Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 33

CASE DIGESTS: does not initiate impeachment proceeding but rather the

HOW TO READ THE CONSTITUTION filing of a complaint does.

REPRESENTATIVES Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment
complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the
FACTS: Within a period of 1 year, 2 impeachment filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of
proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Representatives with the Secretary General of the House,
Justice Hilario Davide. The justiciable controversy in this the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear.
case was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated,
second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment another impeachment complaint may not be filed against
provided for by law. the same official within a one year period.

ISSUE: The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial

 Whether or not the filing of the second scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the main issue of
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of the Chief Justice transgressed the constitutionally
Representatives is constitutional, imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go
 and whether the resolution thereof is a political about assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor
question — ; as resulted in a political crisis. indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly
political questions. Because it is not at all the business of
HELD: Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two
Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were great branches of the government.
approved by the House of Representatives are
unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment ART II, SECTION 2: GENERALLY ACCEPTED
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, is PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PART OF
barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the THE LAW OF THE LAND
REASONING: In passing over the complex issues arising ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V DUQUE III
from the controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the (PHAP VS DUQUE)
essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of
powers among the legislative, executive or judicial FACTS:
branches of government by no means prescribes for Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the Revised
absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of E.O. 51
of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign (Milk Code). Petitioner claims that the RIRR is not valid as
people. it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go
beyond what it is supposed to implement. Milk Code was
At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and issued by President Cory Aquino under the Freedom
balances which has been carefully calibrated by the Constitution on Oct.1986. One of the preambular clauses
Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to
three branches must be given effect without destroying Art 11 of the Int’l Code of Marketing and Breastmilk
their indispensable co-equality. There exists no Substitutes (ICBMS), a code adopted by the World Health
constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of Assembly (WHA). From 1982-2006, The WHA also
judicial review over impeachment proceedings would adopted severe resolutions to the effect that
upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the breastfeeding should be supported, hence, it should be
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and “one ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted
section is not to be allowed to defeat another.” Both are for breastmilk substitutes. In 2006, the DOH issued the
integral components of the calibrated system of assailed RIRR.
independence and interdependence that insures that no
branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to ISSUE:
it by the Constitution. Sub-Issue: W/N the pertinent int’l agreements entered
into by the Phil are part of the law of the land and may be
The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation implemented by DOH through the RIRR. If yes, W/N the
in its ordinary meaning. Thus when a proposal reached RIRR is in accord with int’l agreements
the floor proposing that “A vote of at least one-third of all
the Members of the House shall be necessary… to initiate MAIN: W/N the DOH acted w/o or in excess of their
impeachment proceedings,” this was met by a proposal to jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
delete the line on the ground that the vote of the House to lack of excess of jurisdiction and in violation of the
Constitution by promulgating the RIRR.
1 I A. C. JUCO
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
HELD: processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs; and
Sub-issue: granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable
Yes for ICBMS. Under 1987 Consti, int’l law can become under the premises.” They alleged that they have a clear
domestic law by transformation (thru constitutional and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
mechanism such as local legislation) or incorporation ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
(mere constitutional declaration i.e treaties) The ICBMS capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that
and WHA resolutions were not treaties as they have not the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and
been concurred by 2/3 of all members of the Senate as deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
required under Sec, 21, Art 8. However, the ICBMS had misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
been transformed into domestic law through a local resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the
legislation such as the Milk Code. The Milk Code is almost plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
a verbatim reproduction of ICBMS. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the following grounds:
No for WHA Resolutions. The Court ruled that DOH failed
to establish that the provisions pertinent WHA resolutions 1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
are customary int’l law that may be deemed part of the 2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question
law of the land. For an int’l rule to be considered as which properly pertains to the legislative or executive
customary law, it must be established that such rule is branches of the government.
being followed by states because they consider it as
obligatory to comply with such rules (opinion juris). The ISSUE:
WHO resolutions, although signed by most of the member Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a
states, were enforced or practiced by at least a majority class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or impairment
of member states. Unlike the ICBMS whereby legislature of Philippine rainforests?”
enacted most of the provisions into the law via the Milk
Code, the WHA Resolutions (specifically providing for HELD:
exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, breastfeeding Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their
up to 24 Months and absolutely prohibiting ads for generation as well as generations to come. The Supreme
breastmilk substitutes) have not been adopted as Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of
domestic law nor are they followed in our country as well. their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a
The Filipinos have the option of how to take care of their class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
babies as they see fit. WHA Resolutions may be classified generations is based on the concept of intergenerational
as SOFT LAW – non-binding norms, principles and responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
practices that influence state behavior. Soft law is not part healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the
of int’l law. “rhythm and harmony of nature” which indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
Main issue: management, renewal and conservation of the country’s
Yes. Some parts of the RIRR were not in consonance with forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore
the Milk Code such as Sec. 4(f) ->advertising, promotions areas and other natural resources to the end that their
of formula are prohibited, exploration, development, and utilization be equitably
Sec 11 -> prohibitions for advertising breastmilk accessible to the present as well as the future
substitutes intended for infants and young children uo to generations.
24 months Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to
And Sec 46 -> sanctions for advertising . the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
These provisions are declared null and void. The DOH enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
and respondents are prohibited from implementing said differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound
provisions. environment constitutes at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
OPOSA VS FACTORAN that right for the generations to come.
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v
Oposa, et al., representing their generation and Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (MMDA VS
generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents CONCERNED CITIZEN OF MANILA BAY)
against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They GR No. 171947-48
prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, December 18, 2008
his agents, representatives and other persons acting in
his behalf to: FACTS:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements The complaint by the residents alleged that the water
(TLA) in the country; quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the
2 I A. C. JUCO
allowable standards set by law, specifically under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would
Environment Code and that ALL defendants (public not be set to naught by administrative inaction or
officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and indifference.
collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore
its water quality to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, NOTE: This continuing mandamus is no longer
and other forms of contact recreation. applicable, since this is institutionalized in the rules of
procedure for environmental cases.
20 days – Temporary restraining order
(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the
headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up
Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they IMBONG VS OCHOA
limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution FACTS:
(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the
up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay. Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December

PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code Section 17. Challengers from various sectors of society are
Upgrading of Water Quality.–– Where the quality of questioning the constitutionality of the said Act. The
water has deteriorated t o a degree where it s state petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RH Law on
will adversely affect its best u sage, the government the following grounds:
agencies concerned shall take such measures as may
be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES:
to meet the prescribed water quality standards. Section
20. Clean-up Operations.––It shall be the responsibility The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.
of the polluter to contain , remove and clean - up water The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to
pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of protection against hazardous products.
his failure to do so, the government agencies The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom.
concerned shall undertake containment, removal and The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on
clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said involuntary servitude.
operation shall be charged against the persons and/ or The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the
entities responsible for such pollution. law.
The RH Law violates the right to free speech.
HELD: The RH Law is “void-for-vagueness” in violation of the due
process clause of the Constitution.
(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of one’s
government agencies concerned ought to confine family protected by the Constitution
themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning
operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its
On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in power of judicial review over the controversy.
the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long
as water quality “has deteriorated to a degree where its Power of Judicial Review
state will adversely affect its best usage.” Section 17 & Actual Case or Controversy
20 are of general application and are not for specific Facial Challenge
pollution incidents only. The fact that the pollution of the Locus Standi
Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is Declaratory Relief
well -nigh impossible to draw the line between a One Subject/One Title Rule
specific and a general pollution incident.
(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES:
compelled by Mandamus. While the implementation of Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health
the MMDA's mandated tasks may entail a decision- (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the:
making process, the enforcement of the law or the very
act of doing what the law exacts to be done is Right to life
ministerial in nature and may be compelled by Right to health
mandamus. Under what other judicial discipline Freedom of religion and right to free speech
describes as “continuing mandamus ,” the Court may, Right to privacy (marital privacy and autonomy)
3 I A. C. JUCO
Freedom of expression and academic freedom expression, as they are modes which one’s thoughts are
Due process clause externalized.
Equal protection clause
Prohibition against involuntary servitude Locus Standi: Locus standi or legal standing is defined
as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that
PROCEDURAL: the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
Whether the Court can exercise its power of judicial result of the challenged governmental act. It requires a
review over the controversy. personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
Actual Case or Controversy assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the
Facial Challenge presentation of issues upon which the court so largely
Locus Standi depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
Declaratory Relief questions.
One Subject/One Title Rule
Transcendental Importance: the Court leans on the
DISCUSSIONS: doctrine that “the rule on standing is a matter of
procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-traditional
PROCEDURAL plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators
when the public interest so requires, such as when the
Judicial Review Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting significance to society, or of paramount public interest.”
requisites: (a) there must be an actual case or
controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus One Subject-One Title: The “one title-one subject” rule
standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised does not require the Congress to employ in the title of the
at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of enactment language of such precision as to mirror, fully
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case. index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details
therein. The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is
Actual Controversy: An actual case or controversy comprehensive enough as to include the general object
means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate which the statute seeks to effect, and where, as here, the
or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, persons interested are informed of the nature, scope and
lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory consequences of the proposed law and its operation.
opinion. It must concern a real, tangible and not merely a Moreover, this Court has invariably adopted a liberal
theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual rather than technical construction of the rule “so as not to
and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief cripple or impede legislation.” The one subject/one title
through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished rule expresses the principle that the title of a law must not
from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a be “so uncertain that the average person reading it would
hypothetical state of facts. Corollary to the requirement of not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on
an actual case or controversy is the requirement of inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in
ripeness. A question is ripe for adjudication when the act referring to or indicating one subject where another or
being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting
individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe any expression or indication of the real subject or scope
for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has of the act.”
then been accomplished or performed by either branch
before a court may come into the picture, and the Declaration of Unconstitutionality: Orthodox view: An
petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it
threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no
action. He must show that he has sustained or is office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as though it had never been passed. Modern view: Under
a result of the act complained of this view, the court in passing upon the question of
constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if it
Facial Challenge: A facial challenge, also known as a finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to
First Amendment Challenge, is one that is launched to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just
assail the validity of statutes concerning not only as if such statute had no existence. But certain legal
protected speech, but also all other rights in the First effects of the statute prior to its declaration of
Amendment. These include religious freedom, freedom of unconstitutionality may be recognized. Requisites for
the press, and the right of the people to peaceably partial unconstitutionality: (1) The Legislature must be
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of willing to retain the valid portion(s), usually shown by the
grievances. After all, the fundamental right to religious presence of a separability clause in the law; and (2) The
freedom, freedom of the press and peaceful assembly are valid portion can stand independently as law.
but component rights of the right to one’s freedom of

