraced within the statutory description of "non- not of men; that there is no arbitrary body of individuals;
which the courts should assume towards the settled Christian," is that degree of civilization which would that the constitutional principles upon which our
policy of the Government. In a late decision with which naturally and normally result in the withdrawal by such government and its institutions rest do not leave room
we are in full accord, Gamble vs. Vanderbilt University persons of permanent allegiance or adherence to a "non- for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary
(200 Southwestern Reporter, 510) the Chief Justice of Christian" tribe had they at any time adhered to or power, but that all in authority are guided and limited by
the Supreme Court of Tennessee writes: maintained allegiance to such a tribe; and which would these provisions which the people have, through the
We can see no objection to the application of public qualify them whether they reside within or beyond the organic law, declared shall be the measure and scope of
policy as a ratio decidendi. Every really new habitat of a "non-Christian" tribe, not only to maintain a all control exercised over them. In particular the
question that comes before the courts is, in the last mode of life independent of and apart from that fourteenth amendment, and especially the equal
analysis, determined on that theory, when not maintained by such tribe, but a mode of life as would not protection clause, thereof, forbids that the individual
determined by differentiation of the principle of a be inimical to the lives or property or general welfare of shall be subjected to any arbitrary exercise of the
prior case or line of cases, or by the aid of analogies the civilized inhabitants of the Islands with whom they powers of government; it was intended to prohibit, and
furnished by such prior cases. In balancing are brought in contact. does prohibit, any arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty,
conflicting solutions, that one is perceived to tip the - The contention that in this particular case, and without or arbitrary spoliation of property.
scales which the court believes will best promote challenging the validity of the statute, the writ should - As we have seen, a statute which makes a purely
the public welfare in its probable operation as a issue because of the failure to give these petitioners as arbitrary or unreasonable classification, or which singles
general rule 2145 of the Administrative Code does well as the rest of the fifteen thousand Manguianes by out any particular individual or class as the subject of
not deprive a person of his liberty without due the reconcentration order an opportunity to be heard hostile and discriminating legislation, is clearly
process of law and does not deny to him the equal before any attempt was made to enforce it, begs the unconstitutional as being opposed to the fourteenth
protection of the laws, and that confinement in question and is, of course, tantamount to a contention amendment and especially to the equal protection
reservations in accordance with said section does that there is no authority in law for the issuance of such clause thereof. This is a plain case, and requires no
not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. We an order. further discussion." (Vol. 4, Encyclopedia of U. S.
are further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Supreme Court Reports, p. 366.) When we consider the
Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the nature and the theory of our institutions of government,
MOIR
police power, somewhat analogous to the Indian the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and
- I realize that a dissenting opinion carries little weight,
policy of the United States. Section 2145 of the review the history of their development, we are
but my sense of justice will not permit me to let this
Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave
decision go on record without expressing my strong
Decision Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or room for the play and action of purely personal and
dissent from the opinion of Justice Malcolm, concurred in
restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not
by a majority of the court. I shall not attempt to analyze
not issue. subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but
the opinion or to go into the questions in detail. I shall
in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to
simply state, as briefly as may be the legal and human
SEPARATE OPINION side of the case as it presents itself to my mind.
the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remain
with the people by whom and for whom all government
- The Manguianes are not a separate state. They have no
exists and acts. And the law is the definition and
CARSON treaty with the Government of the Philippine Islands by
limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there
- The legislative and administrative history of the which they have agreed to live within a certain district
must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person
Philippine Islands clearly discloses that the standard of where they are accorded exclusive rights. They are
or body, the authority of final decision; and, in many
civilization to which a specific tribe must be found to citizens of the Philippine Islands. Legally they are
cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely
have advanced, to justify its removal from the class Filipinos. They are entitled to all the rights and privileges
political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal
embraced within the descriptive term "non-Christian," as of any other citizen of this country. And when the
of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure
of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the governor decide that some political enemy was a non- member of the tomayan could make improvements on
fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Christian, and that he would be safer on the reservation. the land and claim them as his own. Anyone who
happiness, considered as individual possessions, are No matter what his education and culture, he could have abandoned the land would be succeeded only by other
secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are no trial, he could make no defense, the judge of the members. No person outside the tomayan could succeed
the monuments showing the victorious progress of the court might be in a distant province and not within to the cultivation of the tayan.
race in securing to men the blessings of civilization reach, and the provincial governor's fiat is final. - Lobchoken, planted sugarcane in the tayan in Loag and
under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the - There can be no denial that the Ifugaos are "non- when he died, his widow Pidchoy and their children
famous language of Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the Christians," or "wild tribes" and are in exactly the same continued cultivating the land. They also built a granary
Government of Commonwealth 'may be a government of category as the Manguianes. If the Manguianes may be thereon. The land was later given to Pit-og by Pidchoy
law and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may so taken from their native habitat and reconcentrated on for cultivation. Thereafter, the family allowed Pasiteng to
be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or a reservation-in effect an open air jail-then so may the build a house behind the place where Pit-og and her
any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at Ifugaos, so may the Tinguianes, who have made more family used to have a house because Edward was
the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any progress than the Ifugaos, and so may the Moros. Erkey's uncle being the brother of her father. Erkey
country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of - I think this Court should declare that sections 2145 and planted the bananas and avocado trees in the area and
slavery itself." (Yiek Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U. S., 374.) 2759 of the Administrative Code of 1917 are harvested the sugarcane. No one had ever prevented
- It is said that the present law is an old Act being in unconstitutional, null and void, and that the petitioners her from cutting the sugarcane and the other plants.
substance Act No. 547 of the Philippine Commission. But are illegally restrained of their liberty, and that they The municipal trial court discredited Pit-og's story
it has never been brought before this court for have been denied the equal protection of the laws, and emphasizing that her claim of continuous occupation and
determination of its constitutionality. No matter how order the respondents immediately to liberate all of the possession of the land was baseless as she had "no
beneficient the motives of the lawmakers if the law petitioners. papers to show" or prove such claim. It found that an
tends to deprive any man of life, liberty, or property the elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC were
without due process of law, it is void. In my opinion the PIT-OG V PEOPLE present and accordingly rendered the judgment of
acts complained of which were taken in conformity with conviction.
FERNAN; October 11, 1990
section 2145 of the Administrative Code not only - On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
deprive these Manguianes of their liberty, without due of the lower courts with the following findings and
FACTS
process of law, but will in all probability deprive them of observations:
- Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals
their life, without due process of law. History teaches - Pasiteng’s claim of ownership is documented by a
- There was a communal land in Laog, Mainit, Mt.
that to take a semi-nomadic tribe from their native Deed of Conveyance, a public document which was
Province called the tayan. It was owned by the tomayan
fastnesses and to transfer them to the narrow confines executed between him and the members of the tomayan
group whose members were descendants of the original
of a reservation is to invite disease and suffering and group. The validity of this public document has never
owners thereof named Jakot and Pang-o. One of their
death. been questioned by any one of the previous owners
descendants, Pel-ey Cullalad, was requested by the
- From my long experience in the Islands, I should say belonging to the tomayan group. Furthermore, the tax
tomayan to act in their behalf in selling the 400-sqm
that it would be a crime of little less magnitude to take declarations in the name of and the realty tax payments
residential portion of the tayan, in order that the
the Ifugaos from their mountain homes where they have by, Pasiteng, although not conclusive proofs of
tomayan would have something to butcher and eat
reclaimed a wilderness and made it a land of beauty and ownership, are, nevertheless, prima facie evidence of his
during a celebration called ato. The sale was made in
fruitfulness and to transfer them to the more fertile, possession of the land in question. In contrast to these
consideration of P1,500 and was made in favor of
unoccupied, malaria infested valleys which they look documentary evidence, petitioner offers nothing better
Edward Pasiteng, whose house had been built thereon. It
down upon from their fields-than it would be to order than her bare claim. The personal property taken by
was agreed that the unregistered property would be
their decapitation en masse. There can be no denial that accused-petitioner not being hers but those of Pasiteng,
registered under Sec. 194 of the Revised Administrative
the Ifugaos are "non-Christians," or "wild tribes" and are and she gained from the taking thereof without the
Code as amended by Act No. 3344. Besides Cullalad,
in exactly the same category as the Manguianes. If the consent of the owner, accused-petitioner is guilty of the
several members of the tomayan affixed their signatures
Manguianes may be so taken from their native habitat crime of theft.
or thumb marks on the notarized deed of sale.
and reconcentrated on a reservation-in effect an open
Thereafter, Pasiteng declared the property as his own for
air jail-then so may the Ifugaos, so may the Tinguianes, ISSUES
taxation purposes and paid taxes thereon.
who have made more progress than the Ifugaos, and so 1. WON Pit-og had criminal intent in taking the
- In 1983, while Pasiteng was out hunting, Erkey Pit-og
may the Moros. sugarcane and the bananas.
(aka Mary Pit-og) and her companions destroyed the
- There are "non-Christian" in nearly every province in 2. WON the present case is criminal or civil in nature.
fence erected by Pasiteng and cut down and took away
the Philippine Islands. All of the thirty-nine governors
the sugarcane worth P1,000 and the banana fruits
upon the prior approval of the head of the department HELD
valued at P100 found in the area. Pasiteng reported the
have the power under this law to take the non-Christian 1. Erkey Pit-og could not have had criminal intent
matter to the police. Three days later, the police filed a
inhabitants of their different provinces from their homes because she took the sugarcane and bananas believing
complaint for theft against Erkey Pit-og in the Municipal
and put them on a reservation for "their own good and them to be her own.
Trial Court of Bontoc.
the general good of the Philippines," and the courts will - Edward Pasiteng relied heavily on his documentary
- Pit-og pleaded not guilty of theft on the ground that the
grant them no relief. These unfortunate citizens of the evidence to prove ownership over the sugarcane and
tayan belonged to her, her father Lobchoken being a
Philippine Islands would hold their liberty, and their lives, bananas. A careful study of these documents, in
descendant Jakot. She did not declare the land for
may be subject to the unregulated discretion of the conjunction with the testimonial evidence extant in the
taxation purposes because no one in the tomayan was
provincial governor. And who would be safe? After the record, however, discloses matters which put a cloud of
allowed to declare the land as his own. However, any
reservation is once established might not a provincial doubt upon Pit-og’s culpability. The deed of sale
describes the property as containing an area of 400 sqm, can enter into any form of association or collaboration and protect, within the democratic framework, their
while the tax declarations show that the property with any party in operating an on-line lottery, and legitimate and collective interests and aspirations
contains an area of 512 sqm. The testimonies presented these questions can no longer be reopened. through peaceful and lawful means," that their right to
by the prosecution and the defense show that the areas - Petitioners argue that the two justices who changed "effective and reasonable participation at all levels of
cultivated by Pasiteng and Pit-og were adjacent and so their votes did not act according to law and that the two social, political, and economic decision-making shall not
close to each other that the possibility of confusion as to new appointees regardless of the merits of the case be abridged." (Art. XIII, §§ 15-16)
who planted which plants is not remote. In fact, before must of necessity align themselves with all the Ramos - These provisions have not changed the traditional rule
the filing of this case, Pit-og had sued Pasiteng's son, appointees who were dissenters in the first case and that only real parties in interest or those with standing,
Donato, who allegedly cut down bananas she had constitute the new majority in the second lotto case. as the case may be, may invoke the judicial power. The
planted in the area. The fact that Edward had built a - SC said the decision in the first case was a split jurisdiction of this Court, even in cases involving
fence around the area he claimed as his does not decision: 7-6. With the retirement of one of the original constitutional questions, is limited by the "case and
necessarily prove that he enclosed only the 400 square majority (Cruz, J.) and one of the dissenters (Bidin, J.) it controversy" requirement of Art. VIII, §5. This
meters he had purchased from the tomayan. After all, he was not surprising that the first decision in the first case requirement lies at the very heart of the judicial
had declared as his own for taxation purposes 112 was later reversed. function. It is what differentiates decision-making in the
square meters more than the area he bought. - SC cited the case of Feliciano v. Aquinas (also a split courts from decision-making in the political departments
- There is on record a survey plan of the 512 square- decision) which was overturned in People v. Yang. of the government and bars the bringing of suits by just
meter area claimed by Edward but there are no any party.
indications therein of the exact area involved in this ISSUES - Petitioners' right to sue as taxpayers cannot be
case. Proof on the matter, however, is important for it 1. WON the constitutional policies and principles (Art II sustained because this case does not involve illegal
means the Identification of the rightful owner of the Sec 5 ,Sec 12, Sec 13, Sec 17) invoked by the petitioners disbursement of public funds. Nor as concerned citizens
stolen properties. It should be emphasized that to prove may be resorted to for striking down laws or official can they bring this suit because no specific injury
the crime of theft, it is necessary and indispensable to actions which are inconsistent with them suffered by them is alleged. As for the petitioners, who
clearly Identify the person who, as a result of a criminal 2. WON the petitioners have standing to sue on are members of Congress, their right to sue as
act, without his knowledge and consent, was wrongfully constitutional grounds, given that the Constitution legislators cannot be invoked because they do not
deprived of a thing belonging to him. guarantees to people’s organizations “effective and complain of any infringement of their rights as
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political legislators.
2. The legal issues that must be ironed out with regard and economic decision making (Art XIII Sec 16). 3. Indeed in the first case it was held that the PCSO
to claims of ownership over the tayan should be 3. WON, as settled in the first case, the PCSO under its under its charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) cannot
threshed out in an appropriate civil action. charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) cannot enter into enter into any form of association or collaboration with
- Obiter dicta related to Article II Section22 re any form of association or collaboration with any party in any party in operating an on-line lottery HOWEVER THE
Indigenous Community operating an on-line lottery. QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS CASE ARE LEGAL
- We see this case as exemplifying a clash between a QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS INVOLVED ARE
claim of ownership founded on customs and tradition HELD SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN
and another such claim supported by written evidence 1. NO. As already stated, however, these provisions are THE PRIOR CASE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. AS ALREADY
but nonetheless based on the same customs and not self-executing. They do not confer rights which can STATED, THE ELA IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM
tradition. when a court is beset with this kind of case, it be enforced in the courts but only provide guidelines for THE CONTRACT OF LEASE DECLARED VOID IN THE FIRST
can never be too careful More so in this case, where the legislative or executive action. By authorizing the CASE.
accused, an illiterate tribeswoman who cannot be holding of lottery for charity, Congress has in effect
expected to resort to written evidence of ownership, determined that consistently with these policies and Also, the Court noted in its decision that the provisions
stands to lose her liberty on account of an oversight in principles of the Constitution, the PCSO may be given of the first contract, which were considered to be
the court's appreciation of the evidence. this authority. That is why we said with respect to the features of a joint venture agreement, had been
Disposition Erkey Pit-og is ACQUITTED for lack of proof opening by the PAGCOR of a casino in Cagayan de Oro, removed in the new contract.
beyond reasonable doubt that she committed the crime "the morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue.
of theft. No costs. Gambling is not illegal per se. . . . It is left to Congress to VALMONTE V BELMONTE, JR
deal with the activity as it sees fit." (Magtajas v. Pryce
CORTES; February 13, 1989
KILOSBAYAN, INC V MORATO Properties Corp., Inc., 234 SCRA 255, 268 [1994]).
2. NO. It is noteworthy that petitioners do not question
MENDOZA; November 16, 1995 FACTS
the validity of the law allowing lotteries. It is the contract
- Petitioners are media practitioners who wish to confirm
entered into by the PCSO and the PGMC which they are
FACTS reports that certain members of the Batasang
assailing. This case, therefore, does not raise issues of
- Petitioners seek reconsideration of our decision in this Pambansa, including some members of the opposition,
constitutionality but only of contract law, which
case were granted “clean” loans from the GSIS before the
petitioners, not being privies to the agreement, cannot
Petitioners contend that the decision in the first case February 1986 elections. Petitioner Valmonte filed a
raise.
has already settled special civil action for mandamus with preliminary
- Kilosbayan's status as a people's organization does not
(1) whether petitioner Kilosbayan, Inc. has a standing injunction, praying that respondent Belmonte, in his
give it the requisite personality to question the validity
to sue and capacity as GSIS General Manager, be directed to:
of the contract in this case. The Constitution provides
(2) whether under its charter (R.A. No. 1169, as 1. Furnish petitioners with a list of the names of the
that "the State shall respect the role of independent
amended) the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa who were
people's organizations to enable the people to pursue
able to secure “clean” loans from the GSIS immediately ISSUES
prior to the February 7, 1986 elections through the
• Petitions are entitled to access to the documents
Procedural:
intercession of then-First Lady Imelda Marcos. subject to reasonable regulations. The petition is 1. WON the petitioner has the personality or legal
2. Furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the held to be meritorious as to the 2nd and 3rd standing to file the instant petition; and
documents evidencing said loans. alternative acts sought by petitioners. 2. WON this Court is the proper court before which this
3. Allow petitioners access to public records for the • The same cannot be said, however, of the 1 st act action may be filed.
subject information. sought. Although citizens are entitled to “access to Substantive:
official records”, the Constitution does not accord 1. WON this Court could require the PCGG to disclose to
ISSUES them a right to compel custodians of public records the public the details of any agreement, perfected or
Procedural: Have petitioners failed to exhaust to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in not, with the Marcoses; and
administrative remedies? their desire to acquire information on matters of 2. WON there exist any legal restraints against a
Substantive: public concern. It is essential for a writ of compromise agreement between the Marcoses
1. Does the information sought by petitioners fall under mandamus to lie that the applicant has a well- and the PCGG relative to the Marcoses’ ill-
“matters of public concern”? defined, clear and certain right to the thing gotten wealth.
2. Does a confidential relationship exist between GSIS demanded and that it is the imperative duty of the
and its borrowers? defendant to perform the act required. HELD
3. Are loan transactions of the GSIS, being merely Procedural:
incidental to its insurance function, private in nature? 1. Yes. When the issue concerns a public right and the
CHAVEZ V PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a
HELD ON GOOD GOVERNMENT public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties
Procedural: No. The principle of exhaustion of PANGANIBAN; December 9, 1998 in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is
administrative remedies is subject to settled exceptions, a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the
among which is when only a question of law is involved. FACTS laws, he need not show that he has any legal or
The issue raised by petitioners, which requires the - These are the main questions raised in this original special interest in the result of the action.
interpretation of the scope of the constitutional right to action seeking (1) to prohibit and “enjoin respondents 2. Yes. Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution expressly
information, can be passed upon by the court more [PCGG and its chairman] from privately entering into, confers upon the Supreme Court original jurisdiction
competently than GSIS or its Board of Trustees. perfecting and/or executing any agreement with the over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
Substantive: heirs of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos x x x warranto and habeas corpus. The argument of
1. Yes. The public nature of GSIS funds and the public relating to and concerning the properties and assets of respondent that petitioner should have properly sought
office held by the alleged borrowers make the Ferdinand Marcos located in the Philippines and/or relief before the Sandiganbayan in which enforcement of
information sought clearly a matter of public interest abroad – including the so-called Marcos gold hoard”; and the compromise agreements was pending resolution
and concern. (2) to “compel respondents to make public all seems to have merit, if petitioner was merely seeking
2. No. The right to privacy belongs to the individual in negotiations and agreement, be they ongoing or to enjoin the enforcement of the compromise and/or to
his private capacity and not to public and governmental perfected, and all documents related to or relating to compel the PCGG to disclose to the public the
agencies like the GSIS. The right cannot be invoked by such negotiations and agreement between the PCGG terms contained in said Agreements. However, petitioner
juridical entities, as a corporation has no right to privacy and the Marcos heirs.” is here seeking the public disclosure of “all
in its name. The entire basis of the right to privacy is an - Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, former solicitor general, negotiations and agreement, be they ongoing or
injury to the feelings and sensibilities of the party and a brought this action in response to news reports in perfected, and documents related or relating to such
corporation would have no such ground for relief. September 1997 referring to (1) the alleged discovery of negotiations and agreement between the PCGG and the
However, even the concerned borrowers themselves billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in various Marcos heirs”. In other words, the petition is not merely
may not succeed if they chose to invoke this right. Public coded accounts in Swiss banks, and (2) the reported confined to the Agreements that have already been
figures, most especially those holding responsible execution of a compromise between the government drawn, but likewise to any other ongoing or future
positions in government, enjoy a more limited right to (through PCGG) and the Marcos heirs, on how to split or undertaking towards any settlement on the alleged
privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, their share these assets. Acting on a motion of petitioner, the Marcos loot. The core issue boils down to the precise
actions being subject to closer public scrutiny. Court issued a temporary restraining order dated March interpretation, in terms of scope, of the twin
3. No. The “constituent-ministrant” dichotomy 23, 1998, enjoining respondents, their agents and/or constitutional provisions on “public transactions”.
characterizing government function has long been representatives from “entering into, or perfecting and/or Substantive:
repudiated. The government, whether carrying out its executing any agreement with the heirs of the late 1. Yes. There is no doubt that the recovery of the
sovereign attributes or running some business, President Ferdinand E. Marcos relating to and concerning Marcoses’ alleged ill-gotten wealth is a matter of public
discharges the same function of service to the people. their ill-gotten wealth. On August 19, 1998, Gloria, concern and imbued with public interest. “Ill-gotten
That the GSIS was exercising a proprietary function in Celnan, Scarlet and Teresa, all surnamed Jopson, filed wealth”, by its very nature, assumes a public character.
granting the loans would not justify the exclusion of the before the Court a motion for intervention. They aver The assets and properties referred to supposedly
transactions from the coverage and scope of the right to that they are “among the 10,000 claimants whose right originated from the government itself. To all intents and
information. Transactions entered into by the GSIS, a to claim from the Marcos family and/or the Marcos estate purposes, therefore, they belong to the people.
government-controlled corporation created by special is recognized by the decision in In re Estate of Ferdinand Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution
legislation, are within the ambit of the people’s right to Marcos”. that “transactions” contemplates inclusion of
be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of negotiations leading to the consummation of a
transparency in government dealings. transaction, it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its
officers, as well as other government representatives, to protection guarantees of the Constitution. It effectively submission by the movants of the Motion for Approval of
disclose sufficient public information on any proposed ensconces the Marcoses beyond the reach of the law. Compromise Agreements to the Sandiganbayan;
settlement they have decided to take up with the v) The Agreements do not provide for a definite or 4. WON there was ratification of the Agreements by
ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. determinable period within which the parties shall fulfill partial implementation; and
2. Yes. A cursory perusal of the General and their respective prestations. It may take a lifetime before 5. WON the issue raised by petitioner presented an
Supplemental Agreements between the PCGG and the the Marcoses submit an inventory of their total assets. actual case and a justiciable question.
Marcos heirs reveals serious legal flaws. vi) The Agreements do not state with specificity the
i) While a compromise in civil suits is expressly standards for determining which assets shall be forfeited HELD
authorized by law, there is no similar general sanction as by the government and which shall be retained by the Procedural:
regards criminal liability. The authority must be Marcoses. While the Supplemental Agreement provides No. Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, provides
specifically conferred. In the present case, the that the Marcoses shall be entitled to 25 per cent of the that a motion to intervene should be filed before
power to grant criminal immunity was conferred on $356 million Swiss deposits (less government recovery rendition of judgment. Intervention can no longer be
PCGG by Section 5 of EO No. 14 as amended by EO No. expenses), such sharing arrangement pertains only to allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment.
