Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
3. Agustin V Edu
5. Gonzalez V. Hechanova
Constitutional Law Treaty vs Executive
Agreements Statutes Can Repeal Executive
Agreements
Then President Diosdado Macapagal entered
into two executive agreements with Vietnam
and Burma for the importation of rice without
complying with the requisite of securing a
certification from the Natl Economic Council
showing that there is a shortage in cereals.
Hence, Hechanova authorized the importation
of 67000 tons of rice from abroad to the
detriment of our local planters. Gonzales, then
president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters
Association assailed the executive agreements.
Gonzales averred that Hechanova is without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction,
because RA 3452 prohibits the importation of
rice and corn by the Rice and Corn
Administration or any other government
agency.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over
the 2 executive agreements entered into by
Macapagal.
HELD: Under the Constitution, the main
function of the Executive is to enforce laws
enacted by Congress. The former may not
interfere in the performance of the legislative
powers of the latter, except in the exercise of
his veto power. He may not defeat legislative
enactments that have acquired the status of
laws, by indirectly repealing the same through
an executive agreement providing for the
performance of the very act prohibited by said
laws. In the event of conflict between a treaty
and a statute, the one which is latest in point of
time shall prevail, is not applicable to the case
at bar, Hechanova not only admits, but, also,
insists that the contracts adverted to are not
treaties. No such justification can be given as
regards executive agreements not authorized
by previous legislation, without completely
upsetting the principle of separation of powers
and the system of checks and balances which
are fundamental in our constitutional set up.
As regards the question whether an executive
or an international agreement may be
invalidated by our courts, suffice it to say that
the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly
7. People V Lagman
Political Law Defense of State
In 1936, Lagman reached the age of 20. He is
being compelled by Section 60 of
Commonwealth Act 1 (National Defense Law)
to join the military service. Lagman refused to
do so because he has a father to support, has
no military leanings and he does not wish to kill
or be killed. Lagman further assailed the
constitutionality of the said law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the National Defense
Law is constitutional.
HELD: The duty of the Government to defend
the State cannot be performed except through
an army. To leave the organization of an army
to the will of the citizens would be to make this
duty of the Government excusable should there
be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist
therein. Hence, the National Defense Law, in so
far as it establishes compulsory military
service, does not go against this constitutional
provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful
compliance therewith. The defense of the
State is a prime duty of government, and in the
fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be
required by law to render personal military or
civil service.
Held:
1) No. The promulgation of the Act aims to
promote safe transit upon and avoid
obstructions on national roads in the interest
and convenience of the public. In enacting said
law, the National Assembly was prompted by
considerations of public convenience and
welfare. It was inspired by the desire to relieve
congestion of traffic, which is a menace to the
public safety. Public welfare lies at the bottom
of the promulgation of the said law and the
state in order to promote the general welfare
may interfere with personal liberty, with
property, and with business and occupations.
Persons and property may be subject to all
kinds of restraints and burdens in order to
secure the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the State. To this fundamental
aims of the government, the rights of the
individual are subordinated. Liberty is a
blessing which should not be made to prevail
over authority because society will fall into
anarchy. Neither should authority be made to
Facts
Facts:
Jose Ondoy, son of Estrella Ondoy, drowned
while in the employ of Virgilio Ignacio.
According to the chief engineer and oiler, Jose
Ondoy was aboard the ship as part of the
workforce. He was invited by friends to a
drinking spree, left the vessel, and thereafter
Issue:
Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule
order is valid and constitutional.
Ruling:
Yes. It is the right and responsibility of the
State to insure that the medical profession is
not infiltrated by incompetents to whom
patients may unwarily entrust their lives and
health. The method employed by the
challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the
purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or
oppressive. The right to quality education is not
absolute. The Constitution provides that
every citizen has the right to choose a
profession or course of study, subject to fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and
academic requirements. It is not enough to
simply invoke the right to quality education as
a guarantee of the Constitution but one must
show that he is entitled to it because of his
preparation and promise. Petition was granted
and the RTC ruling was reversed.
Facts:
The Laguna Lake Development Authority
(LLDA) was created through RA No. 4850 in
order to execute the policy towards
environmental protection and sustainable
development so as to accelerate the
development and balanced growth of the
Laguna Lake area and the surrounding
provinces and towns.