4 I A. C. JUCO
Ruling/s: The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA 4729
SUBSTANTIAL (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the Court believes
adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only safe
Majority of the Members of the Court believe that the contraceptives are made available to the public. In
question of when life begins is a scientific and medical fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the
issue that should not be decided, at this stage, without DOH must keep in mind the provisions of RA 4729: the
proper hearing and evidence. However, they agreed that contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly licensed
individual Members could express their own views on this drug store or pharmaceutical company and that the actual
matter. distribution of these contraceptive drugs and devices will
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: “The State be done following a prescription of a qualified medical
recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and practitioner.
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and to be considered “mandatory” only after these devices
the life of the unborn from conception.” and materials have been tested, evaluated and approved
by the FDA. Congress cannot determine that
In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory contraceptives are “safe, legal, non-abortificient and
construction), the traditional meaning of “conception” effective”.
according to reputable dictionaries cited by the ponente is
that life begins at fertilization. Medical sources also The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of
support the view that conception begins at fertilization. contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH
measures (a) is moral from a religious standpoint; or, (b)
The framers of the Constitution also intended for (a) right or wrong according to one’s dogma or belief.
“conception” to refer to the moment of “fertilization” and However, the Court has the authority to determine
(b) the protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In whether or not the RH Law contravenes the Constitutional
addition, they did not intend to ban all contraceptives for guarantee of religious freedom.
being unconstitutional; only those that kill or destroy the The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives
fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that without being dictated upon the policies of any one
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and female religion. To allow religious sects to dictate policy or restrict
ovum, and those that similarly take action before other groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the
fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus Constitution or the Establishment Clause. This would
constitutionally permissible. cause the State to adhere to a particular religion, and
thus, establishes a state religion. Thus, the State can
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting enhance its population control program through the RH
the life of the unborn child was to prevent the Legislature Law even if the promotion of contraceptive use is contrary
from passing a measure prevent abortion. The Court to the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners.
cannot interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is in line with
this intent and actually prohibits abortion. By using the Section 23A (2)(i) of the RH Law, which permits RH
word “or” in defining abortifacient (Section 4(a)), the RH procedures even with only the consent of the spouse
Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent undergoing the provision (disregarding spousal content),
implantation but also those that induce abortion and intrudes into martial privacy and autonomy and goes
induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s against the constitutional safeguards for the family as the
womb. The RH Law recognizes that the fertilized ovum basic social institution. Particularly, Section 3, Article XV
already has life and that the State has a bounded duty to of the Constitution mandates the State to defend: (a) the
protect it. right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of responsible
However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their parenthood and (b) the right of families or family
office when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient by associations to participate in the planning and
using the term “primarily”. Recognizing as abortifacients implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
only those that “primarily induce abortion or the The RH Law cannot infringe upon this mutual decision-
destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb or the making, and endanger the institutions of marriage and the
prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be family.
implanted in the mother’s womb” (Sec. 3.01(a) of the IRR)
would pave the way for the approval of contraceptives that The exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor
may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a
conception/fertilization. This violates Section 12, Article II miscarriage (Section 7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family
of the Constitution. For the same reason, the definition of and violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution,
contraceptives under the IRR (Sec 3.01(j)), which also which states: “The natural and primary right and duty of
uses the term “primarily”, must be struck down. parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government.” In addition, the portion of
5 I A. C. JUCO
Section 23(a)(ii) which reads “in the case of minors, the Section 7 of the RH Law) as well as from giving RH
written consent of parents or legal guardian or, in their information and procedures.
absence, persons exercising parental authority or next-of-
kin shall be required only in elective surgical procedures” The RH Law also defines “incorrect information”. Used
is invalid as it denies the right of parental authority in together in relation to Section 23 (a)(1), the terms
cases where what is involved is “non-surgical “incorrect” and “knowingly” connote a sense of malice and
procedures.” ill motive to mislead or misrepresent the public as to the
nature and effect of programs and services on
However, a minor may receive information (as opposed reproductive health.
to procedures) about family planning services. Parents
are not deprived of parental guidance and control over To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the
their minor child in this situation and may assist her in government’s RH program is not a violation of the equal
deciding whether to accept or reject the information protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11,
received. In addition, an exception may be made in life- Article XIII of the Constitution, which states that the State
threatening procedures. shall prioritize the needs of the underprivileged, sick
elderly, disabled, women, and children and that it shall
The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of endeavor to provide medical care to paupers.
Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates the State to The RH Law does not only seek to target the poor to
provide Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive reduce their number, since Section 7 of the RH Law
Health Education. Although educators might raise their prioritizes poor and marginalized couples who are
objection to their participation in the RH education suffering from fertility issues and desire to have children.
program, the Court reserves its judgment should an actual In addition, the RH Law does not prescribe the number of
case be filed before it. children a couple may have and does not impose
Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because conditions upon couples who intend to have children. The
the Department of Education has not yet formulated a RH Law only seeks to provide priority to the poor.
curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health
education. The exclusion of private educational institutions from the
mandatory RH education program under Section 14 is
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution places more valid. There is a need to recognize the academic freedom
importance on the role of parents in the development of of private educational institutions especially with respect
their children with the use of the term “primary”. The right to religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity
of parents in upbringing their youth is superior to that of towards the teaching of reproductive health education
the State.
The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for private
The provisions of Section 14 of the RH Law and and non-government health care service providers to
corresponding provisions of the IRR supplement (rather render 48 hours of pro bonoRH services does not amount
than supplant) the right and duties of the parents in the to involuntary servitude, for two reasons. First, the
moral development of their children. practice of medicine is undeniably imbued with public
interest that it is both the power and a duty of the State to
By incorporating parent-teacher-community associations, control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the
school officials, and other interest groups in developing public welfare. Second, Section 17 only encourages
the mandatory RH program, it could very well be said that private and non-government RH service providers to
the program will be in line with the religious beliefs of the render pro bono Besides the PhilHealth accreditation, no
petitioners. penalty is imposed should they do otherwise.
However, conscientious objectors are exempt from Sec.
The RH Law does not violate the due process clause of 17 as long as their religious beliefs do not allow them to
the Constitution as the definitions of several terms as render RH service, pro bono or otherwise
observed by the petitioners are not vague.
The definition of “private health care service provider” PROCEDURAL
must be seen in relation to Section 4(n) of the RH Law
which defines a “public health service provider”. The In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case
“private health care institution” cited under Section 7 or controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial
should be seen as synonymous to “private health care determination. Considering that the RH Law and its
service provider. implementing rules have already taken effect and that
budgetary measures to carry out the law have already
The terms “service” and “methods” are also broad enough been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions
to include providing of information and rendering of present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when
medical procedures. Thus, hospitals operated by religious an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to
groups are exempted from rendering RH service and have infringed the Constitution, it not only becomes a
modern family planning methods (as provided for by right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute.
6 I A. C. JUCO
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so influence on the social and moral wellbeing of this nation,
because medical practitioners or medical providers are in especially the youth; hence, their proper and just
danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law determination is an imperative need. This is in
for vague violations thereof, particularly public health accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules
officers who are threatened to be dismissed from the of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or
service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits. delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of
They must, at least, be heard on the matter now. justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would
result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than
In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.
from the U.S. has been generally maintained, albeit with
some modifications. While the Court has withheld the Most of the petitions are praying for injunctive reliefs and
application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it so the Court would just consider them as petitions for
has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only prohibition under Rule 65, over which it has original
regulating free speech, but also those involving religious jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching implications
freedom, and other fundamental rights. The underlying and prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider
reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65.
counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded The RH Law does not violate the one subject/one bill rule.
jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only In this case, a textual analysis of the various provisions of
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are the law shows that both “reproductive health” and
legally demandable and enforceable, but also to “responsible parenthood” are interrelated and germane to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse the overriding objective to control the population growth.
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on As expressed in the first paragraph of Section 2 of the RH
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Law:
Government. Verily, the framers of Our Constitution
envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes and
to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution. guarantees the human rights of all persons including their
Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions right to equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the
have seriously alleged that the constitutional human rights right to sustainable human development, the right to
to life, speech and religion and other fundamental rights health which includes reproductive health, the right to
mentioned above have been violated by the assailed education and information, and the right to choose and
legislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of make decisions for themselves in accordance with their
these kindred petitions and to determine if the RH Law religious convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs, and the
can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny. To dismiss these demands of responsible parenthood.
petitions on the simple expedient that there exist no actual
case or controversy, would diminish this Court as a Considering the close intimacy between “reproductive
reactive branch of government, acting only when the health” and “responsible parenthood” which bears to the
Fundamental Law has been transgressed, to the attainment of the goal of achieving “sustainable human
detriment of the Filipino people. development” as stated under its terms, the Court finds
no reason to believe that Congress intentionally sought to
Even if the constitutionality of the RH Law may not be deceive the public as to the contents of the assailed
assailed through an “as-applied challenge, still, the Court legislation.
has time and again acted liberally on the locus standi
requirement. It has accorded certain individuals standing Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT
to sue, not otherwise directly injured or with material UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the
interest affected by a Government act, provided a following provisions which are declared
constitutional issue of transcendental importance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
invoked. The rule on locus standi is, after all, a procedural
technicality which the Court has, on more than one 1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-
occasion, waived or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional IRR insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and
plaintiffs, such as concerned citizens, taxpayers, voters or non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned
legislators, to sue in the public interest, albeit they may and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in
not have been directly injured by the operation of a law or an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under
any other government act. Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is
conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or
The present action cannot be properly treated as a minors who have suffered a miscarriage access to
petition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of modem methods of family planning without written
the issues involved in this case warrants that the Court consent from their parents or guardian/s;
set aside the technical defects and take primary
jurisdiction over the petition at bar. One cannot deny that 2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the
the issues raised herein have potentially pervasive RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they
7 I A. C. JUCO
punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or d) The insular shelves; and
refuses to disseminate information regarding programs e) The other submarine areas
and services on reproductive health regardless of his or INTERNAL WATERS – the waters AROUND,
her religious beliefs. BETWEEN AND CONNECTING the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions
3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in ALL OTHER TERRITORIES OVER WHICH THE
the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a married individual, not PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR
in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined JURISDICTION–includes any territory that presently
under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo reproductive belongs or might in the future belong to the Philippines
health procedures without the consent of the spouse; through any of the accepted international modes of
acquiring territory.
4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in
the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the requirement of ARCHIPELAGIC PRINCIPLE
parental consent only to elective surgical procedures. Two elements:
1. The definition of internal waters (supra);
5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the 2. The straight baseline method of delineating the
RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they territorial sea – consists of drawing straight lines
punish any healthcare service provider who fails and/or connecting the outermost points on the coast without
refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or life- departing to any appreciable extent from the general
threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. direction of the coast.
8344, to another health care service provider within the Important distances with respect to the waters
same facility or one which is conveniently accessible around the Philippines
regardless of his or her religious beliefs;  Territorial Sea 12 nautical miles (n.m.)
 Contiguous Zone 12 n.m. from the edge of the
6) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the territorial sea
RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they  Exclusive Economic Zone 200 n.m. from the
punish any public officer who refuses to support baseline
reproductive health programs or shall do any act that [includes T.S. and C.Z.]
hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health NOTE: There can be a Continental Shelf without
program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs; an EEZ, but not an EEZ without a Continental
7) Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the
RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive TERRITORIAL SEA
health service in so far as they affect the conscientious The belt of the sea located between the coast and internal
objector in securing PhilHealth accreditation; and waters of the coastal state on the one hand, and the high
seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from
8) Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, the low water mark.
which added the qualifier “primarily” in defining CONTIGUOUS ZONE
abortifacients and contraceptives, as they are ultra vires Extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea.
and, therefore, null and void for contravening Section 4(a) Although not part of the territory, the coastal State may
of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the exercise jurisdiction to prevent infringement of customs,
Constitution. fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws.