14-A. However, the Agreements do not conform to the the said deposit. No similar splitting scheme is defined Substantive:
requirements of EO Nos. 14 and 14-A. Criminal immunity with respect to the other properties. Neither is there, 1. No. A contract that violates the Constitution and the
cannot be granted to the Marcoses, who are the anywhere in the Agreements, a statement of the basis law is null and void ab initio and vests no rights and
principal defendants in the spate of ill-gotten wealth for the 25-75 percent sharing ratio. creates no obligations. In legal terms, the movants have
cases now pending before the Sandiganbayan. The vii) The absence of then-President Fidel Ramos’ approval really no interest to protect or right to assert in this
provision is applicable mainly to witnesses who provide of the principal Agreement, an express condition proceeding. Moreover, the movants are merely
information or testify against a respondent, defendant or therein, renders the compromise incomplete and incidental, not indispensable, parties to the instant
accused in an ill-gotten wealth case. unenforceable. Nevertheless, even if such approval were case. The petition of Francisco I. Chavez sought
ii) Under Item No. 2 of the General Agreement, the PCGG obtained, the Agreements would still not be valid. to enforce a constitutional right against the PCGG and to
commits to exempt from all forms of taxes the property determine whether the latter has been acting within the
to be retained by the Marcos heirs. This is a clear RESOLUTION bounds of its authority.
violation of the Constitution. The power to tax and to 2. No. The principle of hierarchy of the courts generally
PANGANIBAN; May 19, 1999
grant tax exemptions is vested in Congress and, to a applies to cases involving factual questions, since the
certain extent, in the local legislative bodies. The PCGG Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Inasmuch as the
FACTS
has absolutely no power to grant tax exemptions, even petition at bar involves only constitutional and legal
Ma. Imelda Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos II and
under the cover of its authority to compromise ill- questions concerning public interest, the Court resolved
Irene Marcos-Araneta filed before the court a motion for
gotten wealth cases. Even granting that Congress enacts to exercise primary jurisdiction on the matter.
leave to intervene and a motion for partial
the law exempting the Marcoses from paying taxes on 3. No. The Chavez petition was not confined to the
reconsideration, alleging that they were parties and
their properties, such law will definitely not pass concluded terms contained in the Agreements, but
signatories to the General and Supplemental
the test of the equal protection clause under the Bill of likewise concerned other ongoing and future
Agreements which this Court declared “NULL AND VOID
Rights. Any special grant of exemption in favor only of negotiations and agreements, perfected or not. It was
for being contrary to law and the Consitution.” They
the Marcos heirs will constitute class legislation. It will therefore not rendered moot and academic simply by
claim to “have a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
also violate the constitutional rule that “taxation shall be the public disclosure of the subject Agreements.
or in the success of either of the parties or an interest
uniform and equitable”. 4. No. The PCGG’s grant to the claimants’ mother of
against both as to warrant their intervention.” They add
iii) The government binds itself under the General access rights to one of their sequestered properties
that their exclusion from the instant case resulted in a
Agreement to cause the dismissal of all cases against cannot ratify the Agreements. Being null and void, they
denial of their constitutional rights to due process and to
the Marcos heirs, pending before the Sandiganbayan and are not subject to ratification.
equal protection. They also the raise the “principle of
other courts. This is a direct encroachment on 5. Yes. Mandamus, over which this Court has original
hierarchical administration of justice” to impugn the
judicial powers, particularly in regard to criminal jurisdiction, is a proper recourse for a citizen to
Court’s cognizance of petitioner’s direct action before it.
jurisdiction. Well settled is the doctrine that once a case enforce a public right. There is no political
has been filed before a court of competent jurisdiction, question involved. The power and authority of the PCGG
ISSUES
the matter of its dismissal or pursuance lies within the to compromise is not the issue. But, clearly, by violating
Procedural:
full discretion and control of the judge. Jurisdiction, once the Constitution and the laws, the PCGG gravely abused
WON the Motion for Leave to Intervene should be
acquired by the trial court, is not lost despite a its discretion.
allowed.
resolution, even by the justice secretary, to withdraw the
Substantive:
information or to dismiss the complaint. Thus, the PCGG
1. WON the exclusion of the movants from the BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN
cannot guarantee the dismissal of all such criminal cases
proceedings regarding the Agreements to which they (BAYAN) V ZAMORA
against the Marcoses pending in the courts, for said
dismissal is not within its sole power and discretion.
were parties and signatories was a denial of “their BUENA; October 10, 2000
property right to contract without due process of law”;
iv) The government also waives all claims and
2. WON the Court violated the principle of hierarchical FACTS
counterclaims, “whether past, present, or future,
administration of justice by ruling upon the validity of - This is a consolidation of 5 petitions assailing the
matured or inchoate,” against the Marcoses. This all-
the Agreements; constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement.
encompassing stipulation is contrary to law. Under the
3. WON the issue of right to information raised by (Trivia: Si Prof Te ang counsel para sa ibang petitioners)
Civil Code, an action for future fraud may not be waived.
petitioner was rendered moot and academic by the
This is a palpable violation of the due process and equal
- March 14, 1947 – The Philippines and USA forged a 4. Was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the by the international law, whether embodied in a single
Military Bases Agreement, formalizing, among others, President, and of the Senate in ratifying/concurring with instrument or in two or more related instruments.”
the use of installations in the Philippine territory by US the VFA? - In international law, there is no difference between
military personnel. 5. WON the VFA violates Sec 1 Article III (equal treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect
- August 30, 1951 – The Philippines and USA entered into protection clause), Sec 8 Article II (prohibition against upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating
a Mutual Defense Treaty. Under the treaty, the parties nuclear weapons), and Sec 28(4) Article VI (taxation) of functionaries have remained within their powers.
agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their the 1987 Constitution. 3. Section 2 Article II of the Constitution declares that
territory, armed forces, public vessels and aircraft. the “xxx Philippines adopts the generally accepted
- 1991- RP-US Military Base Agreement expired. Senate HELD principles of international law as part of the law of the
rejected proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, 1. No (and Yes). As taxpayers, petitioners have NO legal land xxx” (this doesn’t really answer the issue above,
Cooperation and Security. (Goodbye… but Mutual standing as there are no public funds raised by taxation but the ponente didn’t really discuss an answer WON the
Defense Treaty still in effect.) in the case. Also, petitioner-legislators do not possess VFA is an abdication of sovereignty.. oh well… here
- February 10, 1998 – President Ramos approved Visiting the requisite locus standi as there is absence of clear goes…)
Forces Agreement, after a series of conferences and showing of any direct injury to their person or to the
negotiations. institution to which they belong. HOWEVER, the issues - With the ratification of the VFA, it becomes obligatory
- October 5, 1998 – President Estrada, through Secretary raised in the petitions are of paramount importance and and incumbent on our part to be bound by the terms of
of Foreign affairs, ratified VFA. of constitutional significance. It is of TRANSCENDENTAL the agreement. As a member of the family of nations,
- May 27, 1999- Senate passed Resolution No. 18, importance, so the Court brushes aside procedural the Philippines agrees to be bound by generally
concurring with the ratification of the VFA. (Who barriers and takes cognizance of the petitions. accepted rules for the conduct of its international
concurred: Fernan, Ople, Drilon, Biazon, Tatad, 2. It is governed by BOTH provisions. Section 25 relations. We cannot readily plead the Constitution as a
Cayetano, Aquino-Oreta, Barbers, Jaworski, Magsaysay Article XVIII applies as it specifically deals with treaties convenient excuse for non-compliance with our
Jr, Osmeña, Flavier, Defensor-Santiago, Ponce-Enrile, involving foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. obligations, duties and responsibilities under
Sotto, Revilla, Coseteng, Honasan. Total=17. Who (The ‘or’ is important to take note as it signifies international law.
rejected: Guingona, Roco, Osmeña III, Pimentel, independence of one thing from the others. Thus, it can
Legarda-Leviste. Total=5) just be an agreement covering only troops – not bases— - Article 13 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of
- The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating like the VFA. Also, Section 25 Article XVIII makes no States adopted by the International Law Commision
circumstances and conditions under which US Armed distinction whether the troops or facilities will be 1949 provides that every state has a duty to carry out
Forces and defense personnel may be present in the “transient” or “permanent”, so the VFA is covered by in good faith its obligations. Article 26 of the Convention:
Philippines. The VFA is an agreement which defines this provision). On the other hand, Section 21 Article pacta sunt servanda.
treatment of US troops and personnel visiting the VII find applicability with regard to the issue and for the
Philippines. It also defines the rights of the US and the sole purpose of determining the number of votes 4. Was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Phil government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, required to obtain the valid concurrence of the Senate President, and of the Senate in ratifying/concurring with
movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and (Sec 21 Art VII requires 2/3 of the members of the the VFA? No.
exportation of equipment, materials and supplies. Senate, while Sec 25 Art XVIII just says “duly concurred - Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
in by the Senate” with no specified number). whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
ISSUES of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an
1. WON the petitioners have legal standing as concerned - Were the requirements of Section 25 Art XVIII complied arbitrary or despostic manner.
citizens, taxpayers, or legislators to question the with? - The Constitution vests the power to enter into treaties
constitutionality of the VFA. Section 25 Art XVIII requires the following conditions: or
2. WON the VFA is governed by the provisions of Sec 21, a) it must be under a treaty. -- Complied International agreements in the President, subject only
Article VII (concurrence of 2/3 of the members of the with. We treat VFA as a treaty. to the concurrence of the members of Senate. The
Senate) or Sec 25 Art XVIII of the Constitution (foreign b) the treaty must be duly concurred in negotiation of the VFA and the ratification of the
military bases, troops, or facilities not allowed in the agreement are exclusive acts of the the President, in the
by the Senate, and so required by the Congress,
Phils except under a treaty duly concurred in by Senate, lawful exercise of his vast executive and diplomatic
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people
and when Congress requires, ratification by a majority of powers granted by the Constitution.
in a national referendum. -- Complied with. 17 of 23
votes cast by the people in a national referendum, and - As to the power to concur with treaties, the
Senators concurred (Senator Gloria Arroyo was
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State) Constitution lodges the same with the Senate alone.
elected VP). Requirement of ratification in a
3. WON VFA constitute an abdication of Philippine Thus once the Senate performs that power, or exercises
national referendum unnecessary since Congress
sovereignty. its prerogative within the boundaries prescribed by the
has not required it.
a. WON the Philippine Courts will be deprived of Constitution, the concurrence cannot be viewed to
their jurisdiction to hear and try offenses committed c) recognized as a treaty by the other constitute an abuse of power.
by the US Military personnel. contracting State (US).-- Complied with. Ambassador
b. WON the Supreme Court will be deprived of its Hubbard’s letter states that the VFA is binding on Decision Petitions Dismissed
jurisdiction over offenses punishable by reclusion the US gov’t and that in international legal terms 11 concurring, 3 dissenting, 1 take no part.
perpetua or higher. such agreement is a ‘treaty’.
- A ‘treaty’, as defined by the Vienna Convention on the SEPARATE OPINION
Law of Treaties, is an “international instrument
concluded between States in written form and governed
PUNO [dissent] Malaysia, became interested to offer its services conduct the on-line lottery system in "collaboration" or
- Most significant issue is whether the VFA violates Sec and resources to PCSO and organized with some "association" with the PGMC, in violation of Section 1(B)
25 Art XVIII of the Constitution (see requirements Filipino investors in March 1993 a corporation of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, which
above). known as the Philippine Gaming Management prohibits the PCSO from holding and conducting charity
- POINT 1: Respondents claim that the requirements do Corporation (PGMC). sweepstakes races, lotteries, and other similar activities
not apply as the VFA contemplates a temporary visit of 2. Before August 1993, PCSO finally formally "in collaboration, association or joint venture with any
the troops, while the provision applies to a permanent issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Lease of person, association, company or entity, foreign or
presence of foreign troops. Contract of an on-line lottery system for PCSO. domestic." And that there are terms and conditions of
The said temporary nature of the VFA cannot stand. Considering the citizenship requirement in the RFP the Contract "showing that respondent PGMC is the
Neither the VFA nor the Mutual Defense Treaty between ("Lessor shall be a domestic corporation, with at actual lotto operator and not respondent PCSO."
RP and US provides the slightest suggestion on the least 60% of its shares owned by Filipino - The petitioners also point out that the Contract of
duration of the visits. VFA does not provide for a specific shareholders"), PGMC claims that Berjaya Group Lease requires or authorizes PGMC to establish a
and limited period of effectivity. undertook to reduce its equity stakes in PGMC to telecommunications network that will connect all the
40%, by selling 35% out of the original 75% foreign municipalities and cities in the territory. However, PGMC
- POINT 2: The requirement that it be “recognized as a stockholdings to local investors. cannot do that because it has no franchise from
treaty by the other contracting state” is crystal clear and 3. Aug. 15, 1993, PGMC submitted its bid to PCSO. Congress to construct, install, establish, or operate the
was put there by the framers inorder not to repeat the The bids were evaluated by the Special Pre- network pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as
anomalous asymmetry of the 1947 Military bases Qualification Bids and Awards committee (SPBAC) amended.
agreement where we recognized it as a treaty but the for the on-line lottery and its Bid Report was - Moreover, PGMC is a 75% foreign-owned or controlled
US treated it as an executive agreement. thereafter submitted to the Office of the President. corporation and cannot, therefore, be granted a
- The VFA is equivalent to a sole executive agreement in (This was preceded by complaints from the franchise for that purpose because of Section 11, Article
the US. The Court will be standing on unstable ground if Committe's Chairperson, Dr. Mita Pardo de Tavera.) XII of the 1987 Constitution. Furthermore, since "the
it places a sole executive agreement like the VFA on the 4. Oct. 21, 1993, the Office of the President subscribed foreign capital" of the PGMC "comes to about
same constitutional plateau as a treaty, as there are still announced that it had given PGMC the go-signal to 75%, as shown by paragraph EIGHT of its Articles of
questions on the constitutional basis and legal effects of operate the countr's on-line lottery system. Incorporation," it cannot lawfully enter into the contract
sole executive agreements under the US law. Announcement was published in Manila Times, PDI, in question because all forms of gambling — and lottery
- “With the cloud of uncertainty still hanging on the and Manila Standard on Oct. 29. is one of them — are included in the so-called foreign
exact legal force of sole executive agreements under the 5. Nov. 4, 1993, KILOSBAYAN sent an open letter investments negative list under the Foreign Investments
US constitutional law, this Court must strike a blow for to President Ramos strongly opposing the setting up Act (R.A. No. 7042) where only up to 40% foreign capital
the sovereignty of our country by drawing a bright line of an on-line lotttery system on the basis of serious is allowed.
between the dignity and status of a treaty in contrast moral and ethical considerations. KILOSBAYAN - Finally, the petitioners insist that the Articles of
with a sole executive agreement. However we may wish reiterated its vigorous opposition to “lotto” at the Incorporation of PGMC do not authorize it to establish
it, The VFA as a sole executive agreement cannot climb meeting of the Committee on Games and and operate an on-line lottery and telecommunications
to the same lofty height that the dignity of a treaty can Amusements of the Senate on Nov. 12, 1993 systems.
reach. Consequently, it falls short of the requirement set 6. Nov. 19, 1993, the media announced that RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS
by Sec 25 Art XVIII of the 1987 Constitution that the despite the opposition, Malacanang will push - Private respondent PGMC asserts that "(1) [it] is merely
agreement allowing the presence of foreign military through with operation of lotto, that it is actually an independent contractor for a piece of work and (2) as
troops on Phil soil must be ‘recognized as a treaty by the PCSO which will operate the lottery while winning such independent contractor, PGMC is not a co-operator
other contracting state’. I vote to grant the petitions.” corporate bidders merely lessors. of the lottery franchise with PCSO, nor is PCSO sharing
7. Dec. 1, 1993, KILOSBAYAN requested copies of its franchise, 'in collaboration, association or joint
all documents pertaining to the lottery award from venture' with PGM.
KILOSBAYAN, INC. V GUINGONA, JR. Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr., who - Finally, it states that the execution and implementation
DAVIDE; May 5, 1994 informed KILOSBAYAN that the documents will be of the contract does not violate the Constitution and the
transmitted before the end of the month. However laws; that the issue on the "morality" of the lottery
FACTS on the same date, an agreement denominated as franchise granted to the PCSO is political and not judicial
Nature: Special civil action for prohibition and “Contract of Lease” was finally executed by PCSO or legal, which should be ventilated in another forum;
injunction, praying for a TRO and preliminary injunction, and PGMC. and that the "petitioners do not appear to have the legal
to prohibit and restrain implementation of "Contract of 8. Considering the denial by the Office of the standing or real interest in the subject contract and in
Lease" between PCSO and PGMC in connection with on- President of its protest and the statement of obtaining the reliefs sought."
line lottery system a.k.a. "lotto". Assistant Executive Secretary Renato Corona that - Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr., Assistant
1. Pursuant to Section 1 of its charter (RA 1169), "only a court injunction can stop Malacañang," and Executive Secretary Renato Corona, and the PCSO
the imminent implementation of the Contract of maintain that the contract of lease in question does not
PCSO decided to establish an online lottery system
Lease in February 1994, KILOSBAYAN, with its co- violate Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P.
for the purpose of increasing its revenue base and
petitioners, filed on 28 January 1994 this petition. Blg. 42, and that the petitioner's interpretation of the
diversifying its sources of funds. Sometime before
PETITIONERS' CLAIM phrase "in collaboration, association or joint venture" in
March 1993, after learning that PCSO was interested
- Petitioners claim that PCSO cannot validly enter into Section 1 is "much too narrow, strained and utterly
in operating an on-line lottery system, Berjaya
the assailed Contract of Lease with the PGMC because it devoid of logic" for it "ignores the reality that PCSO, as a
Group Berhad, a multinational company in
is an arrangement wherein the PCSO would hold and corporate entity, is vested with the basic and essential
prerogative to enter into all kinds of transactions or indespensible to the operation of the on-line lottery - PGMC is plainly a partner of PCSO in violation of the law
contracts as may be necessary for the attainment of its system, whereas PCSO only has its franchise to offer. no matter how the assistance is called or the contract
purposes and objectives." What the PCSO charter "seeks - By the exception explicitly made in paragraph B, denominated.
to prohibit is that arrangement akin to a "joint venture" Section 1 of its charter, the PCSO cannot share its
or partnership where there is "community of interest in franchise with another by way of collaboration, PADILLA [concurring]
the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual association or joint venture. Neither can it assign, - Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC is a joint
right of control," a characteristic which does not obtain transfer, or lease such franchise. venture because each part contributes its share in the
in a contract of lease." They further claim that the - It is a settled rule that "in all grants by the government enterprise project. PGMC contributes the facilities,
establishment of the telecommunications system to individuals or corporations of rights, privileges and technology and expertise, while PCSO contributes the
stipulated in the Contract of Lease does not require a franchises, the words are to be taken most strongly market through the dealers and in the totality the mass
congressional franchise because PGMC will not operate a against the grantee .... [o]ne who claims a franchise or of Filipino gambling elements. PGMC will get its 4.9% of
public utility privilege in derogation of the common rights of the gross receipts; the residue of the whole exercise will go
- They also argue that the contract does not violate the public must prove his title thereto by a grant which is to PCSO, this is a joint venture plain and simple.
Foreign Investment Act of 1991; that the Articles of clearly and definitely expressed, and he cannot enlarge
Incorporation of PGMC authorize it to enter into the it by equivocal or doubtful provisions or by probable
MELO [dissenting]
Contract of Lease; and that the issues of "wisdom, inferences. Whatever is not unequivocally granted is
- This case does not involve a challenge on the validity of
morality and propriety of acts of the executive withheld. Nothing passes by mere implication."
a statute nor an attempt to restrain expenditure of
department are beyond the ambit of judicial review." - Whether the contract in question is one of lease or
public funds. The contract involves strictly corporate
Finally, they allege that the petitioners have no whether the PGMC is merely an independent contractor
money.
standing to maintain the instant suit. should not be decided on the basis of the title or
- By considering this case as a taxpayer's suit could not
designation of the contract but by the intent of the
cure the lack of locus standi on the part of the
ISSUES parties, which may be gathered from the provisions of
petitioners. The contract does not involve an illegal
Procedural: WON the petitioners have locus standi. the contract itself. Animus hominis est anima scripti. The
disbursement of public funds. No public fund raised by
Substantive: WON the Contract of Lease is legal and intention of the party is the soul of the instrument.
taxation is involved.
valid in light of RA 1169 as amended by BP Blg. 42, - A careful analysis and evaluation of the provisions of
which prohibits PCSO from holding and conducting the contract and a consideration of the
lotteries "in collaboration, association, or joint venture contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and PGMC PUNO [dissenting]
with any person, association, company, or entity, indubitably disclose that the contract is not in reality a - Courts are neither free to decide all kinds of cases
whether domestic or foreign." contract of lease under which the PGMC is merely an dumped into their laps nor are they free to open their
independent contractor for a piece of work, but one doors to all parties or entities claiming a grievance.
HELD where the statutorily proscribed collaboration or - It is clear that the requirement of locus standi has not
1. The preliminary issue on the locus standi of the association, in the least, or joint venture, at the most, been jettisoned by the Constitution for it still commands
petitioners should, indeed, be resolved in their favor. A exists between the contracting parties. courts in no uncertain terms to settle only “actual
party's standing before this Court is a procedural (Collaboration is defined as the acts of working controversies involving rights which are legally
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its together in a joint project. Association means the act demandable and enforceable”/
discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the of a number of persons in uniting together for some - Rationale for the standard of locus standi is to assure a
issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases, special purpose or business. Joint venture is defined as vigorous adversary presentation of the case, and
this Court brushed aside this technicality because "the an association of persons or companies jointly perhaps more importantly to warrant the judiciary's
transcendental importance to the public of these cases undertaking some commercial enterprise; generally all overruling the determination of a coordinate,
demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, contribute assets and share risks. ) democratically elected organ of government.
brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.' - The contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and the PGMC
- The Court found the instant petition to be of reveal that the PCSO had neither funds of its own nor the KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. VS. MORATO
transcendental importance to the public. The expertise to operate and manage an on-line lottery MENDOZA; July 17, 1995
ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the system, and that although it wished to have the system,
social, economic, and moral well-being of the people it would have it "at no expense or risks to the FACTS
even in the remotest barangays of the country and the government." Because of these serious constraints and - As a result of our decision in G.R. No. 113375
counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the unwillingness to bear expenses and assume risks, the (Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as PCSO was candid enough to state in its RFP that it is (1994) invalidating the Contract of Lease between the
the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The legal seeking for "a suitable contractor which shall build, at its Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the
standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition own expense, all the facilities needed to operate and Philippine Gaming Management Corp. (PGMC) on the
and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court maintain" the system; exclusively bear "all capital, ground that it had been made in violation of the charter
hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the operating expenses and expansion expenses and risks." of the PCSO, the parties entered into negotiations for a
respondents tried to take advantage of new agreement that would be "consistent with the
2. Contract of Lease is void for being contrary to law. SEPARATE OPINION latter's [PCSO] charter . . . and conformable to this
PGMC is not only a Lessor, PCSO in the least will be Honorable Court's aforesaid Decision."
conducting lotteries “ in collaboration or association”
CRUZ [concurring] - On January 25, 1195 the parties signed an Equipment
and in the most “in joint vernture” with PGMC. The Lease Agreement (thereafter called ELA) whereby the
manegerial and technical expertise of PGMC are
PGMC leased on-line lottery equipment and accessories The natural and primary right and duty of the parents in of any law or official action (Philippine Constitution
to the PCSO in consideration of a rental equivalent to 4.3 the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the Association v Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 (1994))
% of the gross amount of ticket sale derived by the PCSO development of moral character shall receive the - There is an additional reason for a reexamination of the
from the operation of the lottery which in no case shall support of the Government. (§12) ruling on standing. The voting on petitioners' standing in
be less than an annual rental computed at P35,000.00 The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation the previous case was a narrow one, with seven (7)
per terminal in Commercial Operation. The rental is to be building and shall promote their physical, moral, members sustaining petitioners' standing and six (6)
computed and paid bi-weekly. In the event the bi-weekly spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall denying petitioners' right to bring the suit. The majority
rentals in any year fall short of the annual minimum inculcate in the youth patriotism and nacionalism, and was thus a tenuous one that is not likely to be
fixed rental thus computed, the PCSO agrees to pay the encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. maintained in any subsequent litigation. In addition,
deficiency out of the proceeds of its current ticket sales. The state shall give priority to education, science and there have been changes in the members of the Court,
(Pars. 1-2) technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism with the retirement of Justices Cruz and Bidin and the
Under the law, 30% of the net receipts from the sale of and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and appointment of the writer of this opinion and Justice
tickets is alloted to charity. (R.A. 1169, § (B) ) promote total human liberation and development. (§17) Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on
The term of the leases is eight (8) years, commencing (Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 7) the maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing.
from the start of commercial operation of the lottery Specific Reasoning
equipment first delivered to the lessee pursuant to the ISSUES 1. NO. The question whether the petitioners have
agreed schedule. (Par. 3) 1. Does Kilosbayan et. al. have standing to sue? standing to question the Equipment or ELA is a legal
- In the operation of the lottery, the PCSO is to employ 2. Does the decision in Kilosbayan v. Guingona question. As will presently be shown, the ELA, which the
its own personnel. (Par. 5) It is responsible for the loss constitute the “law of the case”, thus precluding petitioners seek to declare invalid in this proceeding, is
of, or damage to, the equipment from any cause and for respondents from assailing the legal standing of essentially different from the 1993 Contract of lease
the cost of their maintenance and repair. (Pars. 7-8) petitioners? entered into by the PCSO with the PGMC. Hence the
Upon the expiration of the leases, the PCSO has the 3. May the provisions under the Declaration of Principles determination in the prior case (G.R. No. 113375) that
option to purchase the equipment for the sum of P25 and State Policies be readily invoked by any person in the petitioner had standing to challenge the validity of
million. the absence of Congressional legislation (i.e., self- the 1993 Contract of Lease of the parties does not
- A copy of the ELA was submitted to the Court by the executing)? preclude determination of their standing in the present
PGMC in accordance with its manifestation in the prior suit.
case. On February 21, 1995 this suit was filed seeking to HELD - Not only is petitioners' standing a legal issue that may
declare the ELA invalid on the ground as the Contract of Ratio be determined again in this case. It is, strictly speaking,
Leases nullified in the first case. Petitioners seek the 1. A ruling in a previous case is binding only insofar as not even the issue in this case, SINCE STANDING IS A
declaration of the amended ELA as null and void. the specific issue in that case is concerned. Parties may CONCEPT IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HERE NO
- The PCSO and PGMC filed a separate comments in be the same but cases are not. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED. 14
which they question the petitioners' standing to bring 2. Provisions under the Declaration of Principles and The issue in this case is whether petitioners are the "real
suit. The Kilosbayan, In. is an organization described in States are not self-executing. parties in interest" within the meaning of Rule 3, §2 of
its petition as "composed of civic-spirited citizens, General Reasoning the Rules of Court which requires that "Every action may
pastors, priests, nuns and lay leaders who are - Neither the doctrine of stare decisis nor that of "law of be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real
committed to the cause of truth, justice, and national the case", nor that of conclusive of judgment poses a party in interest."
renewal." Its trustees are also suing in their individual barrier to a determination of petitioners' right to - Noting this distinction, petitioners have not shown that
and collective capacities as "taxpayers and concerned maintain this suit. they are the real party in interest. They have not
citizens." The other petitioners (Sen. Freddie Webb, Sen. - Stare decisis is usually the wise policy. But in this case, demonstrated that the Contract entered into by the
Wigberto Tañada and Rep. Joker P. Arroyo) are members concern for stability in decisional law does not call for PCSO would directly injure or affect their rights.
of the Congress suing as such and as "taxpayer and adherence to what has recently been laid down as the
concerned citizens." rule. The previous ruling sustaining petitioners' 2. NO. Petitioners argue that inquiry into their right to
- Respondents question the right of petitioners to bring intervention may itself be considered a departure from bring this suit is barred by the doctrine of "law of the
this suit on the ground that, not being parties to the settled rulings on "real parties in interest" because no case." We do not think this doctrine is applicable
contract of lease which they seek to nullify, they have no constitutional issues were actually involved. Just five considering the fact that while this case is a sequel to
personal and substantial interest likely to be injured by years before that ruling this Court had denied standing G.R. No. 113375, it is not its continuation: The doctrine
the enforcement of the contract. Petitioners on the other to a party who, in questioning the validity of another applies only when a case is before a court a second time
hand contend that the ruling in the previous case form of lottery, claimed the right to sue in the capacity after a ruling by an appellate court.
sustaining their standing to challenge the validity of the of taxpayer, citizen and member of the Bar. (Valmonte v. - The law of the case, as applied to a former decision of
first contract for the operation of lottery is now the "law Philippine Charity Sweepstakes, G.R. No. 78716, Sept . an appellate court, ,merely expresses the practice of the
of the case". and therefore the question of their standing 22, 1987) Only recently this Court held that members of courts in refusing to reopen what has been decided. It
can no longer be reopened. Congress have standing to question the validity of differs from res judicata in that the conclusive of the first
- Petitioners likewise invoke the following Principles and presidential veto on the ground that, if it true, the
State Policies set forth in Art. II of the Constitution: illegality of the veto would impair their prerogative as 14
COMMENT OF BRYAN_SJ: The logic of the Court in this case now
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of members of Congress. Conversely if the complaint is not becomes clearer: The concept of legal standing is a constitutional
life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the grounded on the impairment of the powers of Congress, law concept which is INAPPLICABLE IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE
NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED. In cases where no
general welfare are essential for the employment by all legislators do not have stnding the question the validity constitutional issues are raised the governing principle should be
the people of the blessings of democracy. (§5)] the concept of “real party in interest” in the Rules of Court.
judgment is not dependent upon its finality. The first 3. NO. These are not, however, self executing provisions, from a lower court which is first resolved by an appellate
judgment is generally, if not universally, not final, It the disregard which can give rise to a cause of action in court, that case being then remanded to the court of
relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its the courts. origin for further proceedings and with the prior
questions of law, and is confined in its operation to - They do not embody judicially enforceable resolution by the higher court of that issue being the
subsequent proceedings in the same case . . . ." constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation. Thus, "law of the case" in any other proceeding in or a
(Municipality of Daet v. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 503, while constitutional policies are invoked, this case subsequent appeal from the same case. It is insinuated
521 (1979) ) involves basically questions of contract law. More that said doctrine exists only under such a scenario.