PD No. 813 amended certain sections of RA
4850 since water quality studies have shown
that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are
not taken to check the same.
EO 927 further defined and enlarged the
functions and powers of the LLDA and
enumerated the towns, cities and provinces
encompassed by the term Laguna de Bay
Region.
Upon implementation of RA 7160 (Local
Government Code of 1991), the municipalities
assumed exclusive jurisdiction & authority to
issue fishing privileges within their municipal
waters since Sec.149 thereof provides:
Municipal corporations shall have the
authority to grant fishery privileges in the
municipal waters and impose rental fees or
charges therefore
Big fishpen operators took advantage of the
occasion to establish fishpens& fish cages to
the consternation of the LLDA.
The implementation of separate independent
policies in fish cages & fish pen operation and
the indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits by
the lakeshore municipalities have saturated the
lake with fishpens, thereby aggravating the
current environmental problems and ecological
stress of Laguna Lake.
The LLDA then served notice to the general
public that (1) fishpens, cages & other aquaculture structures unregistered with the LLDA
as of March 31, 1993 are declared illegal; (2)
those declared illegal shall be subject to
demolition by the Presidential Task Force for
Illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing; and (3)
owners of those declared illegal shall be
criminally charged with violation of Sec.39-A of
RA 4850 as amended by PD 813.
Section 19. The State shall develop a selfreliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by
Filipinos.
20. GARCIA VS BOARD OF INVESTMENTS
FACTS:
The Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), a
Taiwanese private corporation, applied for
registration with the Board of Investments
(BOI) in February 1988 as a new domestic
producer of petrochemicals in the Philippines. It
originally specified the province of Bataan as
the site for the proposed investment but later
submitted an amended application to change
the site to Batangas. Unhappy with the change
of the site, Congressman Enrique Garcia of the
Second District of Bataan requested a copy of
BPCs original and amended application
documents. The BoI denied the request on the
basis that the investors in BPC had declined to
give their consent to the release of the
documents requested, and that Article 81 of
the Omnibus Investments Code protects the
confidentiality of these documents absent
consent to disclose. The BoI subsequently
approved the amended application without
RATIO:
The NCIP has jurisdiction
In order to determine whether the NCIP
has jurisdiction over the dispute, it is necessary
to resolve, on the basis of the allegations in
their petition, whether private respondents are
members of ICCs/IPs. Private respondents, as
members of the Ibaloi tribe, were asserting
ownership over portions of Busol Forest
Reservation which they claim to be their
ISSUES:
Whether PD 1869 is unconstitutional because:
1.) it is contrary to morals, public policy and
public order;
Aquino Vs Morato
FACTS : In February 1989, petitioner, herself a
member of respondent Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board (MTRCB),
wrote its records officer requesting that she be
allowed to examine the board's records
pertaining to the voting slips accomplished by
the individual board members after a review of
the movies and television productions. It is on
the basis of said slips that films are either
banned, cut or classified accordingly.
Petitioner's request was eventually denied by
respondent Morato on the ground that
whenever the members of the board sit in
judgment over a film, their decisions as
reflected in the individual voting slips partake
the nature of conscience votes and as such,
are purely and completely private and personal
On February 27, 1989, respondent Morato
called an executive meeting of the MTRCB to
discuss, among others, the issue raised by
petitioner. In said meeting, seventeen (17)
members of the board voted to declare their
individual voting records as classified
documents which rendered the same
inaccessible to the public without clearance
from the chairman. Thereafter, respondent
Morato denied petitioner's request to examine
the voting slips. However, it was only much
later, i.e., on July 27, 1989, that respondent
Board issued Resolution No. 10-89 which
declared as confidential, private and personal,
the decision of the reviewing committee and
the voting slips of the members.
ISSUE : WON Resolution No. 10-89 is valid
HELD : The term private has been defined as
"belonging to or concerning, an individual
person, company, or interest"; whereas, public
means "pertaining to, or belonging to, or
affecting a nation, state, or community at
large. As may be gleaned from the decree (PD
1986) creating the respondent classification
board, there is no doubt that its very existence