The national territory of the Philippines comprises: Body of water extending up to 200 nautical miles, within
1) the Philippine archipelago; which the state may exercise sovereign rights to explore,
2) all other territories over which the Philippines has exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources
studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of 1. the establishment and use of artificial islands,
Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of Washington installations, and structures;
(1900) and the Treaty with Great Britain (1930). 2. marine scientific research;
It consists of its: 3. and the protection and preservation of marine
a) Terrestrial environment
b) Fluvial
c) Aerial domains
a. including its
a)Territorial sea
b) The seabed
c) The subsoil
8 I A. C. JUCO
STATE IMMUNITY diplomatic representations with the Philippine
THE HOLY SEE vs. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. government since 1957 (Rollo, p. 87). This appears to be
ROSARIO, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial the universal practice in international relations.
Court of Makati, Branch 61 and STARBRIGHT SALES
ENTERPRISES, INC. There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity,
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994 each widely held and firmly established. According to the
classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without
FACTS: Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another
sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, and is sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory,
represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio; the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with
Private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not
a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.
If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident
This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it is
land consisting of 6,000 square meters located in the not undertaken for gain or profit.
Municipality of Paranaque registered in the name of
petitioner. Said lot was contiguous with two other lots In the case at bench, if petitioner has bought and sold
registered in the name of the Philippine Realty lands in the ordinary course of a real estate business,
Corporation (PRC). surely the said transaction can be categorized as an act
jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that the
The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. acquisition and subsequent disposal of Lot 5-A were
Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., acting as agent to the sellers. made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property
Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the
respondent. Philippines. Private respondent failed to dispute said
In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots
sold to private respondent, a dispute arose as to who of Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the
the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for
the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana construct thereon the official place of residence of the
Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana), Papal Nuncio. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire
private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional property, real or personal, in a receiving state, necessary
Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila for for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission,
annulment of the sale of the three parcels of land, and is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on
specific performance and damages against petitioner, Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 20-22). This treaty was
represented by the Papal Nuncio, and three other concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into
defendants: namely, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the force in the Philippines on November 15, 1965.
PRC and Tropicana petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos
separately moved to dismiss the complaint — petitioner The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent
for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental
suit, and Msgr. Cirilos for being an improper party. An character. Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A for profit or gain.
opposition to the motion was filed by private respondent. It merely wanted to dispose of the same because the
The trial court issued an order denying, among others, squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for
petitioner’s motion to dismiss after finding that petitioner petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation. The
“shed off [its] sovereign immunity by entering into the fact that squatters have occupied and are still occupying
business contract in question” Petitioner forthwith the lot, and that they stubbornly refuse to leave the
elevated the matter to us. In its petition, petitioner invokes premises, has been admitted by private respondent in its
the privilege of sovereign immunity only on its own behalf complaint
and on behalf of its official representative, the Papal
Nuncio. Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for
the redress of its grievances. Under both Public
ISSUE: International Law and Transnational Law, a person who
Whether the Holy See is immune from suit insofar as its feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask
business relations regarding selling a lot to a private entity his own government to espouse his cause through
diplomatic channels.
The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy Private respondent can ask the Philippine government,
See the status of a foreign sovereign. The Holy See, through the Foreign Office, to espouse its claims against
through its Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had the Holy See. Its first task is to persuade the Philippine
9 I A. C. JUCO
government to take up with the Holy See the validity of its interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain
claims. Of course, the Foreign Office shall first make a direct injury as a result” of the act being challenged, and
determination of the impact of its espousal on the “calls for more than just a generalized grievance.”
relations between the Philippine government and the Holy However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter
See (Young, Remedies of Private Claimants Against which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs
Foreign States, Selected Readings on Protection by Law like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the
of Private Foreign Investments 905, 919 [1964]). Once the public interest so requires, such as when the subject
Philippine government decides to espouse the claim, the matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance,
latter ceases to be a private cause. of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount
public interest.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and
the complaint in Civil Case No. 90-183 against petitioner In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we
is DISMISSED. recognized the “public right” of citizens to “a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our
MOST REV. PERDO ARIGO, ET. AL. VS SCOTT H. constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the
SWIFT, ET AL. fundamental law.” We declared that the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
FACTS: The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal
countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In December rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the
2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental
diplomatic clearance for the said vessel “to enter and exit importance with intergenerational implications. Such right
the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship the environment.
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.” On
January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic On the novel element in the class suit filed by the
Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only
in Okinawa, Japan. do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic representation of their own and future generations.
Bay for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On
January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Second issue: The US respondents were sued in their
Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy
Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east- who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian
southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the incident, and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the
and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil. unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP
was committed while they were performing official military
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post- duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment
salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and against said officials will require remedial actions and
continue to cause environmental damage of such appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is
magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, deemed to be one against the US itself. The principle of
Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction
Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi- by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice
Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a and Robling.
balanced and healthful ecology.
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice
ISSUES: Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the conduct of the
US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area
 Whether or not petitioners have legal standing. in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the
YES. TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of
 Whether or not US respondents may be held Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
liable for damages caused by USS Guardian. the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically,
YES. warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as
 Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS
under VFA applies in this case. NO. creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail
to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal
State regarding passage through the latter’s internal
HELD: waters and the territorial sea.
Petitioners have legal standing. Locus standi is “a right of
appearance in a court of justice on a given question.”
Specifically, it is “a party’s personal and substantial
10 I A. C. JUCO
In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection with the USS
they continue to enjoy sovereign immunity subject to the Guardian grounding which adversely affected the
following exceptions: Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that our
long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively
Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and supporting the country’s efforts to preserve our vital
regulations of the coastal State marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to
compensate the damage caused by its warship while
If any warship does not comply with the laws and transiting our internal waters. Much less can we
regulations of the coastal State concerning passage comprehend a Government exercising leadership in
through the territorial sea and disregards any request for international affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS
compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal directive for all nations to cooperate in the global task to
State may require it to leave the territorial sea protect and preserve the marine environment as provided
immediately. in Article 197 of UNCLOS

Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis
caused by a warship or other government ship operated
for non-commercial purposes States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as
appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for competent international organizations, in formulating and
any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the elaborating international rules, standards and
non-compliance by a warship or other government ship recommended practices and procedures consistent with
operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the
regulations of the coastal State concerning passage marine environment, taking into account characteristic
through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this regional features.
Convention or other rules of international law.
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the
Article 32: Immunities of warships and other present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said
government ships operated for non-commercial treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the
purposes jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter’s
territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave
With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws and
and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for
affects the immunities of warships and other government damages caused by their warships or any other
ships operated for non-commercial purposes. A foreign government vessel operated for non-commercial
warship’s unauthorized entry into our internal waters with purposes under Article 31.
resulting damage to marine resources is one situation in
which the above provisions may apply. Third issue: The waiver of State immunity under the VF A
pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil
But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ
UNCLOS, as in this case, the US? of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17,
Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person
According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be
not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing filed separately.
policy the US considers itself bound by customary
international rules on the “traditional uses of the oceans” The Court considered a view that a ruling on the
as codified in UNCLOS. application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction
provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found
Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US refusal responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would
to join the UNCLOS was centered on its disagreement be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a
with UNCLOS” regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) writ of Kalikasan.
which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly
owned by mankind,” pointing out that such “has nothing The Court also found unnecessary at this point to
to do with its the US’ acceptance of customary determine whether such waiver of State immunity is
international rules on navigation.” indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant
damages which have resulted from the violation of
The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s view environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that damages, including the collection of administrative fines
the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that
Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the
We thus expect the US to bear “international same violation of an environmental law.
11 I A. C. JUCO
BY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION consent or rejection”. They should be able to compare
RAMON GONZALES VS COMELEC the original proposition with the amended proposition.

FACTS: In June 1967, Republic Act 4913 was passed. BY PEOPLE THRU INITIATIVE
This law provided for the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite SANTIAGO VS COMELEC
for the proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was
provided in the said law that the plebiscite shall be held FACTS: On 6 Dec 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with
on the same day that the general national elections shall COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift
be held (November 14, 1967). This was questioned by Term Limits of elective Officials by People’s Initiative” The
Ramon Gonzales and other concerned groups as COMELEC then, upon its approval, a.) set the time and
they argued that this was unlawful as there would be no dates for signature gathering all over the country, b.)
proper submission of the proposals to the people who caused the necessary publication of the said petition in
would be more interested in the issues involved in the papers of general circulation, and c.) instructed local
general election rather than in the issues involving the election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in
plebiscite. establishing signing stations. On 18 Dec 1996, MD
Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition
Gonzales also questioned the validity of the procedure against the Delfin Petition. Santiago argues that 1.) the
adopted by Congress when they came up with their constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the
proposals to amend the Constitution (RA 4913). In this constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed
regard, the COMELEC and other respondents interposed by Congress and no such law has yet been passed by
the defense that said act of Congress cannot be reviewed Congress, 2.) RA 6735 indeed provides for three systems
by the courts because it is a political question. of initiative namely, initiative on the Constitution, on
ISSUE: statues and on local legislation. The two latter forms of
initiative were specifically provided for in Subtitles II and
I. Whether or not the act of Congress in proposing III thereof but no provisions were specifically made for
amendments is a political question. No. initiatives on the Constitution. This omission indicates that
II. Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously the matter of people’s initiative to amend the Constitution
with a general election. Yes. was left to some future law – as pointed out by former
Senator Arturo Tolentino.
I. The issue is a justiciable question. It must be noted that ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include
the power to amend as well as the power to propose initiative on amendments to the constitution and if so
amendments to the Constitution is not included in the whether the act, as worded, adequately covers such
general grant of legislative powers to Congress. Such initiative.
powers are not constitutionally granted to Congress. On
the contrary, such powers are inherent to the people as HELD: RA 6735 is intended to include the system of
repository of sovereignty in a republican state. That being, initiative on amendments to the constitution but is
when Congress makes amendments or proposes unfortunately inadequate to cover that system. Sec 2 of
amendments, it is not actually doing so as Congress; but Article 17 of the Constitution provides: “Amendments to
rather, it is sitting as a constituent assembly. Such act is this constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
not a legislative act. Since it is not a legislative act, it is people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve
reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
has the final say whether or not such act of the constituent which every legislative district must be represented by at
assembly is within constitutional limitations. least there per centum of the registered voters therein. . .
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
II. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite exercise of this right” This provision is obviously not self-
must only be held on a special election. SC held that executory as it needs an enabling law to be passed by
there is nothing in this provision of the [1935] Constitution Congress. Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986 Con-
to indicate that the election therein referred to is a special, Con stated “without implementing legislation Section 2,
not a general election. The circumstance that the previous Art 17 cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of
amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the amending the constitution is a mode of amendment which
people for ratification in special elections merely shows bypasses Congressional action in the last analysis is still
that Congress deemed it best to do so under the dependent on Congressional action.” Bluntly stated, the
circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification Constitution through the system of inititative would remain
in general elections. entombed in the cold niche of the constitution until
Congress provides for its implementation. The people
Note: **Justice Sanchez and Justice JBL Reyes
cannot exercise such right, though constitutionally
dissented. “Plebiscite should be scheduled on a special
guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not
date so as to facilitate “Fair submission, intelligent
provide for its implementation.
12 I A. C. JUCO
LAMBINO VS COMELEC total number of registered voters of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least
FACTS: On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition three per centum of the registered voters therein. x x
with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their x x (Emphasis supplied)
initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution under
Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. The framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of
6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act. the proposed constitutional amendment” should be “ready
and shown” to the people “before” they sign such
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the proposal. The framers plainly stated that “before they sign
support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least there is already a draft shown to them.” The framers also
twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with “envisioned” that the people should sign on the proposal
each legislative district represented by at least three per itself because the proponents must “prepare that proposal
centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group and pass it around for signature.”
also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals. The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire
The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This
Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI means two essential elements must be present. First, the
(Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No
(Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second,
entitled “Transitory Provisions.” These proposed changes as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a embodied in a petition.
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
These essential elements are present only if the full text
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people
Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the who express their assent by signing such complete
proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly
initiative. proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition”
only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. text of the proposed amendments.
COMELEC declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement
the initiative clause on proposals to amend the There is no presumption that the proponents observed the
Constitution. constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures.
The proponents bear the burden of proving that they
ISSUES: complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering
the signatures – that the petition contained, or
1. Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed
complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments.
amendments to the Constitution through a people’s
initiative; The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition
with this Court a copy of the paper that the people signed
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago as their initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted
declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in to this Court a copy of a signature sheet after the oral
essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative arguments of 26 September 2006 when they filed their
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and Memorandum on 11 October 2006.