- It follows that since the present case is not the same specifically, the question is whether petitioners have - It may be conceded that, in the context of the cited
one litigated by he parties before in G.R. No. 113375, legal right which has been violated. cases wherein this doctrine was applied, two "appeals"
the ruling there cannot in any sense be regarded as "the are generally involved and the issue resolved in the first
law of this case." The parties are the same but the cases SEPARATE OPINION appeal cannot be reexamined in the second appeal. If
are not. so, then what is necessarily challenged in the first
- Nor is inquiry into petitioners; right to maintain this suit recourse to the higher court is either an interlocutory
FELICIANO [dissent]
foreclosed by the related doctrine of "conclusiveness of order of the court a quo elevated on an original action
- I find myself regretfully quite unable to join the
judgment." According to the doctrine, an issue actually for certiorari or an appealable adjudication which
majority opinion written by my distinguished brother in
and directly passed upon the and determined in a former nonetheless did not dispose of the entire case below
the Court, Mendoza, J.
suit cannot again be drawn in question in any future because it was either a special proceeding or an action
- I join the penetrating dissenting opinions written by my
action between the same parties involving a different of admitting of multiple appeals.
esteemed brothers Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ. In
action. (Peñalosa v. Tuason , 22 Phil. 303, 313 (1912); - That is the present reglementary situation in the
respect of the matter of locus standi, I would also
Heirs of Roxas v. Galido, 108. 582 (1960)) Philippines which, unfortunately, does not appear to
reiterate the concurring opinion I wrote on that subject
- It has been held that the rule on conclusiveness of have been taken into account when the double-appeal
in the first Kilosbayan case.1 All the factors which, to my
judgment or preclusion of issues or collateral estoppel procedure involved in one particular American concept
mind, pressed for recognition of locus standi on the part
does not apply to issues of law, at least when was cited as authority in the majority opinion. No
of petitioners in the first Kilosbayan case, still exist and
substantially unrelated claims are involved. (Montana v. attempt was made to ascertain whether in the American
demand, with equal weight and insistence, such
United States, 440 U.S. 147, 162, 59 L. Ed. 2d 210 , 222 cases cited the lex fori provided for identical or even
recognition in the present or second Kilosbayan case, I
(1979); BATOR, MELTZER, MISHKIN AND SHAPIRO, THE substantial counterparts of our procedural remedies of
fear that the Court may well have occasion in the future
FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 1058, n. 2 review by a higher court on either an appeal by certiorari
profoundly to regret the doctrinal ball and chain that we
(3rd Ed., 1988)) Following this ruling it was held in or writ of error, or through an original action of certiorari,
have today clamped on our own limbs.
Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 92 L. Ed. 898 prohibition or mandamus. Yet on such unverified
(1947) that where a taxpayer assigned to his wife premises, and without a showing that the situations are
interest in a patent in 1928 and in a suit it was PADILLA [concur] in pari materia, we are told that since the case at bar
determined that the money paid to his wife for the years - I join the majority in voting for the dismissal of the does not posses the formatted sequence of an initiatory
1929-1931 under the 1928 assignment was not part of petition in this case. It is the duty of the Supreme Court action in a lower court, an appeal to a higher court, a
his taxable income, this determination is not preclusive to apply the laws enacted by Congress and approved by remand to the lower court, and then a second appeal to
in a second action for collection of taxes on amounts to the President, (unless they are violative of the the higher court, the "law of the case" doctrine cannot
his wife under another deed of assignment for other Constitution) even if such laws run counter to a apply. I have perforce to reject that submission as I
years (1937 to 1941). For income tax purposes what is Member's personal conviction that gambling should be cannot indulge in the luxury of absolute espoused by this
decided with respect to one contract is not conclusive as totally prohibited by law. majority view.
to any other contract which was not then in issue, - In my separate concurring opinion in the first lotto case - I fear that this majority rule, has unduly constricted the
however similar or identical it may be. The rule on (G.R. No. 113375), expressed the view that the rule on factual and procedural situations where such doctrine
collateral estoppel. it was held, "must be confined to locus standi, being merely a procedural rule, should be may apply, through its undue insistence on the remedial
situations where the matter raised in the second suit is relaxed, as the issue then was of paramount national procedure involved in the proceedings rather than the
identical in all respects with that decided in the first interest and importance, namely, the legality of a lease juridical effect of the pronouncement of the higher court.
preceding and where the controlling facts and applicable contract into by PCSO with PGMC whereby the former Even in American law, the "law of the case" doctrine was
legal rules remain unchanged." (333 U.S. at 599-600, 92 sought an "on-line high-tech" lottery, undeniably a form essentially designed to express the practice of courts
L. Ed. at 907) Consequently, "if the relevant facts in the of gambling, the terms of which clearly pointed to an generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided 5
two cases are separate even though they may be similar "association, collaboration or joint venture" with PGMC. and, thereby, to emphasize the rule that the final
or identical, collateral estoppel does not govern the legal judgment of the highest court is a final determination of
issues which occur in the second case. Thus the second REGALADO [dissent] the rights of the parties. 6 That is the actual and basic
proceeding may involve an instrument or transaction - Be that as it may, since the majority opinion has now role that it was conceived to play in judicial
identical with but in a form separable form, the one dealt evolved other adjective theories which are represented determinations, just like the rationale for the doctrines of
with in the first proceeding. In that situation a court is to be either different from or ramifications of the original res judicata and conclusiveness of judgment.
free in the second proceeding to make an independent "standing to sue" objection raised in the first lotto case. I - Accordingly, the "law of the case" may also arise from
examination of the legal matters at issue. . . ." (333 U.S. will hazard my own humble observations thereon. an original holding of a higher court on a writ of
at 601, 92 L. Ed. at 908) 1. There is, initially, the salvo against the adoption of the certiorari, 7 and is binding not only in subsequent
"law of the case" doctrine in the original majority appeals or proceedings in the same case, but also in a
ponencia. It is contended that this doctrine requires, for subsequent suit between the same parties. 8 What I wish
its applicability, an issue involved in a case originating to underscore is that where, as in the instant case, the
holding of this highest Court on a specific issue was interest and yet not be the sole real party in interest." 9 the public as a judicious policy. This would be similar to
handed down in an original action for certiorari, it has (Emphasis supplied.) the situation where a judgment promulgated by the
the same binding effect as it would have had if The majority opinion quotes the view of a foreign author Court is held up by a motion for reconsideration and
promulgated in a case on appeal, Furthermore, since in but unfortunately fails to put the proper emphasis on the which motion, just because the present Rules do not
our jurisdiction an original action for certiorari to control portion thereof which I believe should be that which provide a time limit for the resolution thereof, stays
and set aside a grave abuse of official discretion can be should correctly be stressed, and which I unresolved until the appointment of members
commenced in the Supreme Court itself, it would be correspondingly reproduce: sympathetic thereto. Thus, the unkind criticisms of
absurd that for its ruling therein to constitute the law of It is important to note. . . that standing because of its "magistrate shopping" or "court packing" levelled by
the case, there must first be a remand to a lower court constitutional and public policy underspinnings, is very disgruntled litigants is not unknown to this Court.
which naturally could not be the court of origin from different from questions relating to whether a particular - I hold the view that the matter of the right of
which the postulated second appeal should be taken. plaintiff is the real party in interest or has the capacity to petitioners to file and maintain this action - whether the
sue. Although all three requirements are directed objection thereto is premised on lack of locus standi or
2. Obviously realizing that continued reliance on the towards ensuring that only certain parties can maintain right of action - has already been foreclosed by our
locus standi bar to petitioner's suit is not an ironclad an action, standing restrictions require a partial judgment in the first lotto case, G.R. No. 113375. If the
guaranty against it, the majority position has taken a consideration of the merits, as well as of broader policy majority refuses to recognize such right under the "law
different tack. It now invoked the concept of and the concerns relating to the proper role of the judiciary in of the case" principle, I see no reason why that particular
rules on a right of action in ordinary civil actions and, certain areas. 10 Indeed, if the majority would have its issue can still be ventilated now as a survivor of the
prescinding from its previous positions, insists that what way in this case, there would be no available judicial doctrinal effects of res judicata. 11
is supposedly determinative of the issue of remedy against irregularities or excesses in government It is undeniable that in that case and the one at bar.
representation is contract law and not constitutional law. contracts for lack of a party with legal standing or there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of
On the predicate that petitioners are not parties to the capacity to sue. This legal dilemma or vacuum is action. Evidently, the judgment in G.R. No. 113375 was
contract, primarily or subsidiarily, they then are real supposedly remediable under a suggestions submitted in rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was an
parties in interest, and for lack of cause of action on the majority opinion, to wit: adjudication on the merits, and has long become final
their part they have no right of action. Ergo, they, cannot Denial to petitioners of the right to intervene will not and executory. There is, to be sure, an attempt to show
maintain the present petition. leave without remedy any perceived illegality in the that the subject matter in the first action is different
As a matter of a conventional rule of procedure, the execution of government contracts. Questions as to the from that in the instant case, since the former was the
syllogism of the majority can claim the merit of logic but, nature or validity of public contracts or the necessity for original contract and the latter is the supposed
even so, only on assumed premises. More importantly, a public bidding before they may be made can be raised expanded contract. I am not persuaded by the proffered
however, the blemish in its new blueprint is that the in an appropriate complaint before the Commission on distinction.
defense of lack of a right of action is effectively the Audit or before the Ombudsman. . . In addition, the The removal and replacement of some objectionable
same as lack of locus standi, that is, the absence of the Solicitor General is authorized to bring an action for quo terms of a contract, which nevertheless continues to
remedial right to sue. As the commentators of Castille warranto if it should be thought that a government operate under the same basis, with on the property, fore
would say, the objection under the new terminology is corporation . . . has offended against its corporate the same purpose, and the same contracting parties
"lo mismo perro con distinto collar." That re-christened charter or misused its franchise. . . does not suffice to extinguish the identity of the subject
ground, as we shall later see, has already been - The majority has apparently forgotten its own matter in both cases,. This would be to exalt form over
foreclosed by the judgment of the Court in the first lotto argument that in the present case petitioners are not the substance. Furthermore, respondents themselves
case. real parties, hence they cannot avail of any remedial admitted that the new contract is actually the same as
It is true that a right of action is the right or standing to right to file a complaint or suit. It is, therefore, highly the original one, with just some variants in the terms of
enforce a cause of action. For its purposes, the majority improbable that the Commission on Audit would deign to the latter to eliminate those which were objected to. The
urges the adoption of the standard concept of a real deal with those whom the majority says are strangers to contrary assumption now being floated by respondents
party in interest based on his possession of a cause of the contract. Again, should this Court now sustain the would create chaos in our remedial and contractual laws,
action. It could not have failed to perceive, but assailed contract, of what avail would be the suggested open the door to fraud, and subvert the rules on the
nonetheless refuses to concede, that the concept of a recourse to the Ombudsman? Finally, it is a perplexing finality of judgments.
cause of action in public interest cases should not be suggestion that petitioners ask the Solicitor General to - Yet, even assuming purely ex hypothesi that the
straitjacketed within its usual narrow confines in private bring a quo warranto suit, either in propria persona or ex amended terms in the expanded lease agreement
interest litigations. relatione, not only because one has to contend with that created a discrete set of litigable violations of the
Thus, adverting again to American jurisprudence, there official's own views or personal interests but because he statutory charter of the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes
is the caveat that "the adoption of provision requiring is himself the counsel for respondents in this case. Any Office, thereby collectively resulting in a disparate
that an action be prosecuted in the name of the real proposed remedy must take into account not only the actionable wrong or delict, that would merely constitute
party in interest does not solve all questions as to the legalities in the case but also the realities of life. at most a difference in the causes of action in the former
proper person or persons to institute suit, although it and the present cases. Under Section 49(c). Rule 39 of
obviously simplifies procedures in actions at law. . . 3. The majority believes that in view of the retirement the Rules of Court, we would still have a situation of
There is no clearly defined rule by which one may and replacement of two members of the Court, it is time collateral estoppel, better known in this jurisdiction as
determine who is or is not real party in interest, nor has to reexamine the ruling in the first lotto case. A previous conclusiveness of judgment. Hence, all relevant issues
there been found any concise definition of the term. Who judgment of the Court may, of course, be revisited but if finally adjudged in the prior judgment shall be conclusive
is the real party in interest depends on the peculiar facts the ostensible basis is the change of membership and between the parties in the case now before us and that
of each separate case, and one may be a party in known positions of the new members anent an issue definitely includes at the very least the adjudgment
pending in a case in the Court, it may not sit well with
therein that petitioners have the locus standi or the right DAVIDE [dissent] hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the
to sue respondents on the contracts concerned. - I register a dissenting vote. respondents tried to take advantage of.
In their case - whether of res judicata, on which I insist, - I am disturbed by the sudden reversal of our rulings in - In this concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Florentino P.
or of conclusiveness of judgment, which I assume Kilosbayan, Inc., et al. vs. Guingona, et al. 1 referred to Feliciano further showed substantive grounds or
arguendo - what is now being primarily resisted is the as the first lotto case) regarding the application or considerations of importance which strengthened the
right of petitioners to sue, aside from the postulated interpretation of the exception clause in paragraph B, legal standing of the petitioners to bring and maintain
invalidity of the contract for the government-sponsored Section 1 of the Charter of the PCSO (R.A. No. 1169), as the action, namely: (a) the public character of the funds
lottery system. It does seem odd, if not arcane, that amended by B.P. Blg. 442, and on the issue of locus or other assets involved in the contract of lease; (b) the
petitioners were held to have the requisite locos standi standi of the petitioners to question the contract of lease presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional
or right of action on said G.R. No. 113375 and, for that involving the on-line lottery system entered into or legal provision by the public respondent agency; (c)
matter, were likewise so recognized in the expanded between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office the lack of any other party with a more direct and
value added tax (EVAT) case, 12 but are now (PCSO) and the Philippine Gaming Management specified interest in raising the questions involved
mysteriously divested of the "place of standing" Corporation (PGMC). Such reversal upsets the salutary therein; and (d) the wide range of impact of the contract
allegedly due to, for legal purposes, a compelling need doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, and stare of lease and of its implementation.
for reexamination of the doctrine, and, for economic decisis. It puts to jeopardy the faith and confidence of Only last 6 April 1995, in the decision in Tatad vs.
reasons, an obsession for autarky of the nation. the people, specially the lawyers and litigants, in the Garcia, 3 this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Camilo
certainly and stability of the pronouncements of this D. Quiason who had joined in the dissenting opinions in
4. I repeat what I said at the outset that this case should Court. It opens the floodgates to endless litigations for the first lotto case the petitioners, locus standi therein,
be decided on the merits and on substantive re-examination of such pronouncements and weakens invoked and applied the ruling on locus standi in the first
considerations, not on dubious technicalities intended to this Court's judicial and moral authority to demand from lotto case. He stated:
prevent on inquiry into the validity of the supposed lower courts obedience thereto and to impse sanctions The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow
amended lease contract. The people are entitled to the for their opposite conduct. taxpayers to question contracts entered into by the
benefit of a duly clarified and translucent transaction, - It must be noted that the decision in the first lotto case national government or government-owned or controlled
just as respondent deserve the opportunity, and should was unconditionally accepted by the PCSO and the corporations allegedly in contravention of the law
even by themselves primarily seek, to be cleaned of any PGMC, as can be gleaned from their separate (Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 [1994] and
suspicions or lingering doubts arising from the fact that manifestations that they would not ask for its to disallow the same when only municipal contracts are
the sponsors for jail alai and, now, of lotto are different. reconsideration but would, instead, negotiate a new involved (Bugnay Construction and Development
- On the merits, to obviate unnecessary replication I equipment lease agreement consistent with the decision Corporation v. Laron, 176 SCRA 240 [1989].
reiterate my concurrence with the findings and and the PCSO's charter and that they would furnish the For as long as the ruling in Kilosbayan on locus standi is
conclusions of Mr. Justice Davide in this dissenting Court a copy of the new agreement. The decision has, not reversed, we have no choice but to follow it and
opinion, the presentation whereof is completely devoid thus, become final on 23 May 1994. 2 uphold the legal standing of petitioners as taxpayers to
of strained or speculative premises, and moreover has - As the writer of the said decision and as the author of institute the present action.
the virtue of being based on his first-hand knowledge as the exception to paragraph B, Section 1 of R.A. No. - Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, who had also
a legislator of the very provisions of the law now in 1169, as amended, I cannot accept the strained and dissented in the first lotto case on the issue of locus
dispute. In this instance and absent any other operative tenuous arguments adduced in the majority opinion it standi; unqualifiedly concurred with the majority opinion
data. I find the same to be an amply sufficient and highly justly the reversal of our rulings in the first lotto case. in Tatad. Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, the writer of
meritorious analysis of the controversy on the contract. While there are exceptions to the aforementioned the ponencia in this case, also invoked the locus standi
- One concluding point. I am not impressed by their doctrines and I am not inexorably opposed to upsetting ruling in the first lotto case to deny legal standing to
stance of the majority that our taking cognizance of this prior decisions if warranted by overwhelming Tatad, et al. He said:
case and resolving it on the merits will hereafter invite considerations of justice and irresistible desire to rectify - Nor do petitioners have standing to bring this suit as
others to unduly overburden this Court with avoidable an error, none of such considerations and nothing of citizens. In the cases in which citizens were authorized to
importunities. This sounds like a tongue-in-riposte since substance or weight can bring this case within any of the sue, this Court found standing because it though the
the Court has clearly indicated that it sets aside exceptions. constitutional claims pressed for decision to be of
objections grounded on judge-made constitutional - In the said case, we sustained the locus standi of the "transcendental importance," as in fact it subsequently
theories only under cogent reasons of substantial justice petitioners, and in no uncertain terms declared: granted relief to petitioners by invalidating the
and paramount public interest. We find the instant petition to be of transcendental challenged statutes or governmental actions. Thus in the
On the contrary, to pay unqualified obedience to the importance to the public. The issues it raised are of Lotto case [Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
beguiling locos standi or right of action doctrines posited paramount public interest and of a category even higher (1994)] relief by the majority for upholding petitioner's
by the majority in this case would only not be an than those involved in many of the aforecited cases. The standing, this Court took into account the "paramount
abdication of a clear judicial duty. It could conceivably ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the public interest" involved which "immeasurably affect[ed]
result in depriving the people of recourse to us from social, economic, and moral well-being of the people the social, economic, and moral well-being of the
dubious government contracts through constitutionally even in the remotest barangays of the country and the people . . . and the counter-productive and retrogressive
outdated or procedurally insipid theories for such counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system."
stultification. This is a contingency which is not only envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as Accordingly, the Court invalidated the contract for the
possible, but probable under our oligarchic society in the billions of pesos it is expected to raise. The legal operation of the lottery.
esse; and not only undesirable, but repugnant within a standing than of the petitioners deserves recognition - Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa and Associate Justice
just regime of law still in posse. and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court Abdulwahid A Bidin, Jose A.R. Melo, Reynato S. Puno,
Jose C. Vitug, and Ricardo J. Francisco, joined him in his
concurring opinion. Except for the Chief Justice who took association, company or entity. And, the contract in successors in interest by title subsequent to the
part in the first lotto case and Justice Francisco who was question is not different from or unrelated to the first commencement of the action or special proceedings,
not yet a member of this Court at the time, the rest of nullified contract, for it in nothing but a substitute for the litigating for the same thing in the same title and in the
the Justice who joined the concurring opinion of Justice latter. Respondent Morato was even candid enough to same capacity.
Mendoza had dissented in the lotto case on the said admit that no new and separate public bidding was This doctrine has dual aspects: (1) as a bar to the
issue. conducted for the ELA in question because the PCSO was prosecution of a second action upon the same claim,
- Under the principle of either the law of the case of res of the belief that the public bidding for the nullified demand, or cause of action; and (2) as preclusion to the
judicata, the PCSO and the PGMC are bound by the contract was sufficient. relitigation of particular facts of issues in action between
ruling in the first lotto case on the locus standi of the Its reliance on the ruling in Montana vs. United States 8 the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.
petitioners and the application or interpretation of the that preclusion or collateral estoppel does not apply to 11 Public policy, judicial orderliness, economy of judicial
exception clause in paragraph B, Section 1 of R.A. No. issues of law, at least when substantially unrelated time, and the interest of litigants as well as the peace
1169, as amended. Moreover, that application or claims are involved, is misplaced. For one thing, the and order of society, all require that stability should be
interpretation has been laid to rest under the doctrine of question of the petitioners' legal standing in the first accorded judgments: that controversies once decided on
stare decisis and has also become part of our legal lotto case and in this case is one and the same issue of their merits shall remain in repose; that inconsistent
system pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code which law. For another, these cases involve the same and not judicial decisions shall not be made on the same set of
provides: 'Judicial decisions applying interpreting the substantially unrelated subject matter, viz., the second facts; and that there be an end to litigation which,
laws or the constitution shall from part of the system of contract between the PCSO and the PGMC on the without the said doctrine, would be endless. It not only
the Philippines." operation of the on-line lottery system. puts an end to strife, but recognizes that certainty in
- These doctrines were not adopted whimsically or The majority opinion likewise failed to consider that in legal relations must be maintained. It produces certainty
capriciously. They are based on public policy and other the very authority it cited regarding the exception to the as to individual rights and gives and respect to judicial
considerations of great importance and should not be rule of issue preclusion (Testament of the Law, 2d proceedings. 12 The justifications given in the majority
discarded or jettisoned in a cavalier fashion. Yet, they Judgments $ 28), the second illustration stated therein is opinion to underrate the ruling locus standi and to
are now put to naught in this case. subject to this NOTE: "The doctrine of the stare decisis ultimately discard it are unconvincing. It is not at all
- The principle of the law of the case "is necessary as a may lead the court to refuse to reconsider the question true, as the majority opinion contends, that "[t]he
matter of policy to end litigation. There would be no end of sovereign immunity," which simply means that stare previous sustaining petitioners intervention may in fact
to a suit if every obstinate litigant could, by repeated decisis is an effective bar to a re-examination of a prior be considered a departure from settled ruling on real
appeals, compel a court to listen to criticism on their judgment. party in interest because no constitutional issues were
opinions, or speculate on chances from changes in its The doctrine of stare decisis embodies the legal maxim actually involved."
members." 7 that a principle or rule of law which has been established It must be pointed out that the rule in ordinary civil
- It is, however, contended that the law of the case is by the decision of a court of controlling jurisdiction will procedure on real party in interest was never put in
inapplicable that doctrine applies only when a case is be followed in other cases involving a similar situation. It issue in the previous case. It was the clear
before an appellate court a second time after its remand is founded on the necessity for securing certainty and understanding of the Members of the Court that in the
to a lower court. While indeed the statement may be stability in the law and does not require identity or light of the issues raised and the arguments adduced
correct, it disregards the fact that the case is nothing but privity of parties. 9 This is explicitly fleshed out in Article therein, only locus standi deserved consideration.
a sequel to and is, therefore, for all intents and 8 of the Civil Code which provides that decisions Accordingly, the majority opinion and the separate
purposes, a continuation of the first lotto case. By their applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall dissenting opinions therein dwelt lengthily on locus
conduct, the parties admitted that it is, for which reason form part of the legal system. Such decisions "assume standi and brought in the process a vast array of
the PGMC and the PCSO submitted in the first lotto case the same authority as the statute itself and, until authorities on the issue. Moreover, as explicitly stressed
a copy of the ELA in question, and the petitioners authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the in the concurring opinion of Justice Feliciano, both
commenced the instant petition also in the said case. extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must constitutional and legal issues were involved therein.
Our resolution that the validity of the ELA could not be control the actuations not only of those called upon to Finally, as shall hereafter be discussed, in public law the
decided in the said case because the decision therein aside thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce rule of real party in interest is subordinate to the
had became final does not detract from the fact that this obedience thereto."10 Abandonment thereof must be doctrine of locus standi.
case is but a continuation of the first lotto case or a new based only on strong and compelling reasons - which I - Equally unconvincing is the majority opinion's
chapter in the raping controversy between the do not find in this case - otherwise, the becoming virtue contention that the ruling locus standi in the first lotto
petitioners, on the one hand, and the PCSO and the of predictabiity which is expected from this Court would case may not be preserved because the majority vote
PGMC, on the other, on the operation of the on-line be immeasurably affected and the public's confidence in sustaining the petitioners' standing was a "tenuous one"
lottery system. the stability of its solemn pronouncements diminished. that may not be maintained in a subsequent litigation,
Equally unacceptable is the majority opinion's rejection The doctrine of res judicata also bars a relitigation of the and that there had been changes in the membership of
of the related doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment of issue of locus standi and a re-examination of the the Court due to the retirement of Justices Isagani A.
the ground that the question of standing is a question, application or interpretation of the exception clause in Cruz and Abdulwahid A. Bidin and the appointment of
as this case involves a different or unrelated contract. paragraph B, Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended. Justices Vicente V. Mendoza and Ricardo J. Francisco. It
The legal question of locus standi which was resolved in Section 49 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on effects of has forgotten that, as earlier stated, the ruling was
favor of the petitioners in the first lotto case is the same judgment expressly provides: reiterated in Tatad vs. Garcia. Additionally, when in his
in this case and in every subsequent case which would (b)In all other cases the judgment or order is, with concurring opinion in the Tatad case, Justice Mendoza
involve contracts relating or incidental to the contract or respect to the matter cases the judgment or order is, denied locus standi to Tatad, et al., because their case
holding of lotteries by the PCSO in collaboration, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to did not have the same importance as the lotto case, he
association; or joint venture with any person, other matter that could have been parties and their thereby accepted the concession of standing to the
petitioners in the lotto case. I wish to stress the fact that materials, (2) eliminating the 48% ad valorem tax on - Instant petition relies on the ruling that investor has no
all the Justices who had dissented in the first lotto case naphtha if and when it is used as raw materials for the right of final choice.
on the issue of locus standi were either for the majority petrochemical plant.
opinion or for the concurring opinion in the Tatad case. - In February 1989, A.T. Chong, Chairman of USI Far East ISSUES
Hence, I can say that the Tatad case has given vigor and Corporation, the major investor in BPC expressed to DTI 1. WON the petrochemical plant should remain in Bataan
strength to the "tenuous" majority in the first lotto case. Secretary his desire to amend the original registration or should be transferred to Batangas
The majority opinion declares that the real issue in this certification of its project by changing the job site from 2. WON its feedstock originally of naphtha only should be
case is not whether the petitioners have locus standi but Bataan to Batangas because of the insurgency and changed to naphtha and/or LPG the approved amended
whether they are the real parties-in-interest. This unstable labor situation in Bataan and the presence in application of the BPC, now Luzon Petrochemical
proposition is a bold move to set up a bar to taxpayer's Batangas of a huge LPG depot owned by Philippine Shell Corporation (LPC)
suits or cases invested with public interest by requiring Corporation. Other requested amendments are as 3. WON the categorical admission of the BOI that it is the
strict compliance with the rule on real party in interest in follows: (1) increasing the investment amount from $220 investor who has the final choice of the site and the
ordinary civil actions, thereby effectively subordinating million to $320 million; (2) increasing the production decision on the feedstock constitutes a grave abuse of
to that rule the doctrine of locus standi. I am not capacity of its naphtha cracker, polythylene plant and discretion for the BOI to yield to the wishes of the
prepared to be a party to that proposition. polypropylene plant; (3) changing the feedstock from investor, national interest notwithstanding
- The downgrading of locus standi and its subordination naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG.
to the restrictive rule on real party in interest cannot be - On May 25, 1989, BOI approved the revision stating HELD
justified by the claim that is involved here is contract that, The BOI recognizes and respects the principle that 1. On Justiciablity: There is an actual controversy. The
law, not constitutional law. True, contract law is the final choice is still with the proponent who would in Court has constitutional duty to step into this
involved. We are not, however, dealing here with an the final analysis provide the funding or risk capital for controversy to determine the paramount issue.
ordinary contract between private parties, but a contract the project. 2. The decision to transfer to Batangas and to shift the
between a corporation wholly owned by the government - In the petition entitled “Congressman Enrique T. Garcia use of feedstock is unjustified.
- hence, an instrumentality of the government - and a v. The Board of Investments”, this court ordered BOI as - The Bataan site is ideal, the result of careful study.
private corporation for the contract of the lotto, which is follows: (1) to publish the amended application for - The respondents have not shown nor reiterated that
invested with paramount and transcendental public registration of the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation, (2) the alleged peace and order situation in Bataan or
interest and other public policy considerations because to allow the petitioner to have access to its records on unstable labor situation warrant a transfer to the plant
the lotto has counter - productive and retrogressive the original and amended applications for registration, site in Batangas.
effects which are as staggering as the billions of pesos it as a petrochemical manufacturer, of the respondent - The Bataan Refining Corporation, a government owned
is expected to raise and provokes issues that Bataan Petrochemical Corporation, excluding, however, Filipino corporation, can provide the feedstock
immeasurably affect the social, economic, and moral privileged papers containing its trade secrets and other requirement of the plant in Bataan, whereas the country
well-being of the people. We said so in the first lotto business and financial information, (3) to set for hearing is short of LPG and there is a need to import for the use
case. the petitioner’s opposition to the amended application in of the plant in Batangas. Transfer will divert scarce
order that he may present at such hearing all the dollars unnecessarily.
GARCIA V BOARD OF INVESTMENTS evidence in his possession in support of his opposition to - R.A. 6767 exempted naphtha as feedstock from ad
the transfer of the site of the BPC petrochemical plant to valorem tax but excluded LPG from the exemption. This
GUTIERREZ; November 9, 1990
Batangas. law was specifically for the petrochemical industry.
FACTS
- Garcia filed motion for reconsideration asking the Court Neither BOI nor a foreign investor should disregard or
- A petition to annul and set aside the decision of the
to rule on whether or not the investor given the initial contravene expressed policy by shifting the feedstock
Board of Investments (BOI)/ Department of Trade and
inducements and other circumstances surrounding its from naphtha to LPG.
Industry approving the transfer of site of the proposed
first choice of plant site may change simply because it - Capital requirements would be greatly minimized if LPC
petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and the
has the final choice on the matter. The Court merely does not have to buy the land for the project and its
shift of feedstock for that plant from naphtha only to
ruled that the petitioner appears to have lost interest in feedstock shall be limited to naphtha.
naphtha and/or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
the case by his failure to appear in the hearing that was - With the plant site in Bataan, the PNOC shall be a
- P.D. No. 1803 reserved 576 hectares of public domain
set by BOI. partner, thus giving the government participation in the
in Lamao, Libay, Bataan for the Petrochemical Industrial
- A motion for reconsideration of said resolution was management of the project instead of a firm which is a
Zone under the administration, management and
filed, asking that the Court resolve whether or not the huge multinational corporation.
ownership of the Philippine National Oil Company
foreign investor has the right of final choice of plant site; 3. BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in
(PNOC).
that the non-attendance of the petitioner at the hearing approving the transfer of the petrochemical plant from
- Taiwanese investors in a petrochemical project formed
was because the decision was not yet final and Bataan to Batangas and authorizing the change of
the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC) and applied
executory, and therefore petitioner has not waived his feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG for
with BOI for registration as a new domestic producer of
right. Court resolution stated that BOI, not the investor the main reason that the final say is in the investor all
petrochemicals. It specified Bataan as plant site, and one
has final choice on the matter and that even a choice other circumstances to the contrary not withstanding.
of the terms and conditions for registration was the use
approved by BOI may not be ‘final’ for supervening - The government has already granted incentives for this
of naphtha cracker and naphtha as feedstock for fuel for
circumstances and changes in the conditions of a place particular venture. Through the BOI decision, it
its plant, which was to be a joint venture with PNOC. BPC
may dictate a corresponding change in the choice of surrenders even the power to make a company abide by
was issued a certificate of registration on Feb. 24, 1988.
plant site in order that the project will not fail. However, its initial choice, a choice free from any suspicion of
- BPC was given pioneer status ands accorded fiscal and
petition was denied. unscrupulous machinations and a choice which is
other incentives, like, (1) exemption from taxes on raw
undoubtedly in the best interests of the Filipino people.
- This is a repudiation of the independent policy of the - H No. 11197 was considered on second rdg and was 3. The Rules of the two chambers were disregarded in
government expressed in numerous laws (i.e. Art. 2, approved by House of Reps after third and final rdg. preparation of BCC Report because Report didn’t
1987 Omnibus Investments Code) and the Constitution - It was sent to Senate and was referred to the Senate contain “detailed and explicit statement of changes”
(Sec. 1 and 10, Art. XII; Sec. 19, Art. II) to run its own Committee on Ways and Means. The Committee 4. It is required that the Committee’s report undergo
affairs the way it deems best for the national interest. submitted report recommending approval of S No 1630, three rdgs in the two houses.
Disposition: Petition granted. Decision set aside as submitted in substitution of S No 1129, taking into - Petitioner Philippine Airlines Inc contends:
null and void. consideration PS Res No 734 and H No 11197 Re: Art VI Sec 26(1)
- Senate approved S No 1630 on second rdg, and on 1. Neither H No 11197 nor S No 1630 provided for
SEPARATE OPINION third rdg by affirmative votes of 13 and 1 abstention. removal of exemption of PAL transactions fr payment
- H No 11197 and S No 1630 were referred to of VAT and this was made only by the BCC. This was
conference committee w/c after meeting 4 times, not reflected in the title.
GRINO-AQUINO [dissenting]
recommended that HB in consolidation w/ SB be 2. Besides, amendment of PAL’s franchise may be
- There is no provision in the 1987 Investments Code
approved in accordance w/ bill as reconciled and made only by special law which will expressly amend
prohibiting the amendment of the investor’s application
approved by the conferees. the franchise (§24 of PD 1590).
for registration of its project, neither does the law
- The Conference Committee Bill was approved by - Petitioner Cooperative Union of the Philippines
prohibit the BOI from approving the amended
House of Reps and Senate. The enrolled bill was contends:
application.
presented to President who, on May 5, 1994 signed it. It Re: Art III Sec 1
- The matter of choosing an appropriate site for the
became RA 7716. On May 12, it was published in 2 1. Withdrawal of exemption of some cooperatives
investor’s project is a political and economic decision
newspapers of gen circulation and it took effect on May while maintaining that granted to electric cooperatives
which only the executive branch, as implementer of
28. not only goes against policy to promote cooperatives
policy formulated by the legislature, is empowered to
- RA 7716 amended § 103 and made print media subject but also violate equal protection of law.
make. It is not for this Court to determine what is, or
to VAT in all aspect of operations. However, Sec of Petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
should be, the BOI’s “final choice” of plant site and
Finance issued Revenue Regulations No. 11-94 Association contends:
feedstock.
exempting circulation income of print media. Income fr 2. VAT will reduce mark up of its members by as
- The petitioner’s recourse against the BOI’s action is by
advertisements are still subject to VAT. much as 90%.
an appeal to the President (Sec. 36, 1987 Investments
- Implementation was suspended until Jun 30 to allow Petitioner Philippine Press Institute contends:
Code), not to this Court.
time for registration of businesses. Implementation was 3. VAT will drive some of its members out of
stopped by TRO fr Court, by vote of 11 to 4. circulation.
MELENCIO-HERRERA [dissenting] - Petitioners contend: - Petitioner Philippine Press Institute contends:
- [The majority Decision] has made a sweeping policy Re: Art VI Sec 24 Re: Art III Sec 4
determination and has unwittingly transformed itself into 1. Although H No 11197 originated fr House of Reps, it 1. It questions law bec exemption previously granted
what might be termed a “government by the Judiciary,” was not passed by Senate but was consolidated w/ to press under NIRC was withdrawn. Although
something never intended by the framers of the Senate version in the Conference Committee to exemption was subsequently restored, PPI says
Constitution when they provided for separation of produce the bill. The verb “shall originate” is qualified there’s possibility that exemption may still be
powers among the three co-equal branches of by the word “exclusively”. removed by mere revocation by Secretary of Finance.
government and excluded the Judiciary from policy- 2. The constitutional design is to limit Senate’s power Also, there is still unconstitutional abridgment of press
making. in revenue bills to compensate for the grant to the freedom because of VAT on gross receipts on
Senate of treaty-ratifying power. advertisements.
3. S No 1630 was passed no in substitution of H No 2. RA 7716 singled out press for discriminatory
11197 but of another Senate bill (S No 1129). Senate treatment, giving broadcast media favored treatment.
ART VI: LEGISLATURE merely took H No 11197 into consideration in enacting 3. Imposing VAT only on print media whose gross
S No 1630. sales exceeds P480,000 but not more than P750,000
Re: Art VI Sec 26(2) is discriminatory.
TOLENTINO V SECRETARY OF FINANCE 1. The second and third rdgs were on the same day, 4. The registration provision of the law is invalid when
MENDOZA; August 25, 1994 Mar 24, 1994. applied to the press.
2. The certification of urgency was invalid bec there - Petitioner Philippine Bible Society contends:
FACTS was no emergency. The growing budget deficit was Re: Art III Sec 5
- These are original actions in SC. Certiorari and not an unusual condition in this country. 1. Secretary of Finance has no power to grant tax
prohibition, challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716. 3. Also, it was S No 1630 that was certified urgent, exemption because that power is vested in Congress
- RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing not H No 11197. and the Secretary’s duty is to execute the law and the
VAT system by amending National Internal Revenue Re: BCC acted within its power removal of exemption of religious articles violates
Code. 1. RA 7716 is the bill which the BCC prepared. BCC freedom of thought/conscience.
- Bet Jul 22, 1992 and Aug 31, 1993, bills were included provisions not found in the HB or SB and - Petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
introduced in House of Reps to amend NIRC relative to these were “surreptitiously” inserted. BCC met behind Association contends:
VAT. These were referred to House Ways and Means closed doors. Re: Art III Sec 10
Committee w/c recommended for approval H No 11197. 2. Incomplete remarks of members are marked in the 1. Imposition of VAT violates constitutional provision
stenographic notes by ellipses. on no law impairing obligation of contracts
- Petitioner Philippine Educational Publishers Association b. Legislative power is issue here. Treaty-ratifying power the compromise bill. That requirement must be
contends: is not legislative power but an exercise of check on construed only to mean bills introduced for the first time
Re: Art II Sec 17 executive power. in either house, not the BCC report.
1. Increase in price of books and educ materials will c. There’s no difference bet Senate preserving house bill
violate govt mandate to prioritize education then writing its own version on one hand and on the 4. NO, there is no violation of Art VI Sec 26(1)
other hand, separately presenting a bill of its own on the a. Since the title states that the purpose is to expand the
ISSUES subject matter. Consti simply says that it’s the initiative VAT system, one way is to widen the base by
Procedural for filing the bill that must come fr House of Reps. The withdrawing some exemptions. To insist that PD 1590 in
1. WON there’s violation of Art VI § 24 of Consti Reps are expected to be more sensitive to the local addition to § 103 of NIRC be mentioned in title, would be
(revenue bill originating exclusively fr House of Reps) needs. to insist that title of a bill be a complete index of its
2. WON there’s violation of Art VI § 26(2) of Consti Nor does Consti prohibit filing in Senate of substitute bill content.
(three readings on separate days) in anticipation of its receipt of bill fr House so long as b. That was just to prevent amendment by an
3. WON the Bicameral Conference Committee acted action by Senate is withheld pending receipt of House inconsistent statute. And under Consti, grant of
within its power bill. It was only after Senate rcvd H No 11197 that franchise for operation of public utility is subject to
4. WON there’s violation of Art VI § 26(1) of Consti (only legislation in respect of it began w/ referral to Senate amendment, alteration, repeal by Congress when
one subject which is expressed in title) / WON Committee on Ways and Means. common good requires.
amendment of § 103 of NIRC is fairly embraced in title of
RA 7716 although no mention is made therein 2. NO there is no violation of Art VI Sec 26(2) Substantive
Substantive: a. It was because Pres certified S No 1630 as urgent. - as RA 7716 merely expands base of VAT as provided in
5. WON Art III § 1 (deprivation of life/liberty/property; This certification dispensed w/ printing and rdg the bill the orig VAT law, debate on wisdom of law should be in
equal protection) is violated on separate days. The phrase “except when the Congress.
6. WON Art III § 4 (freedom of speech/expression/press) President certifies to the necessity…” qualifies two
is violated stated conditions: (1) the bill has passed 3 rdgs on 5. NO there is no clear showing that Art III Sec 1 is
7. WON Art III § 5 (free exercise of religion) is violated separate days and (2) it has been printed in final form violated
8. WON Art III § 10 (no law impairing obligation of and distributed 3 days before finally approved. To - When freedom of the mind is imperiled by law, it is
contracts) is violated construe that the “except” clause dispenses only with freedom that commands respect; when property is
9. WON Art VI § 28(1) (uniform/equitable; evolve printing would violate grammar rules and would also imperiled, lawmakers’ judgment prevails.
progressive system of taxation) is violated negate the necessity of the immediate enactment of the a. This is actually a policy argument.
10. WON Art VI § 28(3) (church/parsonage etc. for bill. b. This is a mere allegation.
religious purpose exempt) is violated Example is RA 5440 which had 2nd and 3rd rdgs on the c. This is also short of evidence.
11. WON Art II § 17 (gov’t priority on education, science same day after bill had been certified urgent.
and tech) is violated b. No Senator controverted factual basis of the 6. NO Art III Sec a is not violated
certification and this should not be rvwd by the Court. a. There’s no violation of press freedom. The press is
HELD c. It was S No 1630 that Senate was considering. When not immune fr general regulation by the State.
- Not all are judicially cognizable, bec not all Consti matter was before the House, Pres likewise certified H b. It’s not that it is being singled out, but only because
provisions are self executing. Other govt depts. are also No 9210 then pending. of removal of exemption previously granted to it by
charged w/ enforcement of Consti. law. Also, the law would be discriminatory if the only
3. YES the BCC acted within its power privilege withdrawn is that to the press. But that is
Procedural a. “Give and take” often marks the proceedings of BCC. not the case. The statute applies to a wide range of
Whatever doubts there may be as to the formal validity There was also nothing unusual in the executive goods and services.
of the RA must be resolved in its favor. An enrolled copy sessions of the BCC. c. It has not been shown that the class subject to tax
of a bill is conclusive not only of its provisions but also of Under congressional rules, BCCs are not expected to has been unreasonably narrowed. This limit does not
its due enactment. This is not to say that the enrolled make material changes but this is a difficult provision to apply to press alone but to all sales.
bill doctrine is absolute. But where allegations are enforce. The result could be a third version, considered d. The fixed amount of P1000 is for defraying part of
nothing more than “surreptitiously” inserting provisions, an amendment in nature of substitute, the only the cost of registration. Registration is a central
SC declines going behind enrolled copy of bill. SC gives requirement that the 3rd version be germane to subject feature of the VAT system. It is a mere administrative
due respect to other branches of gov’t. of the HB and SB. It is w/in power of BCC to include an fee, not a fee on exercise of privilege or right.
entirely new provision. After all, report of BCC is not
1. NO there is no violation of Art VI Sec 24 final and still needed approval of both houses to be 7. NO Art III Sec 5 is not violated
a. It’s not the law but the revenue bill which is required valid. a. Consti does not prohibit imposing generally
to originate exclusively in the House of Reps. A bill b. This could have been caused by stenographer’s applicable sales and use tax on sale of religious
originating in House may undergo extensive changes in limitations or to incoherence that sometimes materials by religious org.
Senate. To insist that a revenue statute (and not the characterize conversations. 8. NO Art III Sec 10 is not violated
bill) must be the same as the House bill would deny the c. Report used brackets and capital letters to indicate a. Parties to a contract can’t fetter exercise of taxing
Senate’s power to concur with and propose the changes. This is standard practice in bill-drafting. power of State. Essential attributes of sovereign is
amendments. It would violate coequality of the Also, SC is not proper forum for these internal rules. read into contracts as a basic postulate of legal order.
legislative power of the two houses. d. If this were the case, there would be no end to 9. VAT distributes tax burden to as many goods and svcs
negotiation since each house may seek modifications of as possible, particularly to those w/in reach of higher
income grps. Business establishments with annual gross was later consolidated the Bicameral Conference reduction of the allowable deduction for interest expense
sales of < P500,000 are exempted. Committee. The Bicameral Conference Committee were not really part of the House version of the E-VAT
Also, regressivity is not a negative standard. What is inserted and deleted some of the original provisions. The Law therefore in violation of the origination clause in
required is that we “evolve” a progressive taxation Bill was approved on the 11th of May 2005 by the Senate Article VI Section 24.
system. and 10th of May 2005 by the House of Representatives.
10. Consti does not prohibit imposing generally
BENGZON V SENATE BLUE RIBBON
applicable sales and use tax on sale of religious ISSUES
materials by religious org. Procedural COMMITTEE
11. NO there is no violation of Art II Sec 17 1. WON the Bicameral Conference Committee has PADILLA; November 20, 1991
a. Same reason/ratio under issues on free strictly complied with the rules of both houses thereby
speech/press. remaining within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by FACTS
congress. - Petition for prohibition to review the decision of the
Decision Petitions are dismissed. 2. WON the Bicameral Conference Committee violated Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Notes VAT is levied on sale, barter/exchange of goods Article VI Sec 26 that states that no amendment would - 7/30/1987: RP, represented by the Presidential
and svcs. Then, it’s equal to 10% of gross selling price be done after three readings. Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed w/ the
3. WON there was a violation of the Origination Clause Sandiganbayan the civil case no. 0035, “RP vs. Benjamin
Narvasa, Separate Opinion as stated in Art VI Sec 24. ‘Kokoy’ Romualdez, et al.”
Cruz, Separate Opinion Substantive -The complaint alleges that defendants Benjamin and
Padilla, Separate Opinion 4. WON there was undue delegation to the President and Juliette Romualdez took advantage of their relationship
Vitug, Separate Opinion Secretary of Finance. w/ Defendants Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos to engage
Regalado, Dissenting Opinion 5. WON a VAT law such as that of RA 9337 is in violation in schemes to enrich themselves at the expense of the
Davide, Dissenting Opinion of the Constitutional provision Art VI Sec 28 (1) that Plaintiff and the Filipino People, among others:
Romero, Dissenting Opinion requires taxation to be uniform, equitable and that the -obtaining control over Meralco, Benguet Mining Co.,
Bellosillo, Dissenting Opinion Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Shell, PCI Bank, etc., selling interests to PNI Holdings,
Puno, Dissenting Opinion Inc. (corporators, Bengzon Law Offices), the concealment
HELD of the assets subject to the complaint from the PCGG
1. The Supreme Court decided that it would not rule on
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST V ERMITA under the veil of corporate identity, etc.
the violation of the senate and house rules unless there 8/2-6/1988: reports circulate of the sale of the
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; September 1, 2005 is a showing that it is in clear violation of a constitutional Romualdez companies for 5M (far below market value)
provision or of the rights of private individuals. (favorite without PCGG approval to the Ricardo Lopa Group,
FACTS ratio Ü) owned by Pres. Aquino’s brother-in-law, Ricardo Lopa
- The increasing budget problems of the government in 2. No, because the amendment rule refers only to the –Sen. Enrile called upon the Senate to investigate a
the form of fiscal problems, revenue generation, and procedure to be followed by each house of Congress possible violation of S5 of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
fiscal allocation inadequacy prompted the congress to with regard to bills in each of the said respective houses Corrupt Practices Act w/c prohibits any relative of the
create a law to address such problems. This gave way to before the bill is transmitted to the other house for its President by affinity or consanguinity up to the 3rd civil
the Expanded Vat Law (E-Vat Law) otherwise known as concurrence and amendment. degree, to intervene in any transaction w/ the
Republic Act No. 9337. The case revolves around the 3. No, the Senate within the said provision only proposed government
constitutionality of the Republic Act 9337 that increased amendments after the House Bills were approved. The -the matter was referred to the Senate Committee on
the Value-Added Tax percentage from 10% to 12%. In Bill still originated through the House of Representatives. Accountability of Public Officers (Blue Ribbon
this case there were 4 different petitioners: Abakada 4. No, because the President is just executing the law Committee)
Guro Party List, Association of Pilipinas Shell and is still working within the standard and policy of the -the Committee subpoenaed the petitioners and Ricardo
Dealers/Petron/Caltex, Senators Pimentel/ Estrada, L./ law. The Secretary of Finance is also not given undue Lopa to testify on “what they know” about the sale of
Estrada, J. / Lacson/ Lim/ Madrigal/ Osmeña, delegation as he is considered as an alter ego of the the 36 Romualdez corporations
Congressman Escudero, and Governor Garcia. All of president thus following the same logic, he is only -at the hearing, Lopa and Bengzon declined to testify,
them question the constitutionality of RA 9337. executing the law. the former invoking the due process clause, and both
- Backgrounder on Value-Added Tax (VAT): 5. While the VAT is currently not yet progressive it still is averring that such testimonies would “unduly prejudice”
> VAT is a tax on spending or consumption. It is levied directed towards a goal of a progressive taxation. the defendants of civil case no.0035
on the sale, barter, exchange, or lease of goods or
-petitioners thus filed the present petition for prohibition,
properties and services.
SEPARATE OPINION praying for a temporary restraining order and/or
> It is an indirect tax on expenditure. The seller of
injunctive relief, claiming that the Committee acted in
goods or services may pass on the amount of tax paid
excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose
to the buyer. VAT is intended to fall on the immediate PANGANIBAN
-the Committee claims that the Court cannot enjoin the
buyers and end-consumers.
Congress or its committees from making inquiries in aid
- RA 9337’s legislative history is as follows: Sections 1, 2, and 3 of RA 9337 is unconstitutional as 1)
of legislation, under the doctrine of separation of powers
It originated from House Bill 3555 that was approved on the increase of tax rates on domestic, resident foreign
(quoting Angara v. Comelec)
the 27th of January 2005 and House Bill 3705 that was and nonresident foreign corporations, 2) the increase of
-the Court finds this contention untenable and is of the
approved on the 28th of February 2005 and Senate Bill tax credit against taxes due from nonresident foreign
view that it has the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional
1950 that was approved on the 13th of April 2005. This corporations on intercorporate dividends, and 3) the
boundaries and determine the scope and extent of the Re: WON the Blue Ribbon Committee’s inquiry is
power of the Blue Ribbon Committee in aid of legislation. Re: WON the inquiry violates the petitioners’ right
-the power of Congress to conduct investigations is to due process.
ISSUES inherent and needs no textual grant—even so, it is -the petitioners are not facing criminal charges; as
1. WON the Blue Ribbon Committee’s inquiry is in aid expressly granted by A6 S21. ordinary witnesses, they may only invoke the right
of legislation. Barsky v. US: the possibility that invalid as well as valid against self-incrimination only when such a question is
2. WON Congress is encroaching on the exclusive legislation might ensue from an inquiry does not limit posed, and cannot refuse taking the witness stand
domain of another branch of government. the power of inquiry outright.
3. WON the inquiry violates the petitioners’ right to US v. Deutch: Congress has the right to secure
due process. information in order to determine WON to legislate on a
SENATE V ERMITA
particular subject matter on w/c it is w/in its
HELD constitutional powers to act. CARPIO-MORALES;
1. NO Blue Ribbon Committee’s inquiry is not in aid of US v. Orman: where the information sought concerns
legislation what Congress can legislate, a legitimate legislative FACTS
- Sen. Enrile’s inquiry merely intended to find out WON purpose must be presumed. - this is a consolidation of various petitions for certiorari
Ricardo Lopa had any part in the alleged sale of the -the requirement that an inquiry be “in aid of legislation” and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of E.O.
Romualdez corporations—there was no intended is easier to establish here where Congress’ legislative no. 46415 issued Sept. 28, 2005
legislation as required by A6 S21 of the constitution. As field is unlimited unlike in the US. Also, it is not - Consti Provisions allegedly violated: Art. VI Sec. 1, 21,
held in Jean L. Arnault v. Leon Nazareno et al., the necessary that every question be material to the 22,; Art. III Sec. 4, 7; Art. II Sec. 28; Art. XI Sec 1; Art. XIII
inquiry must be material or necessary to the exercise of proposed legislation, but directly related to the subject Sec. 16
a power vested in the Committee by the Constitution. In of the inquiry. - Between Sept. of 2005 to Feb. 2006, various Senate
Watkins v. US it was held that Congress’ power of inquiry -the legislative purpose is distinctly different from the Investigation Committees issued invitations to various
is broad but limited, that is, it may not pry into private judicial purpose; Congress may investigate for its own officials of the Executive Dept. including the AFP and
affairs if such actions are not in furtherance of a purposes even thought the subjects of the investigation PNP for them to appear in public hearings on inquiries
legitimate task of congress—no inquiry is an end in itself. are currently under trial. concerning mainly: (A) The alleged overpricing in the
2. YES Congress is encroaching on the exclusive domain NorthRail Project (B) the Wire-Tapping activity (C) the
of another branch of government Re: WON the inquiry violates the petitioners’ right Fertilizer scam (D) the Venable contract
- Since the issue had been pre-empted by the to due process. - The respective officials of the Executive Dept. filed
Sandiganbayan, any further investigation by Congress -A6 S21 provides that “the rights of persons appearing in requests for postponement of hearings for varying
would only serve to complicate matters and produce or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” reasons such as existence of urgent operational matters,
conflicting opinions—as held in Baremblatt v. US, However, such a restriction does not call for the more time to prepare a more comprehensive report, etc.
Congress cannot inquire into matters w/c are exclusively complete prohibition of such investigations where a Sen. Drilon, however, did not accede to their requests
the concern of the Judiciary. violation of a basic right is claimed, but rather only because the requests were sent belatedly and that
3. YES the inquiry violates the petitioners’ right to due requires that such rights be respected. preparations and arrangements have already been
process -the right against self-incrimination may only be invoked completed.