HELD: 2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to
2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by comply with the basic requirements of Section 2, Article
the People XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a
people’s initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing need to revisit this Court’s ruling in Santiago declaring RA
constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential
propose amendments to the Constitution. This section terms and conditions” to cover the system of initiative to
states: amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of
Santiago will not change the outcome of the present
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise petition. Thus, this Court must decline to revisit Santiago
be directly proposed by the people through initiative which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply with
upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the
13 I A. C. JUCO
the requirements of the Constitution to implement the
initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution. ISSUES: Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over such
TOLENTINO VS COMELEC Whether or not EC acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the election protest.
FACTS: The Constitutional Convention of 1971
scheduled an advance plebiscite concerning only the HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Angara. The SC
proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This was emphasized that in cases of conflict between the several
even before the rest of the draft of the Constitution (then departments and among the agencies thereof, the
under revision) had been approved. Arturo Tolentino then judiciary, with the SC as the final arbiter, is the only
filed a motion to prohibit such plebiscite. constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the
conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition will prosper.
HELD: Yes. If the advance plebiscite will be allowed, That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review
there will be an improper submission to the people. Such in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is
is not allowed. the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency
of the government transcends the Constitution, which is
The proposed amendments shall be approved by a
the source of all authority.
majority of the votes cast at an election at which the
amendments are submitted to the people for ratification.
That the Electoral Commission is an independent
Election here is singular which meant that the entire constitutional creation with specific powers and functions
constitution must be submitted for ratification at one to execute and perform, closer for purposes of
plebiscite only. Furthermore, the people were not given a
classification to the legislative than to any of the other two
proper “frame of reference” in arriving at their decision
departments of the government.
because they had at the time no idea yet of what the rest
of the revised Constitution would ultimately be and That the Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all
therefore would be unable to assess the proposed contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
amendment in the light of the entire document. This is the
of members of the National Assembly.
“Doctrine of Submission” which means that all the
proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS (ISSUES
presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at OF POLICY)
the same time, NOT piecemeal. OCAMPO VS ENRIQUEZ