- It has been held that “a congressional committee’s when incriminating questions are posed, but the witness - On Sept. 28, 2005, Pres. Arroyo issued E.O. 464 which
right to inquire is subject to all relevant limitations may not refuse to take the witness stand completely. In took effect immediately. Citing E.O. 464, the Executive
placed by the Constitution on governmental action, the case at bar, no incriminating questions had been Dept. officials subject to Senate investigations claimed
including…the Bill of Rights”. As held in Hutcheson v. US, asked, hence the allegation of violation of rights is that they were not allowed to appear before any Senate
it can’t be assumed that legislative purpose is always premature. or Congressional hearings without consent (written
justified by public need; Congress cannot tread on approval) from the President, which had not been
private rights. The doctrine in Cabal v. Kapunan states CRUZ [dissent] granted unto them; their inability to attend due to lack of
that the Constitutional right against self-incrimination appropriate clearance from the Pres. pursuant to E.O.
extends to all proceedings sanctioned by law and in Re: WON the Blue Ribbon Committee’s inquiry is 464. Thereafter, several cases were filed challenging
cases in w/c the witness is an accused. in aid of legislation. E.O. 464 and praying for the issuance of a TRO enjoining
Disposition the petitioners may not be compelled by Arnault v. Nazareno: the Court is bound to presume that respondents from implementing, enforcing, and
the Committee to appear, testify, and produce evidence an action of a legislative body is w/ legitimate object if it observing the assailed order. Respondent Executive
before it because such inquiries would not be in aid of is capable of being so construed, and It has no right to Secretary Ermita et al., prayed for dismissal of petitions
legislation and if pursued, would be violative of the assume the contrary. for lack of merit.
principle separation of powers between the legislative -an inquiry into the expenditure of all public money, in
and the judicial departments, as ordained by the this case, the possible violation of RA 3019 in the ISSUES
Constitution. The petition is GRANTED. disposition of the Romualdez corporations, is an Primary Issue
indispensable duty of the legislature
SEPARATE OPINION Mcgrain v. Daugherty: it is not necessary that the
resolution ordering an investigation …expressly state 15
E.O. 464 “Ensuring observance of the principle of separation of powers,
that the object of the inquiry is to obtain data in aid of
GUTIERREZ [dissent] adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of
proposed legislation public officials appearing in legislative inquiries in aid of legislation under
the Constitution, and for other purposes.”
1. WON E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry question hour (because of its specific reference to sec. assail an executive order which allegedly stifles the
vested in the Congress 22 of art VI) makes it valid on its face. ability of the members of Congress to access information
Secondary Issues - Sec. 2 (a) of E.O. 464 crucial to law-making. It has a substantial and direct
2. Justiciability of the case: It merely provides guidelines binding only on the heads interest over the outcome of such a controversy.
a. Legal standing of petitioners: of office mentioned in section 2(b), on what is covered Party List (BayanMuna, COURAGE, CODAL)
G.R. 169777 Senate of the Phils. by the executive privilege. It does not purport to be - The party-list representatives have standing, it is
G.R. 169659 BAYANMUNA, COURAGE, CODAL conclusive on the other branches of government. It may sufficient that a claim is made that E.O. 464 infringes on
G.R. 169660 Francisco Chavez be construed as a mere expression of opinion by the their constitutional rights and duties as members of
G.R. 169667 Alternative Law Groups (ALG) Pres. regarding the nature and scope of executive Congress to conduct investigations in aid of legislation
G.R. 169834 PDP-Laban privilege. and conduct oversight functions in the implementation
G.R. 121246 Integrated Bar of the Phils. (IBP) - Sec. 2 (b) of E.O. 464 of laws.
b. Actual Case or Controversy Provides that once the head of office determines that a IBP, Chavez, ALG (invoking right to info. on matters of
3. WON E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to certain info. is privileged, such determination is public concern)
information on matters of public concern. presumed to bear the President’s authority and has the - When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner in
4. WON respondents have committed grave abuse of effect of prohibiting the official from appearing before assailing the constitutionality of laws must be direct and
discretion when they implemented E.O. 464 prior to its Congress, only to the express pronouncement of the personal. The Court held in Francisco v. Francisco that
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Pres. that it is allowing the appearance of such official. It when a proceeding involves assertion of a public right,
allows the Pres. to authorize claims of privilege by mere the mere fact that the person filing is a citizen satisfies
HELD silence, and such presumptive authorization is contrary the requirement of personal interest.
Primary Issue to the exceptional nature of the privilege. Due to the fact PDP-Laban (claiming standing due to the
1. Ratio It is impermissible to allow the executive that executive privilege is of extraordinary power, the transcendental importance of issue)
branch to withhold information sought by the Congress Pres. may not authorize its subordinates to exercise it. - There being no public funds involved and there being
in aid of legislation, without it asserting a right to do so, Such power must be wielded only by the highest official parties with more direct and specific interest in the
and without stating reasons therefor. in the executive hierarchy. controversy (the Senate and BayanMuna), gives PDP-
- Although the executive Dept. enjoys the power of - Sec. 3 of E.O. 464 Laban no standing.
executive privilege, Congress nonetheless has the right Requires all public officials enumerated in section 2(b) to b. Actual case or controversy (was not taken up by the
to know why the executive dept. considers requested secure the consent of the President prior to appearing Court)
information privileged. E.O. 464 allows the executive before either house of Congress. The enumeration is - A challenged order which has already produced results
branch to evade congressional requests for information broad. It is invalid per se. In so far as it does not assert consequent to its implementation and where such
without the need of clearly asserting a right to do so but merely implies the claim of executive privilege. It results are the subject of questions of constitutionality, is
and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By mere does not provide precise and certain reasons for the ripe for adjudication.
expedient of invoking provisions of E.O. 464, the power claim. Mere invocation of E.O. 464 coupled with an - The implementation of E.O. 464 has resulted in the
of Congress is frustrated. Resort to any means by which announcement that the President has not given her officials excusing themselves from attending the Senate
officials of the executive branch could refuse to divulge consent, is woefully insufficient for Congress to hearings. It would be sheer abandonment of duty if the
information cannot be presumed to be valid. determine whether the withholding of information is Court would refrain from passing upon the
Reasoning justified under the circumstances of each case, severely constitutionality of E.O. 464.
Executive Privilege frustrating its power of inquiry. 3. Yes. Congressional investigations in aid of legislation
-The power of the President and other high-level are presumed to be a matter of public concern,
executive branch officers to withhold certain types of Secondary Issues therefore, it follows that any executive issuance tending
information of a sensitive character from Congress, the 2. a. Regarding Legal Standing of petitioners: to unduly limit disclosures of information in such
courts and the public. Rule 1: Legislators have standing to maintain investigations deprives the people of information.
- The Power of Inquiry (in aid of legislation) Art. VI Sec.21 inviolate the prerogative, powers and privileges 4. Yes. Although E.O. 464 applies only to officials of the
This is the power of the Legislature to make vested by the Constitution in their office and are executive branch, it has a direct effect on the right of
investigations and exact testimony that it may exercise allowed to sue to question the validity of any official the people to information on matters of public concern
its legislative functions advisedly and effectively. It gives action which they claim infringes upon their therefore it is not exempt from the need of publication.
the Congress the power to compel the appearance of prerogatives as legislators. Due process requires that the people should have been
executive officials to comply with its demands for Rule 2: To be accorded standing on the ground of apprised of the issuance of E.O. 464 before it was
information. transcendental importance there must be a showing implemented.
- Inquiry in Art. VI Sec. 22 (question hour) of: 1. the character of the funds (public)/assets Decision Petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. Sections
As determined from the deliberations of the involved 2. a clear case of disregard of a 2(b) and 3 of E.O. 464 are declared void while sections 1
Constitutional Commission, this provision was intended constitutional or statutory prohibition 3. lack of a and 2(a) are VALID.
to be distinguished from inquiries in aid of legislation, in party with a more direct and specific interest in
that attendance here is merely discretionary on the part raising the questions raised.
GUINGONA V CARAGUE
of the department heads.
- Sec. 1 of E.O. 464 The Senate of the Philippines GANCAYCO; April 22, 1991
Its requirement to secure presidential consent, limited - The Senate, including its individual members, by virtue
only to executive dept. heads and to appearances in the of their fundamental right for intelligent public decision- FACTS
making and sound legislation is the proper party to
- The 1990 budget consisted of P98.4B in automatic interest rate assumption's which may significantly differ with the Constitution shall remain operative
appropriation (86.8 going to debt service) and P155.3 from actual rates not even in proportion to changes on until amended, repealed or revoked.
from the General Appropriations Act or a total of the basis of the assumptions. Absent an automatic - This transitory provision of the Constitution has
P233.5B; only P27B was allotted for DECS. Petitioners, as appropriation clause, the Philippine Government has to precisely been adopted by its framers to preserve the
members of the Senate, question the constitutionality of await and depend upon Congressional action, which by social order so that legislation by the then President
the automatic appropriation for debt service in the said the time this comes, may no longer be responsive to the Marcos may be recognized. Such laws are to remain in
budget as provided for by Presidential Decrees 81, 117, intended conditions which in the meantime may have force and effect unless they are inconsistent with the
and 1967. already drastically changed. In the meantime, also, Constitution or are otherwise amended, repealed or
- Petitioners allege that the allotted budget runs contrary delayed payments and arrearages may have revoked.
to Sec. 5(5), Art. XIV of the Constitution. And as provided supervened, only to worsen our debt service-to-total - Well-known is the rule that repeal or amendment by
by Art. 7 of the Civil Code, when statutes run contrary to expenditure ratio in the budget due to penalties and/or implication is frowned upon. Equally fundamental is the
the Constitution, it shall be void. demand for immediate-payment even before due dates. principle that construction of the Constitution and law is
- They further contend that the Presidential Decrees are - Clearly, the claim that payment of the loans and generally applied prospectively and not retrospectively
no longer operative since they became functus oficio indebtedness is conditioned upon the continuance of the unless it is so clearly stated.
after President Marcos was ousted. With a new congress person of President Marcos and his legislative power
replacing the one man-legislature, new legislation goes against the intent and purpose of the law. The 3. No. The legislative intention in R.A. No. 4860, as
regarding appropriation should be passed. Current purpose is foreseen to subsist with or without the person amended, Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967
appropriation, operating on no laws therefore, would be of Marcos." is that the amount needed should be automatically set
unenforceable. aside in order to enable the Republic of the Philippines to
- Moreover, they contend that assuming arguendo that ISSUES pay the principal, interest, taxes and other normal
the said decrees did not expire with the ouster of 1. WON appropriation of P86.8B for debt service as banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness
Marcos, after adoption of the 1987 Constitution, said compared to its appropriation of P27.7B for education in incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall become
decrees were inconsistent with Sec. 24, Article VI of the violation of Sec. 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution. due without the need to enact a separate law
Constitution which stated that: The State shall assign the highest budgetary appropriating funds therefore as the need arises. The
Sec. 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, priority to education and ensure that teaching purpose of these laws is to enable the government to
bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills will attract and retain its rightful share of the make prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to
of local application, and private bills shall best available talents through adequate protect and maintain the credit standing of the country.
originate exclusively in the House of remuneration and other means of job - Although the subject presidential decrees do not state
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or satisfaction and fulfillment. specific amounts to be paid, necessitated by the very
concur with amendments. 2. WON the Presidential Decrees are still operative, and nature of the problem being addressed, the amounts
whereby bills have to be approved by the President, then if they are, do they violate Sec. 29 (1), Article VI of the nevertheless are made certain by the legislative
a law must be passed by Congress to authorize said Constitutional. parameters provided in the decrees. The Executive is not
automatic appropriation. Further, petitioners state said 3. WON there was undue delegation of legislative power of unlimited discretion as to the amounts to be disbursed
decrees violate Section 29(1) of Article VI of the by automatic appropriation. for debt servicing. The mandate is to pay only the
Constitution which provides as follows principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking
Sec. 29(1). No money shall be paid out of the HELD charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness, or on the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation 1. The Court disagrees that Congress’ hands are bonds, debentures or security or other evidences of
made by law. hamstrung by the provision provided. There are indebtedness sold in international markets incurred by
They assert that there must be definiteness, certainty other imperatives of national interest that it must virtue of the law, as and when they shall become due.
and exactness in an appropriation, otherwise it is an attend to; the amount allotted to education, No uncertainty arises in executive implementation as the
undue delegation of legislative power to the President 27.8B, is the highest in all department budgets limit will be the exact amounts as shown by the books of
who determines in advance the amount appropriated for thereby complying with the mandate of having the Treasury.
the debt service. the highest priority as stated above. The
- SolGen argues, on the other hand, that automatic enormous national debt, incurred by the previous SEPARATE OPINION
appropriation provides flexibility: ". . . First, for example, administration, however, still needs to be paid.
it enables the Government to take advantage of a Not only for the sake of honor but because the
favorable turn of market conditions by redeeming high national economy is itself at stake. Thus, if CRUZ [dissent]
interest securities and borrowing at lower rates, or to Congress allotted more for debt service such an
shift from short-term to long-term instruments, or to appropriation cannot be considered by this Court He sees that an essential requirement for valid
enter into arrangements that could lighten our as unconstitutional. appropriation is that the sum authorized for release
outstanding debt burden debt-to-equity, debt-to-asset, should be determinate or determinable. The Presidential
debt-to-debt or other such schemes. Second, the 2. Yes, they are still operative. The transitory provision Decrees do not satisfy this requirement. As to the
automatic appropriation obviates the serious difficulties provided in Sec. 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution ponencia’s reference to “legislative parameters provided
in debt servicing arising from any deviation from what recognizes that: by law”, Cruz says no such regulatory boundaries exist.
has been previously programmed. The annual debt All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
service estimates, which are usually made one year in proclamations, letters of instructions and PADILLA [dissent]
advance, are based on a mathematical set or matrix or, other executive issuances not inconsistent
in layman's parlance, `basket' of foreign exchange and
- He agrees with Cruz but furthers the argument by - In G.R. No. 113766, Senators Romulo and Tañada act of the Executive which injures the institution of
saying that Sec. 29(1)Article VI implies that a law together with the Freedom from Debt Coalition, a non- Congress.
enacted by Congress (and approved by the President) stock domestic corporation, sued as taxpayers, Reasoning: Ponencia relied on precedent (Gonzales v.
appropriating a particular sum or sums must be made challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential veto Macaraig) and a US case (United States v. American Tel.
before payment from the Treasury can be made. Laws of the special provision in the appropriations for debt & Tel. Co) as secondary source to recognize legal
should be construed in light of current laws and not service and the automatic appropriation of funds standing. Then in forming the ratio decidendi, it again
those made by a one-man legislative branch. therefor. relied on US cases as secondary sources (Coleman v.
- Besides, these decrees issued by President Marcos - In G.R. No. 113888, Senators Romulo and Tañada Miller, Holtzman v. Schlesinger) as well as the opinion of
relative to debt service were tailored for the periods contest the constitutionality of: (1) the veto on four Justice Fernando as Amicus Curiae.
covered by said decrees. Today it is Congress that special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for Substantive
should determine and approve the proper appropriations the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the 2. The power of appropriation lodged in Congress carries
for debt servicing, as this is a matter of policy that, in his Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and with it the power to specify the project or activity to be
opinion, pertains to the legislative department, as the (2) the conditions imposed by the President in the funded under the appropriation law. It can be as detailed
policy-determining body of the Government. implementation of certain appropriations for the and as broad as Congress wants it to be.
CAFGU's, the DPWH, and the National Housing Authority Reasoning: The CDF is explicit that it shall be used "for
(NHA). infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and computers
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
- In view of the importance and novelty of most of the and other priority projects and activities and credit
ASSOCIATION V ENRIQUEZ issues raised in the four petitions, the Court invited facilities to qualified beneficiaries…" It was Congress
QUIASON; August 19, 1994 former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and former itself that determined the purposes for the
Associate Justice Irene Cortes as Amicus Curiae. appropriation. Executive function under the CDF involves
FACTS implementation of the priority projects specified in the
- House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of G.R. No. 113105 law. The authority given to the members of Congress is
1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by both only to propose and identify projects to be implemented
houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. ISSUES by the President. Hence, under Article 48 of the GAA of
- On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill Procedural 1994, if the proposed projects qualify for funding under
into law, and declared the same to have become 1. WON the petitioners have legal standing17 the CDF, it is the President who shall implement them. In
Republic Act No. 766316, the General Appropriation Act Substantive short, the proposals and identifications made by the
(GAA) of 1994. On the same day, the President delivered 2. WON the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) or members of Congress are merely recommendatory.
his Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions “pork barrels” is an encroachment by the legislature on 3. The constitutional provision which directs the State
of the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain executive power, since said power in an appropriation shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education
conditions. No step was taken in either House of act is in implementation of a law is merely directory.
Congress to override the vetoes. 3. WON the act of Congress giving debt service and not Reasoning: It relied on precedence, Guingona, Jr. v.
- In G.R. No. 113105, Philippine Constitution education18 as the highest priority in the allocation of Carague. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article
Association (PHILCONSA) et al. prayed for a writ of budget unconstitutional XIV of the Constitution, Congress is mandated to “assign
prohibition to declare as unconstitutional and void: (a) 4. WON the special provision allowing a member of the highest budgetary priority to education” it does not
Article 41 on the Countrywide Development Fund or Congress to realign his allocation for operational thereby follow that Congress is deprived of its power to
“pork barrels,” the special provision in Article I entitled expenses to any other expense category is respond to the imperatives of the national interest and
Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses, (b) unconstitutional, as it is contrary to Article VI Section for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.
Article 48 on the Appropriation for Debt Service or the 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution19 4. The members only determine the necessity of the
amount appropriated under said Article 48 in excess of realignment of the savings in the allotments for their
the P37.9 B allocated for the DECS; and (c) the veto of HELD operating expenses but it is the Senate President and
the President of the Special Provision of Article 48 of the Procedural the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall
GAA of 1994 1. A member of Congress has the legal standing to approve the realignment.
- In G.R. No. 113174, 16 Senators question: (1) the question the validity of a presidential veto or any other
constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the Decision
President in the items of the GAA of 1994: (a) for the 17 Procedural
While the Solicitor General did not question the locus standi of petitioners
Supreme Court, (b) Commission on Audit (COA), (c) in G.R. No. 113105, he claimed that the remedy of the Senators in the other
1. Petitioners, as members of Congress have locus standi
Ombudsman, (d) Commission on Human Rights, (CHR), petitions is political (i.e., to override the vetoes) in effect saying that they Substantive
(e) Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU's) do not have the requisite legal standing to bring the suits. 2. No. The CDF is not an encroachment by the legislature
18
and (f) State Universities and Colleges (SUC's); and (2) Article XIV Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution states that: "The State on executive power, hence constitutional
the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that 3. No. Congress’ act is not unconstitutional. It simply
teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents
in the appropriation for debt service. through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and
exercises its power to respond to the imperatives of the
fulfillment." national interest and for the attainment of other state
19
"No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; policies or objectives.
16 however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the 4. No. It is not unconstitutional.
Entitled "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective
G.R. No. 113105
PURPOSES" offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations." G.R. No. 113174
ISSUES exercise by the President of his constitutional duty to
ISSUE 1. WON the veto for revolving funds of State Universities see that laws are faithfully executed.
WON veto of the special provision of Article 48 of the and Colleges (SUC’s) is unconstitutional
GAA of 1994 in the appropriation for debt service 2. WON the veto of the provision in the appropriation for Decision
without vetoing the entire P86.3 B for said purpose is the Department of Public Works and Highways on 70% 1. No. There was no undue discrimination when the
unconstitutional (administrative) / 30% (contract) ratio for road President vetoed said special provisions.
Or, simply put: WON the President exceeded the item- maintenance is unconstitutional 2. Yes. The Special Provision in question is not an
veto power accorded by the Constitution20 3. WON the veto of the provision on purchase of inappropriate provision which can be the subject of a
medicines by AFP is unconstitutional veto. It is not alien to the appropriation for road
HELD 4. WON the veto of special provisions on prior approval maintenance, and on the other hand, it specifies how the
Any provision which does not relate to any particular of Congress for purchase of military equipment is said item shall be expended - 70% by administrative and
item, or which extends in its operation beyond an item of unconstitutional 30% by contract.
appropriation, is considered “an inappropriate 5. WON the veto of provision on use of savings to 3. Yes. Being directly related to and inseparable from the
provision”21 which can be vetoed separately from an augment AFP pension funds is unconstitutional appropriation item on purchases of medicines by the
item. 6. WON the President’s directive that the AFP, the special provision cannot be vetoed by the
Reasoning: The issue, according to the ponencia is a implementation of the Special Provision to the item on President without also vetoing the said item.
mere rehash of the one put to rest in Gonzales v. the CAFGU's shall be subject to prior Presidential 4. No. Any provision blocking an administrative action in
Macaraig, Jr. Hence, it used this case as precedent. It approval is tantamount to an administrative embargo of implementing a law or requiring legislative approval of
also cited another case, Henry v. Edwards to support its the congressional will to implement the Constitution's executive acts must be incorporated in a separate and
ratio. Citing Gonzales: As the Constitution is explicit that command to dissolve the CAFGU's, therefore substantive bill. Therefore, being "inappropriate"
the provision which Congress can include in an unconstitutional (Issue on Impoundment22) provisions, Special Provisions Nos. 2 and 3 were properly
appropriations bill must "relate specifically to some 7. WON veto of the President setting conditions or vetoed.
particular appropriation therein" and "be limited in its guidelines in the appropriations for the Supreme Court, 5. No. The Special Provision, which allows the Chief of
operation to the appropriation to which it relates," it Ombudsman, COA, DPWH and CHR is unconstitutional Staff to use savings to augment the pension fund for the
follows that any provision which does not relate to any AFP being managed by the AFP Retirement and
particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond HELD Separation Benefits System is violative of Sections
an item of appropriation, is considered "an inappropriate [1] to [5] Any provision which does not relate to any 25(5)25 and 29(1)26 of the Article VI of the Constitution.
provision" which can be vetoed separately from an item. particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond Thus veto is not unconstitutional.
Citing Henry v. Edwards: When the legislature inserts an item of appropriation, is considered “an inappropriate 6. No. The provision in an appropriations act cannot be
inappropriate provisions in a general appropriation bill, provision” which can be vetoed separately from an used to repeal or amend other laws. Impliedly, this is an
such provisions must be treated as 'items' for purposes item23 “inappropriate provision” which can be vetoed
of the Governor's (President’s) item veto power over Reasoning: Same ratio decidendi from the issue in the separately.
general appropriation bills. previous section is applied in the 5 issues in this section. 7. No. By setting guidelines or conditions in his veto, the
Hence the reasoning for the ratio is the same as well. President is simply exercising his constitutional duty to
Decision (Notice how the ratio is applied in the ruling or implement the laws faithfully.
Yes. The President vetoed the entire paragraph 1 of the dispositive)
Special Provision of the item on debt service, including 6. Any provision blocking an administrative action in Dispositive
the provisos that the appropriation authorized in said implementing a law requiring legislative approval of Petitions DISMISSED, except with respect with respect to
item "shall be used for payment of the principal and executive acts must be incorporated in a separate [1] G.R. Nos. 113105 and 113766 only insofar as they
interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness" and that substantive bill. pray for the annulment of the veto of the special
"in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the Reasoning: The ponencia simply cited notes from provision on debt service specifying that the fund
liabilities of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators." The journals24 in discussing the issue of Impoundment to therein appropriated "shall be used for payment of the
said provisos, being appropriate provisions since they support his reasoning in the present case. principal and interest of foreign and domestic
germane to and have a direct connection with the item 7. The issuance of administrative guidelines on the use indebtedness" prohibiting the use of the said funds "to
on debt service, cannot be vetoed separately. Hence the of public funds authorized by Congress is simply an pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank Board of
item veto of said provisions is void. Liquidators", and [2] G.R. No. 113888 only insofar as it
prays for the annulment of the veto of: (a) the 2nd
22
G.R. No. 113174 This is the first case before this Court where the power of the President paragraph of Special Provision No. 2 of the item of
G.R. No. 113766 to impound is put in issue. Impoundment refers to a refusal by the appropriation for the DPWH; and (b) Special Provision
President, for whatever reason, to spend funds made available by Congress.
G.R. No. 113888 It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type (Notes:
Impoundment of Funds, Harvard Law Review)
23 25
Note that this ratio is also applied in issue [6] aside from the ratio which I "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
20
Article VI Section 27(2) of the 1987 Constitution states that: “The formulated there. This can be implied from, “Again we state: a provision in however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an an appropriations act cannot be used to repeal or amend other laws.” House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but veto shall mot affect the item or Hence, this is an “inappropriate provision” which can be vetoed separately. heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
items to which he does not object.” 24 augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective
Notes: Impoundment of Funds, Harvard Law Review; Notes: Presidential
21 offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations."
Also included in the category of “inappropriate provisions” which are Impoundment Constitutional Theories and Political Realities, Georgetown 26
intended to amend our laws, because clearly these laws have no place in an Law Journal; Notes Protecting the Fisc: Executive Impoundment and "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriations bill, and therefore unconstitutional. Congressional Power, Yale Law Journal appropriation made by law"
No. 12 on the purchase of medicines by the AFP which is unconstitutional 3) The power of the president to augment items in
GRANTED. - April 11, 1989 - Petition for prohibition/mandamus was appropriations for the executive branches already
Voting: 14 Concur, 1 Dissent filed provided for in Budget Law (specifically Sec. 44 and 45
- assailed the legality of veto of Sec. 55 of PD 1177 as amended by RA 6670)
SEPARATE OPINION - enjoined the implementation of RA 6688 4) The President is empowered to veto provisions of
- No restraining order was implemented by the other distinct and severable parts.
Supreme Court
PADILLA [concur and dissent]
- September 7, 1989 - Court resolved to give due course ISSUES
to the petition 1. WON the issue is justiciable
- I concur with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Camilo D. - Jan. 17, 1990 - Motion for Leave to File and to Admit 2. WON the veto by the President of Sec. 55 of the 1989
Quiason except in so far as it re-affirms the Court's Supplementary Petition which raised the same issue as Appropriations Bill and its counterpart Sec. 16 of the
decision in Gonzalez v. Macaraig the original petition (questioning the presidential veto) 1990 Appropriations Bill is unconstitutional and without
- An inappropriate provision is still as provision, not an - The vetoed provisions include: effect
item and therefore outside the veto power of the - Sec. 55 of the Appropriations Act of 1989 - an item
Executive. submitted by the President which has been reduced HELD
by Congress cannot be restored/increased. An item is 1. The issue is justiciable, not political.
VITUG [concur] deemed disapproved if there is no corresponding a) There is an actual case or justiciable controversy
appropriation in the Act. between the Senate and the Executive that the
- I cannot debate the fact that the members of Congress, - Sec. 16 of the Appropriations Act of 1990 - similar to Supreme Court may take cognizance of. The Demetria
more than the President and his colleagues, would have Sec. 55 of the 1989 Appropriations Act except that this v. Alba case declared that the Supreme Court has the
the best feel on the needs of their own respective was lumped together with the use of savings duty to declare acts of a government branch void if
constituents. It is not objectionable for Congress, by law, - The basic difference between both provisions is that beyond that branch's powers
to appropriate funds for such specific projects as it may in the 1989 Appropriations Act, the "use of savings" is b) Judicial arbitration needed because the petitioners
be minded; to give that authority, however, to the in Section 12, apart from Section 55 whereas in the stress the imperative need for definitive ruling by the
individual members of Congress in whatever guise, I am 1990 \Appropriations Act, "use of savings" and the Court
afraid, would be constitutionally impermissible. vetoed provision are both in Sec. 16 c) The petitioners have locus standi because the suit is
- The reason for the veto: a taxpayer's suit. The Sanidad ruling (the Court may
- Violates Art. 6, Sec 25(5) or may not entertain a taxpayer's suit) and the
GONZALES V MACARAIG - Nullifies the constitutional and statutory authroity of Tolentino v. COMELEC ruling (members of the
MELENCIO-HERRERA; November 19, 1990 the President, the Senate President, Speaker of the Senate have personality when a Constitutional issue is
House of Representatives, Chief Justice of the raised) were used. This is also not the first time
FACTS Supreme Court and the Heads of Con-Coms to that the veto power was discussed.
- The Senate questioned the constitutionality of the augment any item in the General Appropriations law i) Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice - Court upheld the
Presidential veto of special and general provisions, - If allowed, the President and the other veto but reversed by the US Supreme Court because
particularly Sec. 55 of the General Appropriations Bill for abovementioned officials cannot augment any item of the Appropriations Bill was not involved.
1989 and appropriation from their savings even if special ii) Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia - rejected the veto
- The petitioners claim they have locus standi on the circumstances like calamity in an Appropriations Bill
ground of: - Petitioners' arguments: 2. NO the veto by the President of Sec. 55 of the 1989
- being member and ex-officio members of the Finance 1) The president's line veto power regarding the Appropriations Bill and its counterpart Sec. 16 of the
Committee appropriations bill is limited to item/s and does not 1990 Appropriations Bill is constitutional
- substantial taxpaers whose vital interests might be cover provisions and therefore exceeded her authority *The extent of item veto power still includes the vetoing
affected (Sections 55 and 16 are provisions) of provisions.
- The respondents in this case are member of the 2) When the president objects to provisions of an - Art. 6 Sec. 27 - Veto power of the President
Cabinet who are sued in their official capacity for the appropriation bill, it is not possible to exercise the Paragraph 1 - general veto power of the President and
implementation of the General Appropriations Act of item veto power but should veto the whole bill as well if exercised would veto the entire bill
1989 3) The item veto power does not carry with it the Paragraph 2 - the item-veto of line-vbeto allows a veto
- December 16, 1988 - The House of Representatives power to strike out conditions or restrictions for that over a particular item in an appropriations, revenue or
passed HB 19186 (GA Bill for 1989) would be legislation already (violative of separation of tariff bill. The president may not veto less than all of
- eliminated/decreased items included in the proposed powers) an item (no authority to veto part of an item and
Budget of the President 4) Power of augmentation in Article 6, Sec. 25(5) is approve the remaining portion of that item).
- presented to President for approval provided by law so Congress has prerogative to - Originally referred to veto of items of appropriations
- December 29, 1988 - The bill was signed into law impose restrictions in the exercise of that power bills in the Organic Act of Aug. 29, 1916
(became RA 6688) - SolGen's arguments: - 1935 Constitution, Art. 6, Sec 11(2) - The veto was
- The President vetoed 7 special provisions and Sec. 1) The issue is a political question and the petitioners more expansive since it included provisions and items in
55 have a political remedy which is to override the revenue and tariff bills
- February 2, 1989- Senate expressed through Senate veto. - 1973 Constitution - more compact version and refers to
Resolution No. 381 that the veto of Sec. 55 was 2) Sec. 53 is a rider which is extraneous to the the Prime Minister as the only official who has the power
Appropriations Act and should merit a veto. - 1987 Constitution - verbatim reproduction of 1973
provision except that a different public official (the while allowing the appropriation itself to stand. 8760 (General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2000. Also
President) was now involved and eliminated the - But for the rule to apply, restrictions should be in the seeking the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
reference to a veto of a provision real sense of the term. Restrictions should exhibit a or TRO to enjoin implementation of the questioned
- The Court held that even if there was an elimination of connection with money items in a budgetary sense in provision. However, the 2000 GAA has long been
any reference to the veto provision, the extent of the the schedule of expenditures. The test is implemented, the issuance is already moot and
President's veto power as previously defined by the appropriateness. academic. But the Court shall pass upon the
1935 Constitution has not changed. - Secs. 55 and 16 are held to be inappropriate constitutional issues.
- An item in a bill relates to the particulars, details, conditions. - Brief historical account of the Cordillera Administrative
distinct and severable parts of the bill whereas a - Actually general law measures more appropriate for Region (CAR):
provision is of a more general nature. substantive and therefore separate legislation. - President Aquino initiated a series of peace talks to
- A restrictive interpretation as espoused by the - Neither shows the necessary connection with a deal with insurgency in the Cordilleras. These dialogues
petitioners disregards the basic principle that a distinct schedule of expenditures. Items reduced or disapproved focused on the establishment of an autonomous
and severable part of the bill may be the subject of a by Congress are not on the enrolled bill and can only be government in the Cordilleras.
separate veto but also overlooks the Constitutional detected when compared with the original budgetary - Section 15, Article X of the 1987 Constitution ordains
mandate that any provision in the general appropriations submittals of the President. the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim
bill shall relate specifically to some particular * The power of augmentation and the validity of the veto Mindanao and in the Cordilleras, and Section 18,
appropriation and that any such provision shall be - The President vetoed Sections 55 and 16 because they Article X mandates the congressional enactment of
limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it nullified the authority of the Chief Executive and heads the organic acts for each of the autonomous regions.
relates. of different branches of government to augment any - President Aquino promulgated E.O. No. 220 on July
- A provision does not relate to the entire bill. item in the General Appropriations Law for their 15, 1987, creating the CAR, which is the interim and
- The exercise of veto power does not partake of a respective offices from savings in other items of their preparatory body tasked to administer the affairs of
legislative power as stated in the Bengzon case: respective appropriations (with reference to Art. 6, Sec. government in the Cordilleras.
- The legislature has the power to enact laws while the 25(5)). -Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, on October 23, 1989,
Chief Executive has the negative power by the - The power to augment lies dormant until authorized by Congress enacted RA 6766 (An Act Providing for an
constitutional exercise of which he may defeat the will law. Organic Act for for the Cordillera Autonomous Region). A
of the legislature. - The constitution allowed the transfer of funds for the plebiscite was held where the people of the Cordilleras
- The President finds its authority in the Constitution. purpose of augmenting an item from savings in another could ratify the Organic Act. However, the creation of an
- The Courts indulge every intendment in favor of the item in the appropriation of a government branch so as autonomous region was overwhelmingly rejected in all of
constitutionality of a veto in the same way that they to afford considerable flexibility in the use of public the Cordilleras except for the Ifugao province. The Court
presume constitutionality of an act passed by the funds. ruled that Ifugao alone cannot validly constitute the CAR
Legislature. - Separation of powers is endangered in no way. and upheld the disapproval of the Organic Act. The Court
* Secs. 55 and 16 are inappropriately called provisions. - Secs. 55 and 16 prohibit this augmentation and impair also declared E.O. No. 220 to be still in force and effect.
- Even if assuming that provisions are beyond the the constitutional and statutory authority of the -February 15, 2000: President Estrada signed into law
executive power to veto, Sec. 55 and Sec. 16 are not President in the interest of expediency and efficiency. the 2000 GAA which includes the assailed Special
provisions in the budgetary sense. - The special power of augmentation from savings is Provisions:
- Based on Art. 6, Sec. 25(2), a provision should relate merely incorporated in the GA Bill. The GA Bill is one of “1. Use of Fund. The amounts herein appropriated
specifically to some particular appropriation therein. primary and specific aim to make appropriation of shall be used to wind up the activities and operations
Secs. 55 and 16 do not fit this requirement. money from the public treasury. The power of of the CAR, including the payment of separation and
a) no relation to a particular or distinctive augmentation from savings is not considered a specific retirement benefits of all affected officials and
requirement. They apply generally to all items appropriation of money. It is a non-appropriation item employees…”
disapproved or reduced by Congress in the inserted in an appropriation measure. -July 20, 2000: President Estrada issued E.O. No. 270
Appropriations Bill. - To sanction this practice would withhold the power extending the implementation of the winding up of
b) disapproved or reduced items are nowhere to be from the Executive and other officials and put in operations of the CAR.
found in the Bill. jeopardy the exercise of that power.
c) vetoed sections are more of an expression of - If the legislature does believe that the exercise of the ISSUES
Congressional policy in respect of augmentation from veto powers by the executive were unconstitutional, a 1. WON the assailed Special Provisions in RA 8760 is a
savings rather than a budgetary appropriation. Secs. veto may be overriden by the votes of 2/3 of the rider and as such is unconstitutional
55 and 16 are inappropriate provisions that should be members of Congress. But Congress made no attempt 2. WON the Philippine Government, through Congress,
treated as items for the purpose of the veto power. to do so. can unilaterally amend/repeal E.O. No. 220
*Sections 55 and 16 are inappropriate conditions and 3. WON the Republic should be ordered to honor its
are therefore susceptible to a veto. commitments as spelled out in EO 220.
ATITIW V ZAMORA
- Petitioners argue that Congress is free to impose
conditions in an Appropriations Bill and where TINGA; September 30, 2005 HELD
conditions are attached, veto powers do not have the 1. NO the assailed Special Provisions in RA 8760 is not a
power to strike them out. FACTS rider TF it is constitutional
- These rules are settled in the sense that Congress can - This is a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and a. A rider is a provisions which is alien to or not germane
impose conditions on expenditure of funds and that the declaratory relief as taxpayers, seeking the declaration to the subject of the bill in which it is incorporated. 2
Executive cannot veto a condition of an appropriation of nullity of paragraph 1 of the Special Provisions of RA provisions of the Constitution prohibit them: Art VI: Sec
25(2) “No provisions or enactment shall be embraced in 1. Contention that Congress can’t unilaterally amend or decision also refers the case to COMELEC & the Office of
the general appropriations bill unless it relates repeal EO 220: Rejected. There is no such thing as an the special Prosecutor for appropriate actions.
specifically to some particular appropriation therein…” irrepealable law. - Without filing MFR, JA files the present case before SC.
and Sec 26(1) “Every bill passed by the Congress shall 2. Implementation of EO 220 is an executive prerogative
embrace only one subject which shall be embraced in while the sourcing of funds to support CAR’s activities is ISSUES
the title thereof” legislative. Absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court 1. WON HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in
- The rule should not be construed so strictly as to tie the cannot correct the acts of the Executive or Congress. a. proceeding to decide the protest based on AS’
hands of Congress: it simply requires that all the “precinct level document based anomalies/evidence"
provisions are either appropriation items, or non- theory;
ARROYO V HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
appropriaton items which relate specifically to b. rendering judgment on the kind of evidence before
appropriation items. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL it and the manner in which the evidence was
- Test: It must be 1) Particular – if it relates specifically to FRANCISCO; July 14, 1995 procured; &
a distinct item of appropriation; 2) Unambiguous – when c. annulling election results in some contested
its application is apparent on the face of the bill and FACTS precincts.
needs no reference to details/souces outside the bill; 3) - Petition for review of the decision of the HRET 2. WON Syjuco should be cited for indirect contempt
Appropriate – when its subject does not necessarily have - 11 May 1992: Augusto L. Syjuco, Jr. (AS) & Joker P.
to be treated in a separate legislation. Arroyo (JA) ran for congressman for the lone district of HELD
- The assailed provision does not constitute a rider: it Makati. Board of canvassers proclaims A as winner. AS 1. YES HRET committed grave abuse of discretion
passes the above test. files an election protest before HRET, seeking revision a. The "precinct level document based
Ratio when a provision is particular, unambiguous, and and recounting of ballots in 75% of the precincts. His anomalies/evidence" theory
appropriate to the appropriations bill to which it belongs, grounds: alleged irregularities/anomalies in the - This innovative theory broadened the scope of the
it shall not be considered to be a rider tabulation and entries of votes & massive fraud. JA files election protest beyond what AS originally sought. This is
b. Petitioners allege: counter-protest questioning residence qualification of clearly substantial amendment of the election protest
- that instead of providing a budget for AS; dismissed by HRET. expressly proscribed by Rule 28 of the HRET internal
the CAR, it had the effect of abolishing the CAR - HRET undertakes revision of ballots. Serious rules. Impropriety of private respondent's belated shift of
- since a special law created the CAR, irregularities found. Justice Gancayco’s Report and theory was sensed by majority members of HRET but
the 2000 GAA is not the place for amending or Recommendation confirm irregularities and anomalies they still resolved not to dismiss the protest…this a
repealing a standing law. engineered by some HRET officials and personnel: clear indication of grave abuse of discretion. No
- However, the CAR was not abolished. It has only been Arroyo votes were consistently reduced … while Syjuco further hearings were conducted…JA's right to due
deactivated. was always constant…” process was clearly violated.
- Abolish – to do away with, annul, abrogate, destroy - Revision completed. Reception of evidence followed. JA - Substantial amendments to the protest maybe allowed
completely, office ceases to exist; submits certified true copies of the Revision Reports and only within the same period for the filing of the election
- Deactivate – render inactive, break up by discharging election returns. AS submits over 200,000 pages of protest 15 which, under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules, is ten
or reassigning personnel, office continues to exist, albeit documentary evidence, “mere photocopies and not (10) days after the proclamation of the winner. The rule
dormant. certified or authenticated by comparison with the in an election protest is that the protestant or
- But even if the limitation of the CAR’s budget had the original documents or identification by any witness…." counterprotestant must stand or fall upon the issues he
effect of abolishing certain offices, the Congress has he - In his memorandum cum addendum, AS changes his had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior
power to do so. original posture (revision and recount of ballots) to what to the lapse of the statutory period for the filing of
- creation of public offices is primarily a legislative he calls a “truly innovative and NON-TRADITIONAL protest or counter
function process" — the PRECINCT-LEVEL DOCUMENT-BASED protest. A party is bound by the theory he adopts and by
- office created by the legislature is wholly within the EVIDENCES. the cause of action he stands on and cannot be
power of that body, and it may abolish the office if it - By reason of the new allegations and substantial permitted after having lost thereon to repudiate his
sees fit. amendments (which broaden the scope of his protest, theory and cause of action and adopt another and seek
c. The CAR created through EO 220 is not the change his theory of the case or introduce additional to re-litigate the matter anew either in the same forum
autonomous region contemplated in the Constitution. EO causes of action in violation of Rule 28 Revised Rules of or on appeal. <principle of estoppel>
220 has not established an autonomous regional the Tribunal), HRET ordered him to show cause why his b. The kind of evidence used and how they were
government; rather, it has only created an protest should not be dismissed. procured
administrative region. It can be considered a regional - 15 February 1994: by a 6-3 vote (the six Congressmen- - Photocopies violate the best evidence rule: no
coordinating agency of the National Government. members as against the three Justices-members), HRET evidence shall be received which is merely
resolved not to dismiss the protest, to continue with the substitutionary in its nature so long as the original
2, 3: Except for the contention that the assailed examination and evaluation of the evidence on record, evidence can be had. Certain vital election documents
paragraph is a rider, the rest of the arguments look into and thereafter to decide the case on the merits. (such as certified xerox copy of the number of registered
the wisdom and efficacy of said provisions. Political - JA moved to dismiss the protest but to no avail. No voters per precinct and photocopies of statements of
questions hearings were conducted thereafter. votes) were procured at the sole instance of the ponente
- 25 January 1995: HRET, by the same 6-3 vote rendered of the majority decision, never offered in evidence by
Still its now assailed Decision annulling JA's proclamation, & either of the parties.
declaring AS as the duly elected congressman. Said - Majority congressmen-members of the Tribunal by
themselves without the participation of any of the three
(3) remaining Justices-members, declared that 10,484 of - Thus, with the patent nullity of the entire proceedings JUANITO G. CAMASURA, JR. Member
the contested signature are fake. This grossly violates before HRET and its majority decision in the election Cong, 1st Dist., Davao del Sur, LDP
Rules 68 &5 of HRET Rules (all questions shall be protest filed by AS, Joker Arroyo’s proclamation as the JOSE E. CALINGASAN Member
submitted to the Tribunal as a body; and presence of at winning congressman of the then lone district of Makati Cong, 4th Dist., Batangas, LDP
least one (1) Justice-member is required to constitute a is deemed not to have been challenged at all. ANTONIO H. CERILLES Member
valid quorum). Cong, 2nd Dist., Zamb del Sur, (GAD, now NP).
c. Nullification of election results 2. YES Syjuco should be cited for indirect contempt
- HRET proceeded to annul votes without a dint of - Since his statements in his Addendum which he - July 1989 – Bondoc filed petition
compliance with the 2 mandatory requisites for the prepared without aid of counsel appear to seriously - Oct 1990 - Bondoc won over Pineda by a margin of
annulment of election returns based on fraud, undermine the integrity of some members of the Court twenty-three (23) votes. LDP members in the Tribunal
irregularities or terrorism: - Want of intention to undermine the integrity of the insisted on a reappreciation and recount of the ballots
i. that more than fifty percent (50%) of the total Court is no excuse for the language employed by private cast in some precincts, delaying the finalization of the
number of votes in the precinct or precincts were respondent for it is a well-known and established rule decision by at least (4) months. The reexamination and
involved, & that derogatory words are to be taken in the ordinary re-appreciation of the ballots resulted in increasing
ii. that the votes must be shown to have been affected meaning attached to them by impartial observers Bondoc's lead over Pineda to 107 votes. Cong Camasura
or vitiated by such fraud, irregularities or terrorism. voted with the SC Justices and Cong Cerilles to proclaim
- Elections should never be held void unless they are Decision WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Bondoc the winner of the contest.
clearly illegal; it is the duty of the court to sustain an petition is hereby GRANTED, and public respondent - March 4, 1991 – Cong Camasura revealed to Cong. Jose
election authorized by law if it has been so conducted as HRET's majority decision dated January 25, 1995 is SET S. Cojuangco, Jr., LDP Sec Gen that he voted for Bondoc
to give a free and fair expression of the popular will, and ASIDE. Private respondent Augusto L. Syjuco, Jr., having in the final tally in the case. This revelation stirred a
the actual result thereof is clearly ascertained. Absent been found guilty of indirect contempt, is hereby fined hornets' nest in the LDP which went into a flurry of
fraud, mere irregularities or omissions committed by the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to be plotting appropriate moves to neutralize the pro-Bondoc
election officials which do not subvert the expression of paid within five (5) days from receipt of this decision. majority in the Tribunal.
popular will cannot countenance the nullification of - March 5, 1991 - HRET issued a Notice of
election results. Corollarily, the misconduct of election Promulgation of Decision on March 4, 1991 in
BONDOC V PINEDA
officers or irregularities on their part will not justify HRET Case No. 25.
rejecting the whole vote of a precinct (as was done in GRINO-AQUINO; September 26, 1991 - March 13, 1991 – Cong. Cojuangco informed Cong.
this case) where it does not appear that the result was Camasura by letter that on Feb 28, 1991 LDP had
affected thereby, even though the circumstances may FACTS already expelled him and Cong Benjamin Bautista for
be such as to subject the officers to punishment. 32 - In the local and congressional elections held on May 11, having allegedly helped to organize the Partido Pilipino
These omissions are not decisive since actual voting and 1987, Marciano M. Pineda of the Laban ng of "Danding" Cojuangco, and for having invited LDP
election by registered voters had taken place in the Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc members in Davao del Sur to join said political party.
questioned precincts. of the Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival candidates for Cong Cojuangco notified Speaker Ramon V. Mitra about
- General rule: a tribunal rendering a decision must be the position of Representative for the Fourth District of the ouster of the two congressmen from the LDP, and
given an opportunity to rectify its error through a motion the province of Pampanga. asked the HoR, through the Speaker, to take note of it
for reconsideration. BUT partiality of the majority of the - On May 19, 1987, Pineda was proclaimed winner in the especially in matters where party membership is a
members of the Electoral Tribunal having been shown, election with a lead of 3,300 votes. In due time, Bondoc prerequisite.
recourse for a reconsideration of its decision becomes filed a protest (HRET Case No. 25) in the House of - March 14, 1991 - the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mme.
nugatory and an immediate recourse to this Court can Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which is Jus Herrera, received a letter dated March 13, 1991,
be had based on the fundamental principle of due composed of (9) members: 3 Justices of the Supreme from the Office of the Sec Gen of the HoR, informing the
process. A prior motion for reconsideration can be Court and 6 members of the House of Representatives Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from the LDP, the
dispensed with if petitioner's fundamental right to due chosen on the basis of proportional representation from HoR decided to withdraw the nomination and
process was violated. the political parties and the parties or organizations rescind the election of Cong Camasura, Jr. to the
- Persistent and deliberate violation of the Tribunal's own registered under the party-list system represented House of Electoral Tribunal.
governing rules and of even the most basic rules of therein (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) as follows: - Justices Herrera, Cruz, and Feliciano promptly apprised
evidence cannot be justified by simply invoking that the CJ and Assoc Jus of the SC of this "distressing
procedural rules should be liberally construed. Rule 80 of AMEURFINA M. HERRERA Chairman development' and asked to be relieved from their
the very same internal rules expressly makes the Rules Associate Justice, SC assignments in the HRET because promulgation of the
of Court, Supreme Court decisions, and Electoral ISAGANI A. CRUZ Member decision previously scheduled for 14 March 1991, is
Tribunal decisions of suppletory application. Associate Justice, SC sought to be aborted. The decision reached (5 to 4 vote)
- Unwavering reverence to the rules of evidence as FLORENTINO P. FELICIANO Member may now be expected to be overturned on a motion for
provided by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence is Associate Justice, SC reconsideration by the party-litigant which would have
because they have been tested through years of HONORATO Y. AQUINO Member been defeated. It was also said that:
experience as the most effective means of ferreting out Cong, 1st Dist., Benguet, LDP > Proportional representation in the Tribunal (Art VI,
the truth in any judicial controversy. Rules and DAVID A. PONCE DE LEON Member Sec 17 Const) should be amended to provide instead
uniformity of procedure are as essential to procure truth Cong, 1st Dist., Palawan, LDP for a return to the composition mandated in the 1935
and exactness in elections as in anything else. SIMEON E. GARCIA, JR. Member Const: (3) members chosen by the House or Senate
Cong 2nd Dist., Nueva Ecija, LDP upon nomination of the party having the largest
number of votes and (3) of the party having the nominates and elects from its members. HRET Constitution underscores the exclusive jurisdiction of the
second largest number of votes: and a judicial allegedly has the sole power to remove any member House Electoral Tribunal as judge of contests relating to
component consisting of three (3) justices from the SC whenever the ratio in the representation of the the election, returns and qualifications of the members
> Suggestions: political parties in the House or Senate is materially of the House of Representatives (Robles vs. House of
+ The Senate Electoral Tribunal could sit as the sole changed on account of death, incapacity, removal or Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 86647,
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns expulsion from the political party; that a Tribunal February 5, 1990). The tribunal was created to function
and qualifications of members of the HoR and vice member's term of office is not co-extensive with his as a nonpartisan court. It is a non-political body in a sea
versa. So that there would be lesser chances of non- legislative term, for if a member of the Tribunal who of politicians.
judicial elements playing a decisive role in the changes his party affiliation is not removed from the - To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the HRET
resolution of election contests. Tribunal, the constitutional provision mandating must be independent.
+ There should also be a provision in the representation based on political affiliation would be The Electoral Commission, a constitutional organ created
Constitution that upon designation to membership completely nullified; and that the expulsion of for the specific purpose of determining contests relating
in the Electoral Tribunal, those so designated should Congressman Camasura from the LDP, is "purely a to election returns and qualifications of members of the
divest themselves of affiliation with their respective party affair" of the LDP and the decision to rescind his National Assembly may not be interfered with by the
political parties, to insure their independence and membership in the House Electoral Tribunal is the sole judiciary when and while acting within the limits of its
objectivity. (like that’s possible) prerogative of the House-of-Representative authority, but the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over
- During HRET open session, Tribunal issued a resolution Representatives, hence, it is a purely political question the Electoral Commission for the purpose of determining
canceling the promulgation of the decision in HRET Case beyond the reach of judicial review. the character, scope and extent of the constitutional
No. 25 because the decision lacks the concurrence of the > Cong Magdaleno M. Palacol alleged that the grant to the commission as sole judge of all contests
5 members without Cong Camasura's vote as required petitioner has no cause of action against him because relating to the election and qualifications of the
by Sec 24 of the Rules of the Tribunal and, therefore, he has not yet been nominated by the LDP for members of the National Assembly. (Angara vs. Electoral
cannot be validly promulgated. membership in the HRET. Moreover, the petition failed Commission, 63 Phil. 139.)