FACTS: President Duterte allowed the burial of President

THEORY AND JUSTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Marcos's remains in the Libingan ng Mga Bayani (LNMB).
ANGARA VS ELECTORAL COMMISSION He ordered herein respondent's superior to prepare the
FACTS: In the elections of Sept 17, 1935, Angara, and
the respondents, Pedro Ynsua et al. were candidates ISSUE: Would respondents gravely abuse their discretion
voted for the position of member of the National Assembly in allowing Marcos' burial in the LNMB?
for the first district of the Province of Tayabas. On Oct 7, Would Marcos' burial be violative of the 1987 Constitution,
1935, Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the NA jurisprudence and the law?
for the said district. On November 15, 1935, he took his
oath of office. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session HELD: It is not. The Supreme Court found for the
assembled, passed Resolution No. 8 confirming the respondents.
election of the members of the National Assembly against
whom no protest had thus far been filed. On Dec 8, 1935, It is the President's discretion to allow who should be
Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a “Motion of buried in the LNMB. In fact, even Congress may and can
Protest” against the election of Angara. On Dec 9, 1935, enact a law allowing anyone to be buried therein. Since
the EC adopted a resolution, par. 6 of which fixed said the LNMB is under the authority of the AFP and the
date as the last day for the filing of protests against the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is the President, it is
election, returns and qualifications of members of the NA, within the President's discretion to allow or disallow the
notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the burial of anyone in the LNMB.
NA. Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that by
virtue of the NA proclamation, Ynsua can no longer The Pantheon Law does not cover the LNMB. It is merely
protest. Ynsua argued back by claiming that EC a national shrine converted into a memorial shrine.
proclamation governs and that the EC can take Hence, anyone buried therein would not be treated as a
cognizance of the election protest and that the EC cannot hero and would not be labeled as one who is worth
be subject to a writ of prohibition from the SC. emulating or who is an inspiration to the youth.
14 I A. C. JUCO
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Manila. Suing as taxpayers, they assail sections 2, 51,
and 52 of Republic Act No. 7854 as unconstitutional.
PACU VS SECRETARY OF EDUCATION ISSUE: Whether or not there is an actual case or
The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities controversy to challenge the constitutionality of one of the
(PACU) assailed the constitutionality of Act No. 2706 as questioned sections of R.A. No. 7854. NO.
amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No.
180. These laws sought to regulate the ownership of HELD: The requirements before a litigant can challenge
private schools in the country. It is provided by these laws the constitutionality of a law are well delineated. They are:
that a permit should first be secured from the Secretary of 1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) the
Education before a person may be granted the right to question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper
own and operate a private school. This also gives the party; (3) the constitutional question must be raised at the
Secretary of Education the discretion to ascertain earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the decision on the
standards that must be followed by private schools. It also constitutional question must be necessary to the
provides that the Secretary of Education can and may ban determination of the case itself.
certain textbooks from being used in schools.
Petitioners have far from complied with these
PACU contends that the right of a citizen to own and
requirements. The petition is premised on the occurrence
operate a school is guaranteed by the Constitution, and
of many contingent events, i.e., that Mayor Binay will run
any law requiring previous governmental approval or
again in this coming mayoralty elections; that he would be
permit before such person could exercise said right,
re-elected in said elections; and that he would seek re-
amounts to censorship of previous restraint, a practice
election for the same position in the 1998 elections.
abhorrent to our system of law and government. PACU
Considering that these contingencies may or may not
also avers that such power granted to the Secretary of
happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue
Education is an undue delegation of legislative power;
which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy.
that there is undue delegation because the law did not
Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano)
specify the basis or the standard upon which the
are not also the proper partiesto raise this abstract issue.
Secretary must exercise said discretion; that the power to
Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for
ban books granted to the Secretary amounts to
declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether or not Act No, 2706 as amended is MONTESCLAROS VS COMELEC
unconstitutional. FACTS: The Local Government Code of 1991 renamed
the Kabataang Barangay to Sangguniang Kabataan and
HELD: No. In the first place, there is no justiciable
limited its membership to youths “at least 15 but no more
controversy presented. PACU did not show that it suffered
than 21 years of age.” On 18 February 2002, Antoniette
any injury from the exercise of the Secretary of Education
VC Montesclaros demanded from COMELEC that SK
of such powers granted to him by the said law.
elections be held as scheduled on 6 May 2002.
Second, the State has the power to regulate, in fact COMELEC Chairman Alfredo Benipayo wrote to the
control, the ownership of schools. The Constitution House of Representatives and the Senate on 20 February
provides for state control of all educational institutions 2002 inquiring on the status of pending bills on SK and
even as it enumerates certain fundamental objectives of Barangay elections and expressed support to postpone
all education to wit, the development of moral character, the SK election on November 2002. On 11 March 2002
personal discipline, civic conscience and vocational the Bicameral Committee consolidated Senate Bill 2050
efficiency, and instruction in the duties of and House Bill 4456, resetting the SK election to 15 July
citizenship. The State control of private education was 2002 and lowered the membership age to at least 15 but
intended by the organic law. no more than 18 years of age. This was approved by the
Senate and House of Representative on 11 March and 13
Third, the State has the power to ban illegal textbooks or March 2002 respectively and signed by the President on
those that are offensive to Filipino morals. This is still part 19 March 2002. The petitioners filed prohibition and
of the power of control and regulation by the State over all mandamus for temporary restraining order seeking the
schools. prevention of postponement of the SK election and
MARIANO VS COMELEC reduction of age requirement on 11 March 2002.
FACTS: This is a petition for prohibition and declaratory ISSUE: Whether or not the proposed bill is
relief filed by petitioners Juanito Mariano, Jr., Ligaya S. unconstitutional.
Bautista, Teresita Tibay, Camilo Santos, Frankie Cruz,
Ricardo Pascual, Teresita Abang, Valentina Pitalvero, DECISION: Petition dismissed for utter lack of merit. This
Rufino Caldoza, Florante Alba, and Perfecto Alba. Of the petition presents no actual justiciable controversy.
petitioners, only Mariano, Jr., is a resident of Makati. The Petitioners do not cite any provision of law that is alleged
others are residents of Ibayo Ususan, Taguig, Metro to be unconstitutional. Petitioner’s prayer to prevent
15 I A. C. JUCO
Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill does not entire Special Provision No. 3 on the “Specific Prohibition”
present actual controversy. A proposed bill is not subject which states that the said Modernization Fund “shall not
to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill be used for payment of six (6) additional S-211 Trainer
creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable planes, 18 SF-260 Trainer planes and 150 armored
by the Court. Having no legal effect it violates no personnel carriers”
constitutional right or duty. At the time petitioners filed this 6. New provision authorizing the Chief of Staff to use
petition, RA No. 9164 was not yet enacted into law. After savings in the AFP to augment pension and gratuity
its passage petitioners failed to assail any provision in RA funds.
No. 9164 that could be unconstitutional. 7. Conditions on the appropriation for the Supreme Court,
Ombudsman, COA, and CHR, the Congress.
FACTS: House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation  whether or not the conditions imposed by the
Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by President in the items of the GAA of 1994: (a) for
both houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. As the Supreme Court, (b) Commission on Audit
passed, it imposed conditions and limitations on certain (COA), (c) Ombudsman, (d) Commission on
items of appropriations in the proposed budget previously Human Rights, (CHR), (e) Citizen Armed Forces
submitted by the President. It also authorized members of Geographical Units (CAFGU’S) and (f) State
Congress to propose and identify projects in the “pork Universities and Colleges (SUC’s) are
barrels” allotted to them and to realign their respective constitutional; whether or not the veto of the
operating budgets. special provision in the appropriation for debt
service and the automatic appropriation of funds
Pursuant to the procedure on the passage and enactment therefore is constitutional
of bills as prescribed by the Constitution, Congress
presented the said bill to the President for consideration Held: The veto power, while exercisable by the
and approval. President, is actually a part of the legislative process.
There is, therefore, sound basis to indulge in the
On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into presumption of validity of a veto. The burden shifts on
law, and declared the same to have become Republic Act those questioning the validity thereof to show that its use
NO. 7663, entitled “AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS is a violation of the Constitution.
THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO The vetoed provision on the debt servicing is clearly an
DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND attempt to repeal Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 (Foreign
NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” (GAA Borrowing Act) and E.O. No. 292, and to reverse the debt
of 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his payment policy. As held by the court in Gonzales, the
Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of repeal of these laws should be done in a separate law,
the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain not in the appropriations law.
conditions, as follows:
1. Provision on Debt Ceiling, on the ground that “this debt In the veto of the provision relating to SUCs, there was no
reduction scheme cannot be validly done through the undue discrimination when the President vetoed said
1994 GAA.” And that “appropriations for payment of public special provisions while allowing similar provisions in
debt, whether foreign or domestic, are automatically other government agencies. If some government
appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Borrowing Act and agencies were allowed to use their income and maintain
Section 31 of P.D. No. 1177 as reiterated under Section a revolving fund for that purpose, it is because these
26, Chapter 4, Book VI of E.O. No. 292, the Administrative agencies have been enjoying such privilege before by
Code of 1987. virtue of the special laws authorizing such practices as
2. Special provisions which authorize the use of income and exceptions to the “one-fund policy” (e.g., R.A. No. 4618
the creation, operation and maintenance of revolving for the National Stud Farm, P.D. No. 902-A for the
funds in the appropriation for State Universities and Securities and Exchange Commission; E.O. No. 359 for
Colleges (SUC’s), the Department of Budget and Management’s
3. Provision on 70% (administrative)/30% (contract) ratio Procurement Service).
for road maintenance.
4. Special provision on the purchase by the AFP of The veto of the second paragraph of Special Provision
medicines in compliance with the Generics Drugs Law No. 2 of the item for the DPWH is unconstitutional. The
(R.A. No. 6675). Special Provision in question is not an inappropriate
5. The President vetoed the underlined proviso in the provision which can be the subject of a veto. It is not alien
appropriation for the modernization of the AFP of the to the appropriation for road maintenance, and on the
Special Provision No. 2 on the “Use of Fund,” which other hand, it specifies how the said item shall be
requires the prior approval of the Congress for the release expended — 70% by administrative and 30% by contract.
of the corresponding modernization funds, as well as the
16 I A. C. JUCO
The Special Provision which requires that all purchases MOOTNESS - **MOOTNESS AND ACADEMIC
of medicines by the AFP should strictly comply with the LACHES means the failure or neglect for an
formulary embodied in the National Drug Policy of the unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
Department of Health is an “appropriate” provision. Being which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
directly related to and inseparable from the appropriation been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a
item on purchases of medicines by the AFP, the special right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption
provision cannot be vetoed by the President without also that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or
vetoing the said item. declined to assert it. 25 It has also been defined as such
neglect or omission to assert a right taken in conjunction
The requirement in Special Provision No. 2 on the “use of with the lapse of time and other circumstances causing
Fund” for the AFP modernization program that the prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in
President must submit all purchases of military equipment equity. 26
to Congress for its approval, is an exercise of the The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as
“congressional or legislative veto.” However the case at such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping
bench is not the proper occasion to resolve the issues of upon one's right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right
the validity of the legislative veto as provided in Special when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable
Provisions Nos. 2 and 3 because the issues at hand can situation. 27 As an equitable defense, laches does not
be disposed of on other grounds. Therefore, being concern itself with the character of the defendant's title,
“inappropriate” provisions, Special Provisions Nos. 2 and but only with whether or not by reason of the plaintiff's
3 were properly vetoed. long in action or inexcusable neglect, he should be barred
from asserting this claim at all, because to allow him to do
Furthermore, Special Provision No. 3, prohibiting the use so would be inequitable and unjust to the defendant. 28
of the Modernization fund for payment of the trainer The doctrine of laches or of stale demands is based upon
planes and armored personnel carriers, which have been grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of
contracted for by the AFP, is violative of the Constitutional society, the discouragement of stale claims and . . . is
prohibition on the passage of laws that impair the principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of
obligation of contracts (Art. III, Sec. 10), more so, permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
contracts entered into by the Government itself. The veto ESTOPPEL - a bar or impediment (obstruction) which
of said special provision is therefore valid. precludes a person from asserting a fact or a right or
prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due
The Special Provision, which allows the Chief of Staff to to a person's actions, conduct, statements, admissions,
use savings to augment the pension fund for the AFP failure to act or judgment against the person in an
being managed by the AFP Retirement and Separation identical legal case.
Benefits System is violative of Sections 25(5) and 29(1)
of the Article VI of the Constitution. ATLAS FERTILIZER VS SEC. OF DAR
Facts: Petitioner, Atlas Fertilizer engaged in the
Regarding the deactivation of CAFGUS, we do not find aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms.
anything in the language used in the challenged Special Assailed Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of R.A.
Provision that would imply that Congress intended to deny 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), as well as
to the President the right to defer or reduce the spending, the implementing guidelines and procedures contained in
much less to deactivate 11,000 CAFGU members all at Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 issued
once in 1994. But even if such is the intention, the by public respondent Secretary of the Department of
appropriation law is not the proper vehicle for such Agrarian Reform as unconstitutional. They contend that
purpose. Such intention must be embodied and R.A. 6657, by including the raising of fish and aquaculture
manifested in another law considering that it abrades the operations including fishponds and prawn ponds, treating
powers of the Commander-in-Chief and there are existing them as in the same class or classification as agriculture
laws on the creation of the CAFGU’s to be amended. or farming violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution and therefore void.
On the conditions imposed by the President on certain
provisions relating to appropriations to the Supreme Issue: Whether or not RA 6657 is unconstitutional.
Court, constitutional commissions, the NHA and the
DPWH, there is less basis to complain when the President Decision: Petition dismissed. R.A. No. 7881 approved by
said that the expenditures shall be subject to guidelines Congress on 20 February 1995 expressly state that
he will issue. Until the guidelines are issued, it cannot be fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the
determined whether they are proper or inappropriate. coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question
Under the Faithful Execution Clause, the President has concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions
the power to take “necessary and proper steps” to carry has become moot and academic with the passage of R.A.
into execution the law. These steps are the ones to be No. 7881.
embodied in the guidelines.
17 I A. C. JUCO
Facts: President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of together with their agents, representatives, and all
Rebellion (Proclamation No. 38) on May 1, 2001 as well persons acting in their behalf, are hereby enjoined from
as General Order No. 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to arresting Petitioners without the required judicial warrants
suppress the rebellion in the NCR. Warrantless arrests of for all acts committed in relation to or in connection with
several alleged leaders and promoters of the “rebellion” the May 1, 2001 siege of Malacañang.
were thereafter effected. Petitioner filed for prohibition,
injunction, mandamus and habeas corpus with an EXEMPTION TO MOOTNESS
application for the issuance of temporary restraining order SANLAKAS V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners assail the
declaration of Proc. No. 38 and the warrantless arrests Facts: During the wee hours of July 27, 2003, some
allegedly effected by virtue thereof. Petitioners three-hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP,
furthermore pray that the appropriate court, wherein the acting upon instigation, command and direction of known
information against them were filed, would desist and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood Building
arraignment and trial until this instant petition is resolved. in Makati. Publicly, they complained of the corruption in
They also contend that they are allegedly faced with the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for the
impending warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint government, demanding the resignation of the President,
being that hold departure orders were issued against Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. These acts
them. constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal
Code, and by virtue of Proclamation No. 427 and General
Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. 38 is valid, along Order No. 4, the Philippines was declared under the State
with the warrantless arrests and hold departure orders of Rebellion. Negotiations took place and the officers went
allegedly effected by the same. back to their barracks in the evening of the same day. On
August 1, 2003, both the Proclamation and General
Held: President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Orders were lifted, and Proclamation No. 435, declaring
Proc. No. 38 on May 6, 2006, accordingly the instant the Cessation of the State of Rebellion was issued.
petition has been rendered moot and academic.
Respondents have declared that the Justice Department In the interim, however, the following petitions were filed:
and the police authorities intend to obtain regular warrants (1) SANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS.
of arrests from the courts for all acts committed prior to EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, petitioners contending that
and until May 1, 2001. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Sec. 18 Article VII of the Constitution does not require the
Rules of Court, authorities may only resort to warrantless declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the AFP, and
arrests of persons suspected of rebellion in suppressing that there is no factual basis for such proclamation.
the rebellion if the circumstances so warrant, thus the (2)SJS Officers/Members v. Hon. Executive Secretary, et
warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. No. 38. al, petitioners contending that the proclamation is a
Petitioner’s prayer for mandamus and prohibition is circumvention of the report requirement under the same
improper at this time because an individual warrantlessly Section 18, Article VII, commanding the President to
arrested has adequate remedies in law: Rule 112 of the submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the
Rules of Court, providing for preliminary investigation, proclamation of martial law. Finally, they contend that the
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, providing for the presidential issuances cannot be construed as an
period in which a warrantlessly arrested person must be exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not
delivered to the proper judicial authorities, otherwise the delegated any such power to the President. (3) Rep.
officer responsible for such may be penalized for the Suplico et al. v. President Macapagal-Arroyo and
delay of the same. If the detention should have no legal Executive Secretary Romulo, petitioners contending that
ground, the arresting officer can be charged with arbitrary there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted
detention, not prejudicial to claim of damages under by Section 23 (2), Article VI of the Constitution. (4)
Article 32 of the Civil Code. Petitioners were neither Pimentel v. Romulo, et al, petitioner fears that the
assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders, declaration of a state of rebellion "opens the door to the
nor were they expressing any intention to leave the unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests"
country in the near future. To declare the hold departure for the crime of rebellion.
orders null and void ab initio must be made in the proper
proceedings initiated for that purpose. Petitioners’ prayer Issue:
for relief regarding their alleged impending warrantless
arrests is premature being that no complaints have been Whether or Not Proclamation No. 427 and General Order
filed against them for any crime, furthermore, the writ of No. 4 are constitutional?
habeas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is to
relieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are not Whether or Not the petitioners have a legal standing or
subjected to. locus standi to bring suit?

Petition is dismissed. Respondents, consistent and Held: The Court rendered that the both the Proclamation
congruent with their undertaking earlier adverted to, No. 427 and General Order No. 4 are constitutional.
18 I A. C. JUCO
Section 18, Article VII does not expressly prohibit of Rebellion. Negotiations took place and the officers went
declaring state or rebellion. The President in addition to back to their barracks in the evening of the same day. On
its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred by the August 1, 2003, both the Proclamation and General
Constitution executive powers. It is not disputed that the Orders were lifted, and Proclamation No. 435, declaring
President has full discretionary power to call out the the Cessation of the State of Rebellion was issued.
armed forces and to determine the necessity for the
exercise of such power. While the Court may examine In the interim, however, the following petitions were filed:
whether the power was exercised within constitutional (1) SANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS.
limits or in a manner constituting grave abuse of EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, petitioners contending that
discretion, none of the petitioners here have, by way of Sec. 18 Article VII of the Constitution does not require the
proof, supported their assertion that the President acted declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the AFP, and
without factual basis. The issue of the circumvention of that there is no factual basis for such proclamation.
the report is of no merit as there was no indication that (2)SJS Officers/Members v. Hon. Executive Secretary, et
military tribunals have replaced civil courts or that military al, petitioners contending that the proclamation is a
authorities have taken over the functions of Civil Courts. circumvention of the report requirement under the same
The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the Section 18, Article VII, commanding the President to
Congress is of no moment since the President, in submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the
declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed proclamation of martial law. Finally, they contend that the
forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief presidential issuances cannot be construed as an
Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. These are exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not
purely executive powers, vested on the President by delegated any such power to the President. (3) Rep.
Sections 1 and 18, Article VII, as opposed to the Suplico et al. v. President Macapagal-Arroyo and
delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 Executive Secretary Romulo, petitioners contending that
(2), Article VI. The fear on warrantless arrest is there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted
unreasonable, since any person may be subject to this by Section 23 (2), Article VI of the Constitution. (4)
whether there is rebellion or not as this is a crime Pimentel v. Romulo, et al, petitioner fears that the
punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and as long declaration of a state of rebellion "opens the door to the
as a valid warrantless arrest is present. unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests"
for the crime of rebellion.
Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that the Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. 427 and General
party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result Order No. 4 are constitutional?
of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist
of the question of standing is whether a party alleges Whether or Not the petitioners have a legal standing or
"such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as locus standi to bring suit?
to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of Issue upon which the court depends for Held: The Court rendered that the both the Proclamation
illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Based on No. 427 and General Order No. 4 are constitutional.
the foregoing, petitioners Sanlakas and PM, and SJS Section 18, Article VII does not expressly prohibit
Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue. Only declaring state or rebellion. The President in addition to
petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel, as its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred by the
Members of Congress, have standing to challenge the Constitution executive powers. It is not disputed that the
subject issuances. It sustained its decision in Philippine President has full discretionary power to call out the
Constitution Association v. Enriquez, that the extent the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the
powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each exercise of such power. While the Court may examine
member thereof, since his office confers a right to whether the power was exercised within constitutional
participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. limits or in a manner constituting grave abuse of
discretion, none of the petitioners here have, by way of
PIMENTEL VS ERMITA proof, supported their assertion that the President acted
Facts: During the wee hours of July 27, 2003, some without factual basis. The issue of the circumvention of
three-hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP, the report is of no merit as there was no indication that
acting upon instigation, command and direction of known military tribunals have replaced civil courts or that military
and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood Building authorities have taken over the functions of Civil Courts.
in Makati. Publicly, they complained of the corruption in The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the
the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for the Congress is of no moment since the President, in
government, demanding the resignation of the President, declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed
Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. These acts forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief
constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. These are
Code, and by virtue of Proclamation No. 427 and General purely executive powers, vested on the President by
Order No. 4, the Philippines was declared under the State Sections 1 and 18, Article VII, as opposed to the
19 I A. C. JUCO
delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 Metropolitan Museum of Manila alleged to be part of the
(2), Article VI. The fear on warrantless arrest is ill-gotten wealth of the late Pres. Marcos, his relatives and
unreasonable, since any person may be subject to this cronies. Prior to the auction sale, COA questioned the
whether there is rebellion or not as this is a crime Consignment Agreement, there was already opposition to
punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and as long the auction sale. Nevertheless, it proceeded as scheduled
as a valid warrantless arrest is present. and the proceeds of $13,302,604.86 were turned over to
the Bureau of Treasury.
Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that the ISSUE: Whether or not PCGG has jurisdiction and
party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result authority to enter into an agreement with Christie’s of New
of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist York for the sale of the artworks
of the question of standing is whether a party alleges
"such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as RULING: On jurisdiction of the Court to exercise judicial
to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the review
presentation of Issue upon which the court depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Based on The rule is settled that no question involving the
the foregoing, petitioners Sanlakas and PM, and SJS constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act
Officers/Members have no legal standing to sue. Only may be heard and decided by the court unless there is
petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel, as compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry,
Members of Congress, have standing to challenge the namely: that the question must be raised by the proper
subject issuances. It sustained its decision in Philippine party; that there must be an actual case or controversy;
Constitution Association v. Enriquez, that the extent the that the question must be raised at the earliest possible
powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each opportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional or
member thereof, since his office confers a right to legal question must be necessary to the determination of
participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. the case itself. But the most important are the first two (2)
JOYA VS PCGG Standing of Petitioners

LEGAL STANDING: a personal and substantial On the first requisite, we have held that one having no
interest in the case such that the party has sustained right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
or will sustain direct injury as a result of the the court as party-plaintiff in an action. This is premised
governmental act that is being challenged. on Sec. 2, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court which provides
EXCEPTIONS TO LEGAL STANDING: Mandamus and that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the
Taxpayer's Suits name of the real party-in-interest, and that all persons
having interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining
REQUISITES FOR MANDAMUS: a writ of mandamus the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. The Court
may be issued to a citizen only when the public right to be will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is
enforced and the concomitant duty of the state are brought before it by a party who has the legal standing to
unequivocably set forth in the Constitution. raise the constitutional or legal question. "Legal standing"
means a personal and substantial interest in the case
WHEN TAXPAYER SUIT MAY PROSPER: A taxpayer's such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
suit can prosper only if the governmental acts being injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
questioned involve disbursement of public funds upon the challenged. The term "interest" is material interest, an
theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as
the state for the purpose of administering an distinguished from mere interest in the question involved,
unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such or a mere incidental interest. Moreover, the interest of the
funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a
taxpayer. desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third
and related party.
ACTUAL CONTROVERSY: one which involves a conflict
of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims EXCEPTIONS TO LEGAL STANDING: Mandamus and
susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be Taxpayer’s Suit:
moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar
considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. There are certain instances however when this Court has
allowed exceptions to the rule on legal standing, as when
FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines through the a citizen brings a case for mandamus to procure the
PCGG entered into a Consignment Agreement with enforcement of a public duty for the fulfillment of a public
Christie’s of New York, selling 82 Old Masters Paintings right recognized by the Constitution, and when a taxpayer
and antique silverware seized from Malacanang and the
20 I A. C. JUCO
questions the validity of a governmental act authorizing whatsoever to question their alleged unauthorized
the disbursement of public funds. disposition.

Petitioners claim that as Filipino citizens, taxpayers and Requisites for a Mandamus Suit
artists deeply concerned with the preservation and
protection of the country's artistic wealth, they have the Further, although this action is also one of mandamus
legal personality to restrain respondents Executive filed by concerned citizens, it does not fulfill the criteria for
Secretary and PCGG from acting contrary to their public a mandamus suit. In Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,
duty to conserve the artistic creations as mandated by the this Court laid down the rule that a writ of mandamus may
1987 Constitution, particularly Art. XIV, Secs. 14 to 18, on be issued to a citizen only when the public right to be
Arts and Culture, and R.A. 4846 known as "The Cultural enforced and the concomitant duty of the state are
Properties Preservation and Protection Act," governing unequivocably set forth in the Constitution. In the case at
the preservation and disposition of national and important bar, petitioners are not after the fulfillment of a positive
cultural properties. Petitioners also anchor their case on duty required of respondent officials under the 1987
the premise that the paintings and silverware are public Constitution. What they seek is the enjoining of an official
properties collectively owned by them and by the people act because it is constitutionally infirmed. Moreover,
in general to view and enjoy as great works of art. They petitioners' claim for the continued enjoyment and
allege that with the unauthorized act of PCGG in selling appreciation by the public of the artworks is at most a
the art pieces, petitioners have been deprived of their right privilege and is unenforceable as a constitutional right in
to public property without due process of law in violation this action for mandamus.
of the Constitution.
When a Taxpayer's Suit may prosper
Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. They lack
basis in fact and in law. They themselves allege that the Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's suit.
paintings were donated by private persons from different Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to
parts of the world to the Metropolitan Museum of Manila challenge the legality of official acts done by the
Foundation, which is a non-profit and non-stock government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the
corporations established to promote non-Philippine arts. governmental acts being questioned involve
The foundation's chairman was former First Lady Imelda disbursement of public funds upon the theory that the
R. Marcos, while its president was Bienvenido R. expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state for
Tantoco. On this basis, the ownership of these paintings the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act
legally belongs to the foundation or corporation or the constitutes a misapplication of such funds, which may be
members thereof, although the public has been given the enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. Obviously,
opportunity to view and appreciate these paintings when petitioners are not challenging any expenditure involving
they were placed on exhibit. public funds but the disposition of what they allege to be
public properties. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit
Similarly, as alleged in the petition, the pieces of antique that the paintings and antique silverware were acquired
silverware were given to the Marcos couple as gifts from from private sources and not with public money.
friends and dignitaries from foreign countries on their
silver wedding and anniversary, an occasion personal to Actual Controversy
them. When the Marcos administration was toppled by the
revolutionary government, these paintings and silverware For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there
were taken from Malacañang and the Metropolitan must be an actual case of controversy — one which
Museum of Manila and transferred to the Central Bank involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite
Museum. The confiscation of these properties by the legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case
Aquino administration however should not be understood must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or
to mean that the ownership of these paintings has other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of
automatically passed on the government without justice. A case becomes moot and academic when its
complying with constitutional and statutory requirements purpose has become stale, such as the case before us.
of due process and just compensation. If these properties Since the purpose of this petition for prohibition is to
were already acquired by the government, any enjoin respondent public officials from holding the auction
constitutional or statutory defect in their acquisition and sale of the artworks on a particular date — 11 January
their subsequent disposition must be raised only by the 1991 — which is long past, the issues raised in the petition
proper parties — the true owners thereof — whose have become moot and academic.
authority to recover emanates from their proprietary rights
which are protected by statutes and the Constitution. At this point, however, we need to emphasize that this
Having failed to show that they are the legal owners of the Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which
artworks or that the valued pieces have become publicly does not satisfy the requirements of an actual case or
owned, petitioners do not possess any clear legal right legal standing when paramount public interest is involved.