- March 19, 1991 - SC declined the request of the to implead the House of Representatives as an + Resolution of the House of Representatives violates
justices to be relieved of their membership in the indispensable party for it was the House, not the HRET the independence of the HRET. —
tribunal and directed them to do their duties. The court that withdrew and rescinded Congressman The resolution of the HoR is a clear impairment of the
even said that all members of these bodies are Camasura's membership in the HRET. constitutional prerogative of the House Electoral Tribunal
appropriately guided only by purely legal considerations > Sol Gen also argued that the inclusion of the HRET to be the sole judge of the election contest between
in the decision of the cases before them and that in the as a party respondent is erroneous because the Pineda and Bondoc.
contemplation of the Constitution the members- petition states no cause of action against the Tribunal. + Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination
legislators, sit in the Tribunal no longer as reps of their The petitioner does not question any act or order of of membership in the HRET. —
political parties but as impartial judges. The term of the HRET in violation of his rights. What he assails is As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-
office of every member thereof should be considered co- the act of the HoR of withdrawing the nomination, and partisan. They must discharge their functions with
extensive with the corresponding legislative term and rescinding the election, of Camasura as a member of complete detachment, impartiality, and independence
may not be legally terminated except only by death, the HRET. even independence from the political party to which they
resignation, permanent disability, or removal for valid - Bondoc replied that HRET acknowledged that decision belong. Hence, "disloyalty to party" and "breach of party
cause, not including political disloyalty. by canceling the promulgation of its decision in HRET discipline," are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a
- March 21, 1991 - petition for certiorari, prohibition and Case No. 25 to his prejudice. Bondoc also explained that member of the tribunal.
mandamus was filed by Dr. Bondoc against Reps Pineda, Cong Palacol was impleaded as one of the respondents + Expulsion of Congressman Camasura violates his right
Palacol, Camasura, Jr., or any other rep who may be because after the HoR had announced the termination of to security of tenure.
appointed Vice Rep and HRET praying this Court to: Cong Camasura's membership in the HRET several Members of the HRET as "sole judge" of congressional
1. Annul the decision of the HoR of March 13, 1991, 'to newspapers reported that the HoR would nominate and election contests are entitled to security of tenure just as
withdraw the nomination and to rescind the elect Palacol to take Camasura’s seat in the Tribunal. members of the judiciary enjoy security of tenure under
nomination of Rep. Camasura, Jr. to HRET our Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
2. Issue a writ of prohibition restraining whomsoever ISSUE Therefore, membership in the House Electoral Tribunal
may be designated in place of Camasura from WON the HoR can interfere with the disposition of an may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as,
assuming and discharging functions as a member of election contest in the HRET through "reorganizing" the the expiration of the term of office, his death, permanent
the HRET representation in the tribunal of the majority party disability, resignation from the political party he
3. Issue a writ of mandamus ordering Camasura to represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with another
immediately reassume and discharge his functions as HELD political party, or removal for other valid cause. A
a member of the HRET; and - Sec 17 reechoes Sec 11, Article VI of the 1935 member may not be expelled by the House of
4. Grant such other relief as may be just and Constitution, except the provision on the representation Representatives for "party disloyalty" short of proof that
equitable. of the main political parties in the tribunal which is now he has formally affiliated with another political group. As
- The Court required the respondents to comment on the based on proportional representation from all the the records of this case fail to show that Congressman
petition political parties, instead of equal representation of three Camasura has become a registered member of another
> Cong Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. did not oppose the members from each of the first and second largest political party, his expulsion from the LDP and from the
petition. political aggrupations in the Legislature. HRET was not for a valid cause; hence, it violated his
> Cong Marciano M. Pineda's plea for the dismissal of - The use of the word "sole" in both Section 17 of the right to security of tenure.
the petition as the Congress' is the sole authority that 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of the 1935
- Since the expulsion of Cong Camasura from the House - The question that must be asked in testing the validity that they filed this petition in behalf of all other Filipinos
Electoral Tribunal by the House of Representatives was of such legislative act is, does the House of since subjects are of profound and general interest.
not for a lawful and valid cause, but to unjustly interfere Representatives have the power to do what it has done
with the tribunal's disposition of the Bondoc case and to and not whether the House of Representatives should ISSUES
deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the Tribunal's decision in have done what it has done. 1. WON petitioners had standing to file for petition for
his favor, the action of the House of Representatives is - The judiciary cannot question a legislative act done mandamus
clearly violative of the constitutional mandate (Sec. 17, within the constitutional authority of the legislature The 2. WON SC has jurisdiction to entertain this petition
Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) judicial department has no power to review even the 3. WON Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) in the 1973 Constitution
- Ratio The House Electoral Tribunal, being an agency most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative applies to the Interim Batasang Pambansa
independent of the legislature, may not be interfered department, taken in the exercise of power committed
with by the House exclusively to it by the Constitution. To hold otherwise HELD
Decision WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, would be to invalidate the principle of separation of 1. petitioners had no standing to file for petition for
prohibition and mandamus is granted. The decision of powers. mandamus
the HoR withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the - As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant
election of Cong Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. as a member of SARMIENTO [dissent] petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money
the House Electoral Tribunal is hereby declared null and is being illegally spent. Action complained of is the
void ab initio for being violative of the Constitution, and - I believe that the questions as Jus Padilla raised it — inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election, and
Cong Juanita G. Camasura, Jr. is ordered reinstated to his can the Court annul an act of Congress, revamping its therefore involves no expenditure of public funds. It is
position as a member of the HRET. The HRET Resolution House Electoral Tribunal? — is a political question and a only when an act complained of, which may include a
No. 91-0018 dated March 14, 1991, canceling the question in which the Court cannot intervene. legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal
promulgation of the decision in HRET Case No. 25 ("Dr. - The jurisdiction of this Court includes the power to expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer
Emigdio Bondoc vs. Marciano A. Pineda") is also set strike down excesses of any agency of Government, but suit may be allowed.
aside. Considering the unconscionable delay incurred in the Charter did not alter or discard the principle of - As voters, neither have petitioners the requisite
the promulgation of that decision to the prejudice of the separation of powers. interest or personality to qualify them to maintain and
speedy resolution of electoral cases, the Court, in the - Evidently, Congressman Camasura's ouster from the prosecute the present petition, for to have legal standing
exercise of its equity jurisdiction, and in the interest of Tribunal was a result of political maneuvers within the is to have personal and substantial interest in the case,
justice, hereby declares the said decision DULY lower house. This Court, however, is above politics and or sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
PROMULGATED, effective upon service of copies thereof Justices should be the last persons to get involved in the Interest held in common by all members of the public is
on the parties, to be done immediately by the Tribunal. "dirty" world of politics. If they do, they risk their of abstract nature (as is the injury that will be sustained)
Costs against respondent Marciano A. Pineda. independence. and may not be used as standing to sue. Concrete injury,
Narvasa, Paras, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable
Jr., JJ., concur. element for one to have personality in a dispute.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., concurs as certified to by the Chief LOZADA V COMELEC
Justice. DE CASTRO; January 27, 1983 2. SC has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition
Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Cruz and Feliciano, JJ., - The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the COMELEC is
took no part. FACTS only to review by certiorari the latter's decision, orders
- Jose Mari Eulalio Lozada and Romeo Igot filed a petition or rulings. This is as clearly provided in Article XII-C,
SEPARATE OPINION for mandamus as a representative suit27 to compel the Section II of the 1973 Constitution29. In this case, there is
respondent COMELEC to call a special election to fill up no such decision, order or ruling. Even from the
existing vacancies numbering twelve (12) in the Interim standpoint of an action for mandamus, with the total
PADILLA [dissent]
Batasan Pambansa. The petition is based on Section absence of a showing that COMELEC has unlawfully
-A fundamental principle in our constitutional system is
5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution28. neglected or refused the performance of a ministerial
that the powers of government are distributed among
- Lozada claims that he is a taxpayer and a bona fide duty, it is not shown that petitioners have a clear right to
three (3) great departments. Each separate from, yet
elector of Cebu City and a transient voter of Quezon the holding of a special election which is equally the
coordinate and co-equal with the others each one
City, who desires to run for the position in the Batasan clear and ministerial duty of COMELEC.
deriving its authority directly from the fundamental law.
Pambansa; while Igot alleges that, as a taxpayer, he has - Only the Batasan Pambansa can make the necessary
- This does not extend to the point that those in
standing to petition by mandamus the calling of a appropriation for special elections, and this power of the
authority in one department can ignore and treat the
special election as mandated by the 1973 Constitution. may neither be subject to mandamus by the courts
acts of those in authority in the others, done pursuant to
As reason for their petition, petitioners allege that they much less may COMELEC compel the Batasan to
the authority vested in them, as nugatory and not
are deeply concerned with their duties as citizens, and exercise its power of appropriation. From the role
binding in every other department.
Batasan Pambansa has to play in the holding of special
- The HoR has the power to nominate the members of
elections, which is to appropriate the funds for the
the House Electoral Tribunal provided that the
expenses thereof, it would seem that the initiative on
proportional representation of parties is maintained. 27
for and in behalf of those who wish to participate in the election the matter must come from said body, not the
- The power to appoint or designate a member of the irrespective of party affiliation
House of Representatives to be a member of the House 28
Article VIII, Sec.5 (2): In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa
29
Electoral Tribunal must necessarily include the power to eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Any decision, order or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the
remove said member. Election shall call a special election to be held within sixty (60) days after Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term. his receipt of a copy thereof.
COMELEC. The power to appropriate is the sole and the appointment in view of derogatory information which consent of the CA may the person assume office. As with
exclusive prerogative of the legislative body, the he had received. ad interim appointments, the appointment takes effect
exercise of which may not be compelled through a at once. The appointment is effective until disapproval
petition for mandamus. ISSUES by the CA or until the next adjournment in Congress.
4. Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) in the 1973 Constitution does not 1. WON the filing of a motion for reconsideration There must either be a rejection by the CA or
apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa nonaction on its part.
with the Commission on Appointments (CA), without
- The cited provision of the 1973 Constitution is not
being acted on, suffices to set at naught a
intended to apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa. 2. The insistence of respondent that the question
confirmation duly made of an ad interim appointment.
- The strongest reason for this is the fact that the Interim involved is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court is
2. WON the issue is a justiciable question, with the CA
Batasang Pambansa was to be composed by the untenable. It would extend the boundaries of the political
being an independent organ of the Constitution.
delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as question doctrine beyond its legitimate limits. The courts
the then incumbent President and Vice-President, and are called upon to see to it that private rights are not
HELD
the members or the Senate and House of invaded.
Representatives of Congress under the 1935 1. As per Altarejos v. Molo, the confirmation - Although the CA is not a power in our tripartite system
Constitution. With such number of representatives stands; it must be given force and effect. of government, it is to all intents and purposes, like the
representing each congressional district, or a province, Ratio Petitioner buttresses his plea for prohibition on Electoral Tribunals, when acting within the limits of its
not to mention the Senators, there was felt absolutely no the ground that the letter of then Senator Ganzon, even authority, an independent organ. Its actuation in the
need for filling vacancies occurring in the Interim on the assumption that it was a motion to reconsider an exercise of its power to approve appointment submitted
National Assembly, considering the uncertainty of the appointment duly confirmed, was without force and to it by the President of the Philippines is exempt from
duration of its existence. effect as it was not approved by the body as a whole. judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear
- The provision is intended to apply to the regular Reasoning showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the
Batasang Pambansa, because a province or a. The controlling principle is supplied by Altarejos v. powers as will constitute a denial of due process.
representative district would have only one Molo, which interpreted Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of
representative in said body. The need to fill up the the Commission on Appointments, which reads:
“Resolution of the Commission on any appointment may
AVELINO V CUENCO
Interim Batasang Pambansa is neither imperative nor
urgent, as there would always be adequate be reconsidered on motion by a member presented not PER CURIAM; March 4, 1949
representation for every province which forms only part more than one (1) day after their approval. If a majority
of a certain region, specially considering that the Body is of the members present concur to grant a RESOLUTION on Original action in the SC
only transitory in character. reconsideration, the appointment may be laid on the
- That the provision is found in the main body of the table, this shall be a final disposition of such a motion.” FACTS
Constitution and not in included in Transitory Provisions Holding of the Court was that the mere filing of a - Summary: The Avelino I case illustrates judicial review
adds to the intention that the provision applies only to reconsideration did not have the effect of setting of internal affairs of the legislature. The Court refused to
the regular, and not interim, Batasang Pambansa. aside a confirmation. In the case, Aldeguer’s look into the legality of the election of a Senate
(respondent in Altarejos case) theory would give to the President, in view of the separation of powers, the
Decision Petition dismissed. mere filing of a motion for reconsideration the effect political nature of the controversy and the Senate’s
which it would have if the motion approved, and hence, constitutional power to elect its own president
would dispense with the necessity of such approval, for Before the opening of a morning session of the Senate,
PACETE V SECRETARY OF COMMISSION which the concurrence of a majority of the members Senators Lorenzo Tañada and Prospero Sanidad
FERNANDO; July 23, 1971 present is necessary. This is inconsistent with Rule 21 of prepared a resolution enumerating charges30 against the
the Revised Rules of the Commission. then Senate President Jose Avelino. AVELINO presided
FACTS In case of an adjournment sine die the period the session and called the meeting in order, and except
Felizardo S. Pacete alleged that he was appointed by the for filing the motion for reconsideration having for a senator who was confined in a hospital and another
then President of the Philippines on August 31, 1964 as expired, under Section 22, then the motion for who is in the United States, all the Senators were
Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato. He assumed reconsideration not having been acted upon is present.31
office on September 11, 1964 and discharged his duties not approved and therefore, has no effect - TAÑADA sought to be recognized, but AVELINO and his
as such. As his appointment was made during recess of whatsoever. followers prevented TAÑADA from delivering his
Congress, it was submitted to the Commission on What is decisive is that a confirmation duly made is not privilege speech. A commotion later ensued, upon which
Appointments at its next session in 1965. Appointment nullified simply by a motion of reconsideration being AVELINO and 9 other senators left the session hall.
was unanimously confirmed on May 20, 1965 (with filed, without its being voted upon and approved. Subsequently, the Senate President Pro-tempore took
Senate President and Chairman of Commission on b. “The President shall have the power to make the Chair and proceeded with the session. The remaining
Appointments Ferdinand Marcos even sending him a appointments during the recess of the Congress, but
congratulatory telegram). Nine months after his such appointments shall be effective only until 30
BRYAN SJ: Among which were advocacy of the graft and
confirmation, on February 7, 1966, the then Secretary of disapproval by the CA or until the next adjournment of corruption in the government (particularly those committed by the
Justice advised petitioner to vacate his position as Congress.” Liberal Party, to which AVELINO was a member); questionable
municipal judge. Petitioner was informed that on May 21, - A distinction is made between the exercise of such possession of checks totaling more than P500,000 after AVELINO’s
assumption of office; and justification of electoral fraud.
1965, Senator Rodolfo Ganzon (a member of the presidential prerogative requiring confirmation by the CA
Commission on Appointments) wrote to its Chairman when Congress is in session and when it is in recess. In 31
Similar to the 1987 Const, the Senate is composed of 24
stating that he was filing a motion for reconsideration of the former, the President nominates, and only upon the senators under the 1935 Const.
senators unanimously approved, among others, a the presiding officer to decree motu propio said ISSUES
resolution “declaring vacant the position of the President adjournment, and the sound parliamentary practice and 1. WON SC will assume jurisdiction over this case
of the Senate and designating… Mariano Jesus Cuenco experience in this country and in the United States of 2. WON election of Cuenco as Senate President is valid
Acting President of the Senate." The next day the America, upon which ours is patterned, would not
President of the Philippines recognized CUENCO as authorize the existence of such a provision. HELD
acting Senate President. - AVELINO alleges that he ordered the adjournment 1. The Court has resolved (7-4 vote) to assume
- Hence, the present petition, AVELINO asking the Court because the motion of a senator to said effect was jurisdiction over the case in the light of subsequent
to declare him the rightful Senate President and oust properly made and met with no objection. The evidence, events which justify its intervention.
CUENCO. however, fails to support AVELINO’s claim. The 2. Partly for the reasons stated in the first resolution of
circumstances lead us to the conclusion that illegal this Court and partly upon the grounds stated by Feria
ISSUE adjournment and the walk out of AVELINO and his [and] Perfecto, JJ. in their separate opinions, to declare
WON SC has jurisdiction over the subject matter supporters from the session hall had the purpose of that there was a quorum at the session where CUENCO
defeating or, at least, delaying, action on the proposed was elected acting Senate President. Chief Justice
HELD investigation of the charges against AVELINO and of his [Moran] agrees with the result of the majority's
NO (6-4 vote) impeding ouster, by the decisive votes of CUENCO's pronouncement on the quorum, it appearing from the
Ratio The issue of the validity of the election of the group. evidence that any new session with a quorum would
new Senate President is a political question. - The rump session (i.e. the session after the AVELINO result in CUENCO's election as Senate President, and
Reasoning group walkout) had no valid quorum to transact that the CUENCO group has been trying to satisfy [the
- The answer is in the negative, in view of the separation business. – The Constitution provides: “A majority of constitutional] formalism by issuing compulsory
of powers, the political nature of the controversy and the each House shall constitute a quorum to do business…” processes against senators of the AVELINO group, but to
constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect [cf Art. VI, Sec. 16 (2), 1987 Const]. The majority no avail, because of the latter's persistent efforts to
its own president, which power should not be interfered mentioned in the provision cannot be other than the block all avenues to constitutional processes. For this
with, nor taken over, by the judiciary. We should abstain majority of the actual members of the Senate. The words reason, [the Chief Justice] believes that the CUENCO
in this case because the selection of the presiding officer "each House" in the above provision refer to the full group has done enough to satisfy the requirements of
affects only the Senators themselves who are at liberty membership of each chamber of Congress. The Senate is the Constitution and that the majority's ruling is in
at any time to choose their officers, change or reinstate composed of 24 Senators, and a majority of them cannot conformity with substantial justice and with the
them. If the majority of the Senators want AVELINO to be less than 13. 12 is only half of 24. Nowhere and at no requirements of public interest.
preside, his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall, not time has one-half ever been the majority. Majority Decision The judgment of the Court is, therefore, that
in the Supreme Court. necessarily has to be more than one-half. CUENCO has been legally elected as Senate President
- The Court will not sally into the legitimate domain of and the petition is dismissed.
the Senate on the plea that our refusal to intercede FERIA [concur]
might lead into a crisis, even a revolution. No state of SEPARATE OPINION
things has been proved that might change the temper of - If the rump session was not a continuation of the
the Filipino people as peaceful and law-abiding citizens. morning session, was it validly constituted? Yes. At the
It is furthermore believed that the recognition accorded FERIA [concur]
beginning of the rump session there were at least 14
by the Chief Executive to CUENCO makes it advisable, to senators. Also, in view of the absence from the country
adopt the hands-off policy enunciated by this Court in of one senator, 12 senators constitute a majority of the I maintain my opinion that there was a quorum in the
matters of similar nature. Senate of 23 senators. When the Constitution declares (rump) session. Among others, the amendment of the
Decision Petition dismissed. that a majority of "each House" shall constitute a quorum provision from "the majority of all the members
quorum, "the House" does not mean "all" the members. of the National Assembly constitute a quorum to do
SEPARATE OPINION There is a difference between a majority of "all the business," into "a majority of each House shall constitute
members of the House" and a majority of "the House", a quorum to do business," shows the intention of the
the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore framers of the Constitution to base the majority, not on
PERFECTO [dissent]
an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the the number fixed or provided for in the Constitution, but
Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional majority on actual members or incumbents, and this must be
- There was illegal adjournment of the morning session. limited to actual members who are not incapacitated to
of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum.
The power to adjourn is one of the exclusive discharge their duties by reason of death, incapacity, or
prerogatives of a legislative chamber. It cannot be absence from the jurisdiction of the House or for other
exercised by any single individual, without usurpation of RESOLUTION on Motion for causes which make attendance of the member
the collective prerogatives. The functions of the Senate Reconsideration concerned impossible, even through coercive process
and its opportunity to transact official business cannot which each House is empowered to issue to compel its
be left to the discretion of a single individual without FACTS members to attend the session in order to constitute a
jeopardizing the high purposes for which a legislative - In Avelino II, the Court, in light of events subsequent to quorum.
deliberative body is established in a democratic social Avelino I (i.e., refusal of the Avelino group to return to
order. the session hall despite the compulsory process served PERFECTO [concur]
- There is no provision in the present rules of the Senate upon them), reversed its original decision and now
which expressly or impliedly authorizes an adjournment assumed jurisdiction over the case
without the consent of the body or one which authorizes
- The words "all the members" used in the original, for 1. WON the Constitution gives members of Congress
the determination of the quorum of the National complete parliamentary immunity for words spoken in
OSMENA V PENDATUN
Assembly, have been eliminated in the amendment, as the House
regards the Houses of Congress, because they were a BENGZON; October 28, 1960 2. WON the Speech of Osmeña constituted unruly
mere surplusage. I, as Member of the Second National behavior for which he could be punished
Assembly and in my capacity as Chairman of the FACTS 3. WON Osmeña can be held to answer for or be
Committee on Third Reading, was the one who proposed - On June 23, 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr., in censured by the House, given that other business had
the elimination of said surplusage, because "majority of a privilege speech delivered before the House, made the intervened after gave the speech in question
each House" can mean only the majority of the members serious imputations of bribery against the President. The 4. WON the House has the power to suspend its
thereof, without excluding anyone, that is, of all the House of Representatives, through Resolution No. 59, members
members. created a special committee of 15 members to
The word majority is a mathematical word. It has, as investigate the truth of the charges against the HELD
such, a precise and exact mathematical meaning. A President. It summoned Osmeña to appear before it to 1. NO. Section 15, Article VI of our Constitution which
majority means more than one-half (1/2). It can never be substantiate his charges. provides that "for any speech or debate" in Congress,
identified with one-half (1/2) or less than one-half. The - On July 14, 1960, Osmeña filed with the Supreme Court the Senators or Members of the House of
Senate is composed of 24 senators. The majority of said a petition for "declaratory relief, certiorari and Representatives "shall not be questioned in any other
senators cannot be less than thirteen 13. 12 do not prohibition with preliminary injunction" against place." This section was taken or is a copy of sec. 6,
constitute the majority in a group composed of 24 units. Congressman Salipada Pendatun and the fourteen other clause I of Art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States,
No amount of mental gymnastics or juristic logodaedaly members of the Special Committee. He asked that said wherein the provision has always been understood to
will convince anyone that one of two equal numbers resolution be annulled and that said members of the mean that although exempt from prosecution or
constitute a majority part of the two numbers combined. special committee be enjoined from proceeding in civil actions for their words uttered in Congress,
The 5 fingers of one hand cannot be the majority of the accordance with it, particularly the portion authorizing the members of Congress may, nevertheless, be
combined 10 fingers of the two hands. Majority is them to require him to substantiate his charges against questioned in Congress itself.
incompatible with equality. It implies the idea of the President, with the admonition that if he failed to do - Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity
superiority. Majority presupposes the existence of a total so, he must show cause why the House should not which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every
and, in the present case, the total number of 24 senators punish him. Osmeña alleged: (1) the Constitution gave legislative assembly of the democratic world. It
composing the Senate. him complete parliamentary immunity, and so, for words guarantees the legislator complete freedom of
- The above pronouncements notwithstanding, we are spoken in the House, he ought not to be questioned; (2) expression without fear of being made responsible in
now inclined to conclude that for the purpose of that his speech constituted no disorderly behaviour for criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other
choosing CUENCO merely as Acting Senate President, which he could be punished; and (3) supposing he could forum outside of the Congressional Hall. But it does not
the presence of the 12 senators was enough quorum. be questioned and disciplined therefor, the House took protect him from responsibility before the legislative
The Constitution provides: “A majority of each House up other business, and Rule XVII, sec. 7 of the Rules of body itself whenever his words and conduct are
shall constitute a quorum…, but a smaller number may the House provides that if other business has intervened considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance after the Member had uttered obnoxious words in member thereof.
of absent Members in such manner and under such debate, he shall not be held to answer therefor nor be 2. YES. The House is the judge of what constitutes
penalties as such House may provide" [again, cf Art. VI, subject to censure by the House disorderly behavior, not only because the Constitution
Sec. 16 (2), 1987 Const]. The "smaller number" referred - Aware of the petition, the special committee continued has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the
to has to act collectively and cannot act as collective to perform its task, and after giving Osmena a chance to matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of
body to perform the functions specifically vested in it by defend himself, submitted its report on July 18, 1960, which the House knows best but which can not be
the Constitution unless presided by one among their finding said congressman guilty of serious disorderly depicted in black and white for presentation to, and
number. The collective body constituted by said "smaller behavior. Acting on such report, the House approved on adjudication by the Courts. For one thing, if this Court
number" has to take measure to "compel the attendance the same day-before closing its session-House assumed the power to determine whether Osmeña's
of absent members," so as to avoid disruption in the Resolution No. 175, declaring him guilty as conduct constituted disorderly behavior, it would thereby
functions of the respective legislative chamber. Said recommended, and suspending him from office for have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which the
"smaller number" may be 12 or even less than 12 fifteen months. Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate
senators to constitute a quorum for the election of a - Thereafter, Osmeña took the additional position that branch of the Government. The theory of separation of
temporary or acting president, who will have to act until the House has no power, under the Constitution, to powers fastidiously observed by this Court, demands in
normalcy is restored. suspend one of its members. such situation a prudent refusal to interfere. Each
- At the hearing of this case, CUENCO manifested that he - On July 19, 1960, the respondents filed their answer, department, it has been said, has exclusive cognizance
was looking for an opportunity to renounce the position challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its
of Acting Senate President, and that if AVELINO should petition, defended the power of Congress to discipline its own sphere.
attend the sessions of the Senate and insist on claiming members with suspension, upheld House Resolution - "The Legislative power of the Philippine Congress is
the presidency thereof, CUENCO would allow AVELINO to No. .175 and then invited attention to the fact that plenary, subject only to such limitations as are found in
preside over the sessions. AVELINO’s refusal to attend Congress having ended its session on July 18, 1960, the the Republic's Constitution. So that any power deemed
the sessions, notwithstanding CUENCO’s commitment to Committee-whose members are the sole respondents- to be legislative by usage or tradition, is necessarily
allow him to preside over them, can and should logically had thereby ceased to exist. possessed by the Philippine Congress, unless the
be interpreted as an abandonment which entails Constitution provides otherwise." (Vera vs. Avelino, 77
forfeiture of office. ISSUES Phil., 192, 212.)
3. YES. Resolution No. 59 was unanimously approved by - The respondent mayor (Villegas) publicly denounced an ordinance thereto had been passed by a “vote for
the House, such approval amounted to a suspension of the RA, then Sen. Tolentino made a press statement that three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of
the House Rules, which according to standard the enrolled copy of HB 9266 signed by the President is the House of Representatives” pursuant to Article XV of
parliamentary practice may be done by unanimous not the version passed by the Senate since it did not the Constitution, saying that it involved a political
consent. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and contain the amendments he made. The Senate President question (enrolled bill doctrine) which is not in the
with their observance, the courts have no concern. They then informed the President that the enrolled copy of the province of the judiciary.
may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. signed HB 9266 was not the bill duly approved by - using J. Bengzon’s separate opinion in the same case, J.
Consequently, mere failure to conform to parliamentary Congress and that his signature is invalid and had no Makalintal said that the case at bar is justiciable since
usage will not invalidate the action when the requisite effect, and could not validate the bill which was not the enrolled copy of the resolution and the legislative
number of members has agreed to a particular version approved by the Congress. The President then journals are conclusive upon the courts based on Section
measure." withdrew his signature on the HB 9266. 313 of Act 190, as amended by Act. No. 2210 as proof of
4. YES. For unparliamentary conduct, members of - With the withdrawal of signatures of the Senate due enactment of provisions of acts.
Parliament or of Congress have been, or could be President and the President of the Philippines, Villegas - basis of the enrolled bill theory: respect due to coequal
censured, committed to prison, suspended, even issued circulars ordering city government officials and and independent departments which requires the judicial
expelled by the votes of their colleagues. The practice operators of business establishments to disregard the department to “accept, as having passed the Congress,
and the traditional power of legislative assemblies to provisions of RA 4065. He likewise ordered the Chief of all bills authenticated by it.
take, disciplinary action against its members, including Police to recall the police officers assigned to the vice- 2. Ratio NO. The final passage of the bill ends the
imprisonment, suspension or expulsion have been mayor presumably under the said RA.
lawmaking process and the certification/attestation of
recognized in the United States. The Rules of Philippine - As a reaction, the petitioner vice mayor (Astorga) filed
the bill is only a mode of authentication devised by the
House of Representatives provide that the parliamentary a petition for “Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition
Congress which does not add the validity of the bill nor
practices of the Congress of the United States shall with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction”
cure any defect already present upon it.
apply in a supplementary manner to its proceedings. to compel respondents to comply with the provisions of
Obiter effects of Attestation of the bill: just a mode of
Decision Petition DISMISSED. RA 4065.
authentication; signify the Chief Executive that the bill
- Respondents argued that RA 4056 never became law
being presented to him has been duly approved by
since (1) it was not the bill approved by Congress and (2)
ASTORGA V VILLEGAS Congress and is ready for his approval or disapproval
entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled
MAKALINTAL; April 30, 1974 bill should be decisive in the resolution of the issue. 3. Ratio YES. If attestation is absent and is not
Since Mayor Villegas was going abroad on an official trip, mandated in the Constitution for the validity of a
FACTS Court issued restraining order for Astorga to not exercise statute, the courts may resort to the journals and
- Original Action in the SC. Mandamus, injunction and/or the powers vested to him as Acting Mayor under the RA other records of Congress for proof of its due
prohibition with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory 4065. enactment.
injunction Obiter Attestation by the presiding officers is not
- HB No. 9266 was filed and was passed on the third ISSUES mandated in the Constitution as a proof of due
reading without amendments in the House of enactment of a bill, but requires a Journal of the
Representatives (HoR). It was referred to the Senate
1. WON the Court could resolve the issue
Congress’ proceedings [comparison of Constitutions:
regarding the “enrolled bill doctrine”
Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments 1935 consti vs 1987 Consti: Sec 10(4) = Art VI, sec 26
and Cities headed by Sen. Roxas. Sen. Roxas suggested 2. WON the attestation of the presiding officers of (2); Sec. 21(2) = Art VI, sec 27(1)]
a minor amendment on HB 9266. However, this the Congress approves the bill and validates it into a 4. Ratio NO. Given that (1) the Court could
recommendation was not acted upon by the Senate law
resolve the issue regarding the enrolled bill doctrine,
during its second hearing, and instead, approved in toto
Sen. Tolentino’s substantial amendment on the section
3. WON in the absence of the attestation of the (2) that the Court could use the attestation of the
presiding officers, the “journal entry” in the Journals of presiding officers of Congress and, in the absence of
definig the powers and duties of the VM.