21 I A. C. JUCO
We find however that there is no such justification in the On September 17, 2002, the workers of the international
petition at bar to warrant the relaxation of the rule. airline service providers, claiming that they would lose
their job upon the implementation of the questioned
AGAN VS PIATCO agreements, filed a petition for prohibition. Several
FACTS: On October 5, 1994, AEDC submitted an employees of MIAA likewise filed a petition assailing the
unsolicited proposal to the Government through the legality of the various agreements.
DOTC/MIAA for the development of NAIA International
Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III). During the pendency of the cases, PGMA, on her speech,
stated that she will not “honor (PIATCO) contracts which
DOTC constituted the Prequalification Bids and Awards the Executive Branch’s legal offices have concluded (as)
Committee (PBAC) for the implementation of the project null and void.”
and submitted with its endorsement proposal to the
NEDA, which approved the project. ISSUE:
Whether or not the State can temporarily take over a
On June 7, 14, and 21, 1996, DOTC/MIAA caused the business affected with public interest.
publication in two daily newspapers of an invitation for
competitive or comparative proposals on AEDC’s RULING:
unsolicited proposal, in accordance with Sec. 4-A of RA Yes. PIATCO cannot, by mere contractual stipulation,
6957, as amended. contravene the Constitutional provision on temporary
government takeover and obligate the government to pay
On September 20, 1996, the consortium composed of “reasonable cost for the use of the Terminal and/or
People’s Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. Terminal Complex.”
(Paircargo), Phil. Air and Grounds Services, Inc. (PAGS)
and Security Bank Corp. (Security Bank) (collectively, Article XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Paircargo Consortium) submitted their competitive Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the
proposal to the PBAC. PBAC awarded the project to public interest so requires, the State may, during the
Paircargo Consortium. Because of that, it was emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it,
incorporated into Philippine International Airport temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
Terminals Co., Inc. privately owned public utility or business affected with
public interest.
AEDC subsequently protested the alleged undue
preference given to PIATCO and reiterated its objections The above provision pertains to the right of the State in
as regards the prequalification of PIATCO. times of national emergency, and in the exercise of its
police power, to temporarily take over the operation of any
On July 12, 1997, the Government and PIATCO signed business affected with public interest. The duration of the
the “Concession Agreement for the Build-Operate-and- emergency itself is the determining factor as to how long
Transfer Arrangement of the NAIA Passenger Terminal the temporary takeover by the government would last.
III” (1997 Concession Agreement). The Government The temporary takeover by the government extends only
granted PIATCO the franchise to operate and maintain to the operation of the business and not to the ownership
the said terminal during the concession period and to thereof. As such the government is not required to
collect the fees, rentals and other charges in accordance compensate the private entity-owner of the said business
with the rates or schedules stipulated in the 1997 as there is no transfer of ownership, whether permanent
Concession Agreement. The Agreement provided that or temporary. The private entity-owner affected by the
the concession period shall be for twenty-five (25) years temporary takeover cannot, likewise, claim just
commencing from the in-service date, and may be compensation for the use of the said business and its
renewed at the option of the Government for a period not properties as the temporary takeover by the government
exceeding twenty-five (25) years. At the end of the is in exercise of its police power and not of its power of
concession period, PIATCO shall transfer the eminent domain.
development facility to MIAA.
Article XII, section 17 of the 1987 Constitution envisions
Meanwhile, the MIAA which is charged with the a situation wherein the exigencies of the times
maintenance and operation of the NAIA Terminals I and necessitate the government to “temporarily take over or
II, had existing concession contracts with various service direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or
providers to offer international airline airport services, business affected with public interest.” It is the welfare
such as in-flight catering, passenger handling, ramp and and interest of the public which is the paramount
ground support, aircraft maintenance and provisions, consideration in determining whether or not to temporarily
cargo handling and warehousing, and other services, to take over a particular business. Clearly, the State in
several international airlines at the NAIA. effecting the temporary takeover is exercising its police
power. Police power is the “most essential, insistent, and
illimitable of powers.” Its exercise therefore must not be
22 I A. C. JUCO
unreasonably hampered nor its exercise be a source of 1. RA 6758, An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation
obligation by the government in the absence of damage and Position Classification System in the Government
due to arbitrariness of its exercise. Thus, requiring the and For Other Purposes, or the Salary Standardization
government to pay reasonable compensation for the Law, provides that it is the DBM that shall establish and
reasonable use of the property pursuant to the operation administer a unified Compensation and Position
of the business contravenes the Constitution. Classification System.

CHR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS CHR The disputation of the CA that the CHR is exempt from
FACTS: Congress passed RA 8522, otherwise known as the long arm of the Salary Standardization Law is flawed
the General Appropriations Act of 1998. It provided for considering that the coverage thereof encompasses the
Special Provisions Applicable to All Constitutional Offices entire gamut of government offices, sans qualification.
Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy. On the strength of these
special provisions, the CHR promulgated Resolution No. This power to “administer” is not purely ministerial in
A98-047 adopting an upgrading and reclassification character as erroneously held by the CA. The word to
scheme among selected positions in the Commission. administer means to control or regulate in behalf of
others; to direct or superintend the execution, application
By virtue of Resolution No. A98-062, the CHR “collapsed” or conduct of; and to manage or conduct public affairs, as
the vacant positions in the body to provide additional to administer the government of the state.
source of funding for said staffing modification.
2. The regulatory power of the DBM on matters of
The CHR forwarded said staffing modification and compensation is encrypted not only in law, but in
upgrading scheme to the DBM with a request for its jurisprudence as well. In the recent case of PRA v. Buñag,
approval, but the then DBM secretary denied the request. this Court ruled that compensation, allowances, and other
benefits received by PRA officials and employees without
In light of the DBM’s disapproval of the proposed the requisite approval or authority of the DBM are
personnel modification scheme, the CSC-National Capital unauthorized and irregular
Region Office, through a memorandum, recommended to
the CSC-Central Office that the subject appointments be In Victorina Cruz v. CA , we held that the DBM has the
rejected owing to the DBM’s disapproval of the plantilla sole power and discretion to administer the compensation
reclassification. and position classification system of the national
Meanwhile, the officers of petitioner CHR-employees
association (CHREA) in representation of the rank and file In Intia, Jr. v. COA the Court held that although the charter
employees of the CHR, requested the CSC-Central Office of the PPC grants it the power to fix the compensation and
to affirm the recommendation of the CSC-Regional Office. benefits of its employees and exempts PPC from the
coverage of the rules and regulations of the
The CSC-Central Office denied CHREA’s request in a Compensation and Position Classification Office, by
Resolution and reversed the recommendation of the virtue of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1597, the compensation
CSC-Regional Office that the upgrading scheme be system established by the PPC is, nonetheless, subject
censured. CHREA filed a motion for reconsideration, but to the review of the DBM.
the CSC-Central Office denied the same.
(It should be emphasized that the review by the DBM of
CHREA elevated the matter to the CA, which affirmed the any PPC resolution affecting the compensation structure
pronouncement of the CSC-Central Office and upheld the of its personnel should not be interpreted to mean that the
validity of the upgrading, retitling, and reclassification DBM can dictate upon the PPC Board of Directors and
scheme in the CHR on the justification that such action is deprive the latter of its discretion on the matter. Rather,
within the ambit of CHR’s fiscal autonomy. the DBM’s function is merely to ensure that the action
taken by the Board of Directors complies with the
ISSUE: Can the CHR validly implement an upgrading, requirements of the law, specifically, that PPC’s
reclassification, creation, and collapsing of plantilla compensation system “conforms as closely as possible
positions in the Commission without the prior approval of with that provided for under R.A. No. 6758.” )
the Department of Budget and Management?
3. As measured by the foregoing legal and jurisprudential
HELD: the petition is GRANTED, the Decision of the CA yardsticks, the imprimatur of the DBM must first be sought
and its are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The prior to implementation of any reclassification or
ruling CSC-National Capital Region is REINSTATED. The upgrading of positions in government. This is consonant
3 CHR Resolutions, without the approval of the DBM are to the mandate of the DBM under the RAC of 1987,
disallowed. Section 3, Chapter 1, Title XVII, to wit:

23 I A. C. JUCO
SEC. 3. Powers and Functions. – The Department of From the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code,
Budget and Management shall assist the President in the it is abundantly clear that the CHR is not among the class
preparation of a national resources and expenditures of Constitutional Commissions. As expressed in the oft-
budget, preparation, execution and control of the National repeated maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the
Budget, preparation and maintenance of accounting express mention of one person, thing, act or consequence
systems essential to the budgetary process, achievement excludes all others. Stated otherwise, expressium facit
of more economy and efficiency in the management of cessare tacitum – what is expressed puts an end to what
government operations, administration of compensation is implied.
and position classification systems, assessment of
organizational effectiveness and review and evaluation of Nor is there any legal basis to support the contention that
legislative proposals having budgetary or organizational the CHR enjoys fiscal autonomy. In essence, fiscal
implications. autonomy entails freedom from outside control and
limitations, other than those provided by law. It is the
Irrefragably, it is within the turf of the DBM Secretary to freedom to allocate and utilize funds granted by law, in
disallow the upgrading, reclassification, and creation of accordance with law, and pursuant to the wisdom and
additional plantilla positions in the CHR based on its dispatch its needs may require from time to time.22 In
finding that such scheme lacks legal justification. Blaquera v. Alcala and Bengzon v. Drilon,23 it is
understood that it is only the Judiciary, the CSC, the COA,
Notably, the CHR itself recognizes the authority of the the COMELEC, and the Office of the Ombudsman, which
DBM to deny or approve the proposed reclassification of enjoy fiscal autonomy.
positions as evidenced by its three letters to the DBM
requesting approval thereof. As such, it is now estopped Neither does the fact that the CHR was admitted as a
from now claiming that the nod of approval it has member by the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group
previously sought from the DBM is a superfluity (CFAG) ipso facto clothed it with fiscal autonomy. Fiscal
autonomy is a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by
4. The CA incorrectly relied on the pronouncement of the membership.
CSC-Central Office that the CHR is a constitutional
commission, and as such enjoys fiscal autonomy. We note with interest that the special provision under
Rep. Act No. 8522, while cited under the heading of the
Palpably, the CA’s Decision was based on the mistaken CHR, did not specifically mention CHR as among those
premise that the CHR belongs to the species of offices to which the special provision to formulate and
constitutional commissions. But the Constitution states in implement organizational structures apply, but merely
no uncertain terms that only the CSC, the COMELEC, and states its coverage to include Constitutional Commissions
the COA shall be tagged as Constitutional Commissions and Offices enjoying fiscal autonomy
with the appurtenant right to fiscal autonomy.
All told, the CHR, although admittedly a constitutional
Along the same vein, the Administrative Code, on creation is, nonetheless, not included in the genus of
Distribution of Powers of Government, the constitutional offices accorded fiscal autonomy by constitutional or
commissions shall include only the CSC, the COMELEC, legislative fiat.
and the COA, which are granted independence and fiscal
autonomy. In contrast, Chapter 5, Section 29 thereof, is Even assuming en arguendo that the CHR enjoys fiscal
silent on the grant of similar powers to the other bodies autonomy, we share the stance of the DBM that the grant
including the CHR. Thus: of fiscal autonomy notwithstanding, all government offices
must, all the same, kowtow to the Salary Standardization
SEC. 24. Constitutional Commissions. – The Law. We are of the same mind with the DBM on its
Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, standpoint, thus-
are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on
Elections, and the Commission on Audit. Being a member of the fiscal autonomy group does not
vest the agency with the authority to reclassify, upgrade,
SEC. 26. Fiscal Autonomy. – The Constitutional and create positions without approval of the DBM. While
Commissions shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. The approved the members of the Group are authorized to formulate
annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly and implement the organizational structures of their
released. respective offices and determine the compensation of
their personnel, such authority is not absolute and must
SEC. 29. Other Bodies. – There shall be in accordance be exercised within the parameters of the Unified Position
with the Constitution, an Office of the Ombudsman, a Classification and Compensation System established
Commission on Human Rights, and independent central under RA 6758 more popularly known as the
monetary authority, and a national police commission. Compensation Standardization Law.
Likewise, as provided in the Constitution, Congress may
establish an independent economic and planning agency.
24 I A. C. JUCO
5. The most lucid argument against the stand of authorized unless provided by law or directed by the
respondent, however, is the provision of Rep. Act No. President.” Here, the DBM discerned that there is no law
8522 “that the implementation hereof shall be in authorizing the creation of a Finance Management Office
accordance with salary rates, allowances and other and a Public Affairs Office in the CHR. Anent CHR’s
benefits authorized under compensation standardization proposal to upgrade twelve positions of Attorney VI, SG-
laws.”26 26 to Director IV, SG-28, and four positions of Director III,
SG-27 to Director IV, SG-28, in the Central Office, the
NOTES: DBM denied the same as this would change the context
from support to substantive without actual change in
1. Respondent CHR sharply retorts that petitioner has no functions.
locus standi considering that there exists no official written
record in the Commission recognizing petitioner as a This view of the DBM, as the law’s designated body to
bona fide organization of its employees nor is there implement and administer a unified compensation
anything in the records to show that its president has the system, is beyond cavil. The interpretation of an
authority to sue the CHR. administrative government agency, which is tasked to
implement a statute is accorded great respect and
On petitioner’s personality to bring this suit, we held in a ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. In
multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has Energy Regulatory Board v. CA, we echoed the basic rule
sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury that the courts will not interfere in matters which are
as a result of the act complained of. Here, petitioner, addressed to the sound discretion of government
which consists of rank and file employees of respondent agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming
CHR, protests that the upgrading and collapsing of under the special technical knowledge and training of
positions benefited only a select few in the upper level such agencies.
positions in the Commission resulting to the
demoralization of the rank and file employees. This AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY WORKERS ALLIANCE VS
sufficiently meets the injury test. Indeed, the CHR’s ROMULO
upgrading scheme, if found to be valid, potentially entails
eating up the Commission’s savings or that portion of its Facts: Executive Order No. 292 was issued whereby the
budgetary pie otherwise allocated for Personnel Services, National Labor Relations Commission became an agency
from which the benefits of the employees, including those attached to the Department of Labor and Employment for
in the rank and file, are derived. policy and program coordination and for administrative
supervision. On 02 March 1989, Article 213 of the Labor
Further, the personality of petitioner to file this case was Code was expressly amended by Republic Act No. 6715
recognized by the CSC when it took cognizance of the declaring that the NLRC was to be attached to the DOLE
CHREA’s request to affirm the recommendation of the for program and policy coordination only while the
CSC-National Capital Region Office. CHREA’s administrative supervision was turned over to the NLRC
personality to bring the suit was a non-issue in the CA Chairman. Executive Order No. 185 dated 10 March 2003
when it passed upon the merits of this case. Thus, neither supervision of NLRC reverted to the Sec. of Labor and
should our hands be tied by this technical concern. Employment. Petitioners, composed of ten labor unions
Indeed, it is settled jurisprudence that an issue that was assailed the constitutionality of EO 185 for allegedly revert
neither raised in the complaint nor in the court below the set-up prior to RA 6715 which only Congress can do.
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as to do so Solicitor General contend that petitioners have no locus
would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, standi to assail the validity of E.O. No. 185, not even in
and due process. their capacity as taxpayers, considering that labor unions
are exempt from paying taxes, citing Sec. 30 of the Tax
2. In line with its role to breathe life into the policy behind Reform Act of 1997. Even assuming that their individual
the Salary Standardization Law of “providing equal pay for members are taxpayers, respondents maintain that a
substantially equal work and to base differences in pay taxpayer suit will not prosper as E.O. No. 185 does not
upon substantive differences in duties and require additional appropriation for its implementation.
responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the
positions,” the DBM, in the case under review, made a Issue: Whether or not the ten labour unions have legal
determination, after a thorough evaluation, that the standing to assail the constitutionality of EO 185?
reclassification and upgrading scheme proposed by the
CHR lacks legal rationalization. Decision: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. For a
citizen to have standing, he must establish that he has
The DBM expounded that Section 78 of the general suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of
provisions of the General Appropriations Act FY 1998, the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury
which the CHR heavily relies upon to justify its is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury
reclassification scheme, explicitly provides that “no is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. Petitioners
organizational unit or changes in key positions shall be have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger
25 I A. C. JUCO
of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the Held:
enactment of E.O. No. 185. As labor unions it cannot be On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the
said that E.O. No. 185 will prejudice their rights and constitution:
interests considering that the scope of the authority 1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the
conferred upon the Secretary of Labor does not extend to Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the
the power to review, reverse, revise or modify the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain.
decisions of the NLRC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but
functions. may not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to
private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to
CITIZEN STANDING Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in
TANADA VS TUVERA the 1987 Constitution and existing laws.
Fact: In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways 2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay
entered into a contract to reclaim areas of Manila Bay with remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain
the Construction and Development Corportion of the until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to
Philippines (CDCP). disposition and declared no longer needed for public
service. The government can make such classification
PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
Marcos under P.D. 1084, tasked with developing and submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as
leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were transferred to agricultural lands of the public domain, which are the only
the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila natural resources the government can alienate. In their
Cavite Road and Reclamation Project (MCRRP). CDCP present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas
and PEA entered into an agreement that all future projects are inalienable and outside the commerce of man.
under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA.
3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a
By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No. private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of
3517 transferring lands to PEA. It was followed by the the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being
transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
Register of Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any
three reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM kind of alienable land of the public domain.
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to
Subsquently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of still
(JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-Philippine corporation to submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for
develop the Freedom Islands. Along with another 250 being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural
later transfer said lands to AMARI. This caused a stir resources other than agricultural lands of the public
especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the agreement, domain.
claiming that such lands were part of public domain
(famously known as the “mother of all scams”). PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the
government can classify the reclaimed lands as alienable
Peitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed
praying for mandamus, a writ of preliminary injunction and for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed
a TRO against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI will be void
AMARI and from implementing the JVA. Following these in view of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987Constitution
events, under President Estrada’s admin, PEA and which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any
AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chaves kind of alienable land of the public domain.
claim that the contract is null and void.
 w/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to be
reclaimed as part of the stipulations in the (Amended) FACTS: The Department of Transportation and
JVA between AMARI and PEA violate Sec. 3 Art. XII Communication (DOTC) and the Land Transportation
of the 1987 Constitution Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) released
 w/n: the court is the proper forum for raising the issue memoranda allowing provincial bus operators to charge
of whether the amended joint venture agreement is passengers rates within 15% above and below the official
grossly disadvantageous to the government. LTFRB rate for a period of one year. Provincial Bus
Operators Association of the Philippines applied for fare
rate increase. This was opposed by the Philippine