Congress could constitute proof of due enactment the latter, the records of the proceedings of the
- After that the Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to
4. WON RA 4065 was duly enacted and therefore Congress entered into the Journals of Congress as
the HoR that HB. No. 9266 had been passed by the
proof of the due enactment of RA 4065 since the law is
Senate with amendments. However, the attached did not become a law
deemed enacted after the passage of the bill in the 3rd
amendments were not Sen. Tolentino’s but Sen.
reading and the attestation of the presiding officers
Roxas’amendments. The HoR signified its approval of HB HELD
just serve as a mode of authenticating the bill, (3)
No. 9266 (with Roxas amendment) and printed copies of 1. Ratio YES. The enrolled copy of the resolution that, upon referring to the journal entries of the
it which were certified and attested by the Secretary of and the legislative journals are conclusive upon the proceedings of congress, the Court discovered that
the HoR, the Speaker of the HoR, the Secretary of the Courts under Section 313 of Act 190, as amended by substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced
Senate, and the Senate President. The Secretary of the Act. No. 2210 as evidence for the due enactment of a to the HB but were not incorporated in the printed text
House transmitted 4 copies of the bill to the President of bill. which was signed by the President of the Philippines,
the Philippines, who affixed his signatures by way of Obiter and (4) that the President of the Philippines and of the
approval – enacted the bill into R.A. No. 406532 - compared this case to the Mabanag v. Lopez Vito Senate already withdrew their signatures, then RA
where the Court denied to resolve the issue of WON a 4065 was not duly enacted and therefore did not
32
An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the resolution of both Houses of Congress proposing an become a law.
City of Manila, Further Amending for the Purpose Section 10 and 11 of RA amendment to the 1935 Constitution to be appended as
No. 409, Otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
Decision RA 4065 was declared not to have been duly o Breach of peace-covers any offense whether - Ordinary Civil Action for the recovery of several sums
enacted and therefore did not become law. TRO made defined by RPC or any special statute of money by way of damages for the publication of an
permanent. [8 concur, 2 no part, 1 did not take part (I • History of parliamentary immunity shows that it was allegedly libelous letter of defendant Bartolome
don’t know the difference), 1 on leave = 12 only] never intended to exempt members of the National Cabangbang
Assembly from criminal arrest - Defendant moved to dismiss upon ground that letter is
• The power or right of the State to claim privileges is a privileged communication and not libelous since he
MARTINEZ V MORFE
due to the fact that it has the right to carry out its was a member of the House of Representatives and
FERNANDO; March 24, 1972 function without obstacle Chairman of House Committee on National Defense
• In England, operation of parliamentary privilege - The letter in question is an open letter to the President
FACTS excludes all crimes, applies only to prosecutions of of the Philippines dated Nov 14, 1958 while congress
- Petitioners Manuel Martinez and Fernando Bautista, Sr. civil nature was presumably not in session.
were delegates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention • There is a full recognition of the necessity to have - Defendant caused the publication of the letter in
facing criminal prosecution members of the Congress, and likewise, delegates several newpapers.
o Martinez was charged with falsification of a public of the Constitutional Convention, entitled to the - The open letter was an exposé on allegedly three
document for stating under oath in his certificate of utmost freedom to enable them to discharge operational plans. The first plan is said to be an insidious
candidacy for delegate to the Constitutional responsibilities plan or a massive political build up of then Sec. of Nat’l
Convention that he was born on June 20, 1945, when Defense, Jesus Vagas, by propagandizing and
• However, when it comes to freedom from arrest, it
in truth he was born on June 20, 1946 glamorizing him in such a way as to be prepared to
would amount to the creation of a privileged class if
o Bautista was accused of violating Section 51 of the become candidate for President in 1961. (Plan II – A coup
notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense,
Revised Election Code in that he gave and distributed d’etat;Plan III – A modification of Plan I)
they would be immune during their attendance in
free of charge, food, drinks, and cigarettes at two - The letter also implicated that the “planners” have
Congress and in going to and returning from the
public meetings under their control the following : (1) Col. Nicanor
same.
- Both wanted the respective warrants of arrest issued Jimenez , (2)Lt.Col. Jose Lukban,(3) Capt. Carlos Albert,
• A legislator or a delegate can perform his functions
against them to be quashed, by virtue of the (4)Col Fidel Llamas, (5) Lt. Col Jose regala, (6)Maj. Jose
efficiently and well without the need for any
parliamentary immunity they enjoy as delegates, Reyna…….”It is of course possible that the officers
transgression of criminal law.
traceable to Section 15 Article VI of the Constitution as mentioned above are unwitting tools of the plan of which
• If a legislator or delegate is facing criminal they may have absolutely no knowledge.”
construed together with Article 145 of the Revised Penal
prosecution, he should be treated like any other - Lower Court dismissed
Code
citizen considering that there is a strong public - Petitioners appealed
interest in seeing to it that a crime should not go
ISSUES
unpunished. ISSUES
1. WON the petitioners are immune from arrest
2. No. Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code is 1. WON the publication is a privileged communication
2. WON Section 15 Article VI of the Constitution should
inoperative. 2. (if not) WON it is libelous
be construed together with Article 145 of the Revised
Penal Code, thereby expanding congressional immunity • Article 145 penalizes a public officer or employee
who shall, during the session of Congress, arrest or HELD
HELD search any member thereof, except in case such 1. NO. The publication in question is not absolutely
1. No. Parliamentary immunity does not cover criminal member has committed a crime punishable under privileged. It was an open letter to the President
arrests. the RPC by a penalty higher than prision mayor. published by the defendant when the Congress was not
• Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6132, • RPC took effect on January 1, 1932, before the in session. And in thus causing it to be published he was
otherwise known as the 1971 Constitutional enforcement of the 1935 Constitution not performing his official duty, either as a member of
Convention Act, delegates are entitled to the • Art. XVI, Sec, 2 of the 1935 Constitution states: “All Congress or as officer of any House Committee.
parliamentary immunities of a senator or a laws of the Philippine Islands shall continue in force - The phrase “speech or debate therein” as used in
representative. until the inauguration the Commonwealth of the Article VI, Sec 15 of the 1935 Constitution refers to
• Article VI Section 15 of the Constitution provides: Philippines; thereafter, such laws shall remain utterances made by congressmen in the performance of
“The Senators and Members of the House of operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution, their official functions, such as speeches delivered,
Representatives shall in all cases except treason, until amended, altered, modified or repealed by the statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress
felony, and breach of peace, be privileged from Congress of the Philippines…” while it is in session, as well as bills introduced in
arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the • Article 145 which accords legislators a generous Congress whether it is in session or not, and other acts
Congress, and in going to and returning from the treatment exempting them from arrest even if performed by Congressmen, either in congress or
same; and for any speech o debate therein, they warranted under the penal law, is inconsistent with outside the premises housing its offices, in the discharge
shall not be questioned in any other place.” the Constitution, and is consequently inoperative. of their duties as members of Congress and of
• Immunity from arrest does not cover any Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its
function as such, at the time of the performance of the
prosecution for treason, felony and breach of peace JIMENEZ V CABANGBANG
o Treason-levying war against the Republic and acts in question.
CONCEPCION; August 3, 1966 2. NO. The letter in question is not sufficient to support
adhering to enemies and giving them aid and
plaintiffs’ action for damages. Although the letter says
comfort
FACTS that plaintiffs are under the control of the planners, the
o Felony-an act or omission punishable by law
defendant likewise added that it was possible that
plaintiffs are unwitting tools of the plan which they may complete in itself – it must set forth the policy to be Dios. There was however no other payment received
have absolutely no knowledge. The statement is not executed, carried out or implemented by the “delegate” from Burt.
derogatory to the plaintiffs, to the point of entitling them - and (b) fix a standard – the limits of which the delegate - The Philippine government, through the Rural Progress
to recover damages. must conform in the performance of his functions. Administration, acquired this same property from its
- Sec 28 of RAC does not meet these well settled original owner for the sum of P 750,000 and
requirements for a valid delegation of the power to fix subsequently instituted a notarial demand upon Burt for
PELAEZ V AUDITOR GENERAL
the details in the enforcement of a law. It does not the resolution and cancellation of his contract of
CONCEPCION; September 24, 1965 enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented purchase with Philippine Trust for non payment. The
by the President. Neither does it give a standard Court of First Instance in this case ordered the
FACTS sufficiently precise to avoid the evil effects of the power cancellation of Burt’s title and the issuance of a new one
- During the period from September 4 to October 29, the President. under the name of Rural Progress Administration.
1964 the President of the Philippines, purporting to act Reasoning - For one reason or another, despite the fact the
pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative a. adherence to precedent (Schechter Poultry Corp vs. Philippine government already owned both the above
Code, issued Executive Order Nos. 93 to 121, 124 and US) estate, it again bought the same from Burt for a total
126 to 129; creating 33 municipalities. - It was held here that in Recovery Act there was an consideration of P 5,000,000 (P 4.5 million for
- RAC Section 68 undue delegation of legislative power because it supplies Buenavista and P 500,000 for Tambobong). The
- provides, among others, that the President may by no standards for any trade, industry or activity. government paid initially P 1,000,000 for Buenavista and
executive order define the boundary of municipality, b. Constitutional provision (incompatible and the full amount of P 500,000 for the Tambobong estate
increase or diminish its territory provided that the inconsistent with RAC) through two corporations acting as Burt’s attorneys-in-
authorization of the Congress of the Phil shall first be - Sec 10 of Art VII of 1935 Constitution ordains: fact. These two were represented in the trasaction by
obtained. “The President shall have control of all the executive one and the same person, Jean L. Arnault.
- The petitioner argued that these EOs are null and void departments, bureaus, or offices, exercise general - It was also brought out that the Rural Progress
because of RA 2370 Section 3 which provides that supervision over all local governments as may be Administration was headed at that time by the Justice
barrios may “not be created or their boundaries altered provided by LAW. (take note: such control does not secretary who was at the same time Chairman of the
nor their names changed” except by Acts of Congress or include the authority either to abolish or create) Philippine National Bank, the institution that lent the
of the corresponding provincial board “upon petition of a Decision The Executive Orders are declared null and funds to Rural Progress.
majority of the voters in areas affected” and the void ab initio and the respondent are permanently - The transactions resulted into a public outcry which led
“recommendation of the council of the municipality in restrained from passing in audit any expenditure of into the Philippine Senate adopting Resolution 8 which
which the proposed barrio is situated.” public funds in implementation of said Eos or any created a special committee to investigate the
- Procedure Emmanuel Pelaez, as Vice President of the disbursement by the municipalities concerned. Buenavista and Tambobong Estates deal.
Philippines and as taxpayer, instituted the present civil - The committee was tasked, among others, with
action, for a writ of prohibition with preliminary determining:
ARNAULT V NAZARENO
injunction, against the Auditor General, to restrain him, a. the validity, honesty, propriety of the purchase
as well as his representatives and agents, from passing OZAETA; July 18, 1950 b. the fairness of the purchase price
in audit any expenditure of public funds in c. the parties involved/responsible for the deal
implementation of said executive orders and/or any FACTS - During the public hearings of the Committee, various
disbursement by said municipalities. - This refers to two land deals entered into by the witnesses were called. Among them and apparently the
- The mayors who were adversely affected by the EOs Philippine government as follows: most important was Jean Arnault, the person who
intervened in the case. 1. BUENAVISTA ESTATE represented Burt in the transactions.
- Atty. Enrique Fernando and Emma Quisumbing- - The Philippine government leased from San Juan de - During the said hearing, Arnault confirmed receiving
Fernando appeared as amici curiae. Dios Hospital for twenty five years the Buenavista estate the money from the government and withdrawing, in
and had an option to purchase the same for P 3.0 cash, P 440,000 which he gave to someone on
ISSUES million. This purchase option was exercised by the then instruction of Burt. When asked to identify the person he
1. WON the executive orders are null and void upon the occupation republic by tendering the owner the sum of P gave the money to, he replied that he did not know his
ground that Section 68 of RAC, which was the basis of 3.0 million and, on its rejection, depositing the said name despite the fact that he met the person on many
the EOs has been impliedly repealed by RA 2730. funds in Court on June 21, 1944 together with the occasions. When pressed to answer, he also said that
2. WON the power of the President to create accrued rentals of P 324,000. answering the question might incriminate him. Based on
municipalities under RAC amount to an undue delegation - San Juan de Dios on June 29, 1946 sold this same this refusal, the senate approved a resolution on May 15,
of legislative power. property to Ernest H. Burt, an non-resident American for 1950 arraigning him for contempt and subsequently
P 5,000,000 with the initial downpayment of P 10,000 found him guilty of the charge. He was committed to the
HELD with the balance payable under very favorable terms. custody of the Senate Sergeant at arms until he reveals
1. Yes. RA 2370’s denial of the presidential authority to Burt was unable to comply with the terms agreed. the name of the person he gave the money to. The
create a new barrio implies a negation of the bigger 2. TAMBOBONG ESTATE Senate adjourned three days later. The work of the
power to create municipalities, each of which consists of - On May of 1946, the same Burt purchase from Committee however was extended via Resolution 16.
several barrios. Philippine Trust Corporation, the Tambobong estate for P - Arnault filed an original action for the issuance of a writ
2. Yes. The authority to create municipal corporations is 1.2 million with a downpayment of P 10,000.00 and of Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court to obtain his
essentially legislative in nature. There could only be a terms which are as generuous as those from San Juan de release cited the following grounds:
due delegation of legislative power if the law is (a)
a. the Senate has no power to punish him for company, the Supreme Court held that the Philippine - The Committee’s report has been submitted to the
contempt since the requested information is not Senate has the authority to compel Arnault and if he so entire Senate. And as a matter of fact three bills were
material to the intended legislation and his refusal to refuses to give the information, also the power find him passed by the Senate in connection with the
answer has not impeded or obstructed the legislated in contempt and to imprison him until he complies with investigation. This being the case there is no need to
process. The Senate has already approved bills related said requirement. extract names. The importance of names is when it
to the transactions. b. The power of the Senate to commit Arnault to prison comes to a criminal prosecution.
b. the Senate lacks the authority to commit him in does not end with the termination of the legislative - In ending, Justice Tuason stated that the investigation
contempt for a term beyond its legislative session. session. The opinion of Justice Malcolm was cited with of the Senate is commendable and legal. His main
c. the information sought will be self-incriminating regard the Candido Lopez case where he opines that the objection lies in the fact that the Senate has
- rior to discussing the issues, the Supreme Court went imprisonment of Lopez terminates when the House of overstepped its authority and trespassed on the territory
into the general principles of law with regard the power Representatives adjourns. Citing however the McGrain of other braches of government “when it imprisoned a
of either house of Congress to punish a person not a case again, the Court said that, unlike the House of witness for contumacy on a point that is unimportant,
member for contempt as this case is the first of its kind Representatives which losses all its members every four useless, impertinent and irrelevant, let alone moot”.
to be tried under the Philippine constitution. In so doing, years (hence its term is only four years), the Senate is
the Supreme Court had to draw from American deemed as a continuing body whose members are
LIDASAN V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
precedents in recognition of the fact that the elected for a six year term and are so divided that only a
Constitution of the Philippines were patterned after third of the seats become vacant every two years. SANCHEZ; October 25, 1967
largely American institutions and practices. The Hence, the power of the Senate to hold Arnault is a
discussions were as follows: continuing power. The only caveat of the Supreme Court FACTS
a. There is no expressed provisions in the constitution in this case is that if the Senate disregards the proper - On June 18, 1966, the Chief Executive signed into law
which grant power to either House to investigate or limitation to jail parties in contempt, the remedy is with House Bill 1247, known as Republic Act 4790, now in
exact testimonies to exercise legislative function. the Court. dispute. The body of the statute, reproduced in haec
However, this power of inquiry, and the process to c. Arnault’s claim to self incrimination cannot be verba, reads:
enforce it, is a necessary element to enable the body sustained citing Mason vs US as a precedent. The Court SECTION 1. Barrios Togaig, Madalum, Bayanga,
to wisely and effectively perform their respective must be given the chance to determine from all the facts Langkong, Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan, Magabo,
legislative functions. In the absence of information and circumstances whether the witness is justified in Tabangao, Tiongko, Colodan, Kabamakawan,
that it requires, Congress has no other recourse but to refusing to answer any question which could incriminate Kapatagan, Bongabong, Aipang, Dagowan, Bakikis,
get the same from others who have them. At times, him. Arnault’s testimony was obviously false. He Bungabung, Losain, Matimos and Magolatung, in the
the information required are not entirely accurate or obviously knew the name of the person he gave the Municipalities of Butig and Balabagan, Province of
complete. Given this, Congress has the implied money to. His refusal to testify truthfully is punishable Lanao del Sur, are separated from said municipalities
coercive to obtain such information. with contempt. and constituted into a distinct and independent
b. The power to compel is limited to information Decision Petition is denied municipality of the same province to be known as the
required in a matter into which Congress has Municipality of Dianaton, Province of Lanao del Sur.
jurisdiction to inquire. The seat of government of the municipality shall be in
SEPARATE OPINION
Togaig.
ISSUES SEC. 2. The first mayor, vice-mayor and councilors of
WON the writ of Habeas Corpus should be granted TUASON [dissent] the new municipality shall be elected in the nineteen
hundred sixty-seven general elections for local
HELD - The power of the legislative body to punish for officials.
a. The requested information is needed to comply with contempt is based on the necessity for its attainment of SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
the direction of the senate as contained in Resolution the ends. The power is however not absolute. And this is - It came to light later that barrios Togaig and Madalum
Nos. 8 & 16 to secure the names of the persons precisely where disagreement occur. just mentioned are within the municipality of Buldon,
responsible for the transaction. The materiality of the - Justice Tuason is of the opinion that the question being Province of Cotabato, and that Bayanga, Langkong,
question asked in the public hearing should be asked has no relation whatsoever to the contemplated Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan, Magabo, Tabangao,
determined by its direct relation to the matter being legislation. A stated reason for the insistence on getting Tiongko, Colodan, and Kabamakawan are parts and
inquired into and not by its indirect relation to any an answer to the question as to who received the money parcel of another municipality, the municipality of
proposed or possible legislation. The only time that the is supposedly to vindicate or clear the names of the Parang, also in the Province of Cotabato and not of
Supreme Court may interfere with the Senate is when a persons suspected of getting the money (Antonio Lanao del Sur. Bara Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of
petitioner is being forced to answer questions which are Quirino, one of the suspects, is the brother of President Parang, Cotabato, prays that Republic Act 4790 be
not pertinent to the matter inquiry. In this case and Quirino). The Senate is not the proper forum for such declared unconstitutional; and that Comelec's
citing McGrain vs Daugherty, Congress would be guilty of vindication. The Senate investigation seems to have resolutions of August 15, 1967 and September 20, 1967
a clear abuse of authority in the exercise of its power. As only one objective and this is to prepare the way for implementing the same for electoral purposes, be
to whether the information sought to be elicited is court action since they could not expect the Justice nullified.
material to an proposed legislation, the Court could not department to take the initiative to investigate and
say as this is not within their scope. prosecute the responsible parties as it seems that the ISSUES
- Citing the case Re: Chapman, where the petitioner was Secretary of the Justice department had a hand in the 1. WON the title of RA 4790 conforms with the
jailed for contempt of the US Senate for refusing to transaction. This is not the a duty of the Legislative constitutional requirement that the subject of a bill shall
answer questions with regard accounts of Senators in his department. be expressed in the title NO
2. WON RA 4790 may still be salvaged with reference to vote should be cast for the officials in the town before
the nine barrios in Lanao del Sur NO dismemberment. Since by constitutional direction the ISSUES
3. WON petitioner has legal standing to challenge the purpose of a bill must be shown in its title for the 1. WON Reorganization Plan 20-A, prepared and
statute YES benefit, amongst others, of the community affected submitted under the authority of RA 997 as amended by
thereby, 16 it stands to reason to say that when the RA 1241, is valid, insofar as it confers jurisdiction to the
HELD constitutional right to vote on the part of any citizen of Regional Offices of the Department of Labor to decide on
1. The title - "An Act Creating the Municipality of that community is affected, he may become a suitor to claims of laborers for wages, overtime and separation
Dianaton, in the Province of Lanao del Sur" 8 - projects challenge the constitutionality of the Act as passed by pay, etc.
the impression that solely the province of Lanao del Sur Congress. 2. WON Reorganization Plan 20-A was validly passed by
is affected by the creation of Dianaton. Not the slightest Congress
intimation is there that communities in the adjacent
MILLER V MARDO
province of Cotabato are incorporated in this new Lanao HELD
del Sur town. The phrase "in the Province of Lanao del BARRERA; July 31, 1961 1. No it is not valid.
Sur," read without subtlety or contortion, makes the title - While the Reorganization Commission could create
misleading, deceptive. Such title did not inform the FACTS functions, it referred merely to administrative and not
members of Congress as to the full impact of the law; it - These are different cases taken together as they judicial functions such as deciding on money claims.
did not apprise the people in the towns of Buldon and present only one identical question Judicial power rests exclusively on the judiciary
Parang in Cotabato and in the province of Cotabato itself - 1st case: Manuel Gonzales filed complaint against Bill - While legislature may confer administrative boards
that part of their territory is being taken away from their Miller at the DoL, claiming that he is a driver of Miller quasi-judicial powers, it must be incident to the exercise
towns and province and added to the adjacent Province and was arbitrarily dismissed without separation pay of administrative dunctions
of Lanao del Sur; it kept the public in the dark as to what - Miller filed petition for prohibition against Hearing - Conferment of quasi-judicial functions cannot be
towns and provinces were actually affected by the bill. Officer Mardo of the DoL on ground that HO has no implied from a mere grant of power to create functions
2. Where a portion of a statute is rendered jurisdiction to hear and decide on the case in connection with reorganization of the Executive
unconstitutional and the remainder valid, the parts will - Court rendered decision though that Reorg. Plan 2-A 2. No it was not validly passed by Congress
be separated, and the constitutional portion upheld. But did not repeal Judiciary Act that conferred to CFI original - A law is not passed by mere silence or non-action of
when the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent jurisdiction to take cognizance of money claims re Congress even if it be stated in Sec 6(a) of RA 997
and connected, as conditions, considerations, violations of labor standards - It is contrary to well-settled and well-understood
inducements, or compensations for each other, as to - 2nd case: Cresencio Estano filed complaint at the DoL parliamentary law- that two houses are to hold separate
warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a against Chin Hua Trading Co., for not being paid sessions for their deliberations and the determination of
whole, and that if all could not be carried into effect, the overtime and vacation leave pay as a driver in the the one upon a proposed law is to be submitted to the
legislature would not pass the residue independently, company separate determination of the other.
then, if some parts are unconstitutional, all the - same circumstances as 1st case, and court issued
provisions which are thus dependent, conditional, or permanent injunction against hearing the cases by the
Hearing Officer, as Reorg. Plan 2-A is null and void. TANADA V TUVERA
connected, must fall with them. When the foregoing bill
was presented in Congress, unquestionably, the totality - 3RD case: Numeriana Raganas filed with CFI a complaint ESCOLIN; April 24, 1985
of the twenty-one barrios - not nine barrios - was in the against Sen Bee Trading Company for being underpaid, FACTS
mind of the proponent thereof. That this is so, is plainly not being paid overtime, without sick leave and vacation - Petition to review the decision of the Executive
evident by the fact that the bill itself, thereafter enacted leave pay, as a seamstress Assistant to the President.
into law, states that the seat of the government is in - Sun Bee filed motion to dismiss, and insisted that CFI - Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters
Togaig, which is a barrio in the municipality of Buldon in does not have jurisdiction as money claims must be filed of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article
Cotabato. And then the reduced area poses a number of with Regional Office of DoL under Reorg. Plan 2-A IV of the 1973 constitution, petitioners seek a writ of
questions, thus: Could the observations as to - 4th case: Vicente Romero filed case against Sia Seng at mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
progressive community, large aggregate population, the DoL Sia Leng did noy\t file an answer and a decision publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official
collective income sufficient to maintain an independent was rendered in favor of Romero. But Labor Gazette, of various presidential decrees, letters of
municipality, still apply to a motely group of only nine Administrator Hernando refused to issue the writ of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive
barrios out of the twenty-one? execution of the ecision as he believed that Sia Seng orders, letter of implementation and administrative
3. Petitioner is a qualified voter. He expects to vote in deserved to be heard orders. The respondents would have this case dismissed
the 1967 elections His right to vote in his own barrio they insist as well that Reorg. Plan is not validly on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality
before it was annexed to a new town is affected. He may passed as a statute and unconstitutional to bring this petition. Petitioners maintain that since the
not want, as is the case here, to vote in a town different - 5th case: Mariano Pabillare filed at the DoL a complaint subject of the petition concerns a public right and its
from his actual residence. He may not desire to be against Fred Wilson and Co., as he was summarily object is to compel public duty, they need not show any
considered a part of hitherto different communities dismissed wihout cause, without separation pay, and specific interest. Respondents further contend that
which are formed into the new town; he may prefer to without sufficient notice. publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement
remain in the place where he is and as it was - They moved to dismiss as it is only an administrative for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves
constituted, and continue to enjoy the rights and body, with no power to adjudicate money claims provide for their own effectivity dates.
benefits he acquired therein. He may not even know the - Certiorari, prohibition and injuction was filed as well –
candidates of the new town; he may express a lack of that Reorg Plan is null and void insofar as it vest ISSUE
desire to vote for anyone of them; he may feel that his original exclusive jurisdiction over money claims
WON publication in the Official Gazette is an 4. Where is the publication to be made? - KNP has chose Fernando Poe as its Standard Bearer for
indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the PDs, 5. When is the publication to be made? the President of the Phils in the May 2004 elections
LOIs, general orders, EOs, etc. where laws themselves - LDP filed with COMELEC a petition to certify nomination
provide for their own effectivity dates HELD of candidates for the upcoming elections
1 & 2. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not - on Dec. 8, 2003, LDP filed a Manifestation informing the
HELD only to those of general application, for strictly speaking COMELEC
Yes. It is the people’s right to be informed on matters of all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are a) that only the Party Chairman, Senator Edgardo
public concern & corollarily access to official records, & some that do not apply to them directly. We hold Angara or his authorized representative may endorse
to documents & papers pertaining to official acts, therefore that all statutes, including those of local