26 I A. C. JUCO
Consumer Foundation, Inc. and Perla Bautista as they constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review
were exorbitant and unreasonable. is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the
constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the provincial bus operators have
authority to reduce and increase fare rates based on the 2. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a
order of the LTFRB breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of
the Marines in this case constitutes permissible use of
HELD: The Legislature delegated to the defunct Public military assets for civilian law enforcement. The
Service Commission the power of fixing rates of public participation of the Marines in the conduct of joint visibility
services and the LTFRB is likewise vested with the same. patrols is appropriately circumscribed. It is their
Such delegation is permitted in order to adapt to the responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the
increasing complexity of modern life. The authority given Marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary
by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to set a fare equipment to the Marines and render logistical support to
range is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an undue these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be
delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegata non properly argued that military authority is supreme over
delegari protest. What has been delegated cannot be civilian authority. Moreover, the deployment of the
delegated. A further delegation of power would constitute Marines to assist the PNP does not unmake the civilian
a negation of the duty in violation of the trust reposed in character of the police force. Neither does it amount to
the delegate mandated to discharge it directly. The policy an “insidious incursion” of the military in the task of law
of allowing the provincial bus operators to change their enforcement in violation of Section 5(4), Article XVI of the
fares would lead to a chaotic situation and would leave Constitution.
the riding public at the mercy of transport operators.
IBP VS ZAMORA Facts: The Omnibus Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino
FACTS: Act of 1995 RA 8042 was, thereafter, published in the
Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec April 7, 1996 issue of the Manila Bulletin. However, even
18, Art. VII of the Constitution, President Estrada, in before the law took effect, the Asian Recruitment Council
verbal directive, directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Philippine Chapter, Inc. (ARCO-Phil.) filed, on July 17,
Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper 1995, a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the
deployment and campaign for a temporary period only. Rules of Court with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
The IBP questioned the validity of the deployment and City to declare as unconstitutional Section 2, paragraph
utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in law (g), Section 6, paragraphs (a) to (j), (l) and (m), Section 7,
enforcement. paragraphs (a) and (b), and Sections 9 and 10 of the law,
with a plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining
ISSUE: order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the
1. WoN the President's factual determination of the respondents therein from enforcing the assailed
necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial provisions of the law.
2. WoN the calling of AFP to assist the PNP in joint Peitioner claims that great majority of the duly licensed
visibility patrols violate the constitutional provisions on recruitment agencies have stopped or suspended their
civilian supremacy over the military. operations for fear of being prosecuted under the
provisions of a law that are unjust and unconstitutional.
1. The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, On August 1, 1995, the trial court issued a temporary
Article VIII of the Constitution, to wit: restraining order effective for a period of only twenty (20)
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one days therefrom. After the petitioners filed their comment
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be on the petition, the ARCO-Phil. filed an amended petition,
established by law. the amendments consisting in the inclusion in the caption
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to thereof eleven (11) other corporations which it alleged
settle actual controversies involving rights which are were its members and which it represented in the suit, and
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine a plea for a temporary restraining order enjoining the
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion respondents from enforcing Section 6 subsection (i),
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Section 6 subsection (k) and paragraphs 15 and 16
any branch or instrumentality of the Government. thereof, Section 8, Section 10, paragraphs 1 and 2, and
When questions of constitutional significance are raised, Sections 11 and 40 of Rep. Act No. 8042.
the Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if
the following requisites are complied with, namely: (1) the The respondent averred that the aforequoted
existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a provisions of Rep. Act No. 8042 violate Section 1, Article
personal and substantial interest of the party raising the III of the Constitution. 5 According to the respondent,
27 I A. C. JUCO
Section 6(g) and (i) discriminated against unskilled The respondent further argued that the 90-day period
workers and their families and, as such, violated the equal in Section 10, paragraph (1) within which a labor arbiter
protection clause, as well as Article II, Section 12 6 and should decide a money claim is relatively short, and could
Article XV, Sections 1 7 and 3(3) of the Constitution. 8 As deprive licensed and registered recruiters of their right to
the law encouraged the deployment of skilled Filipino due process. The period within which the summons and
workers, only overseas skilled workers are granted rights. the complaint would be served on foreign employees and,
The respondent stressed that unskilled workers also have thereafter, the filing of the answer to the complaint would
the right to seek employment abroad. take more than 90 days. This would thereby shift on local
licensed and authorized recruiters the burden of proving
According to the respondent, the right of unskilled the defense of foreign employers.
workers to due process is violated because they are
prevented from finding employment and earning a living The respondent asserted that the following provisions of
abroad. It cannot be argued that skilled workers are the law are unconstitutional:
immune from abuses by employers, while unskilled SEC. 9. Venue. — A criminal action arising from illegal
workers are merely prone to such abuses. It was pointed recruitment as defined herein shall be filed with the
out that both skilled and unskilled workers are subjected Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the
to abuses by foreign employers. Furthermore, the offense was committed or where the offended party
prohibition of the deployment of unskilled workers abroad actually resides at the time of the commission of the
would only encourage fly-by-night illegal recruiters. offense: Provided, That the court where the criminal
action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion
According to the respondent, the grant of incentives to of other courts: Provided, however, That the aforestated
service contractors and manning agencies to the provisions shall also apply to those criminal actions that
exclusion of all other licensed and authorized recruiters is have already been filed in court at the time of the
an invalid classification. Licensed and authorized effectivity of this Act.
recruiters are thus deprived of their right to property and
due process and to the "equality of the person." It is In their answer to the petition, the petitioners alleged,
understandable for the law to prohibit illegal recruiters, but inter alia, that (a) the respondent has no cause of action
to discriminate against licensed and registered recruiters for a declaratory relief; (b) the petition was premature as
is unconstitutional. the rules implementing Rep. Act No. 8042 not having
been released as yet; (c) the assailed provisions do not
The respondent, likewise, alleged that Section 6, violate any provisions of the Constitution; and, (d) the law
subsections (a) to (m) is unconstitutional because was approved by Congress in the exercise of the police
licensed and authorized recruitment agencies are placed power of the State.
on equal footing with illegal recruiters. It contended that
while the Labor Code distinguished between recruiters In opposition to the respondent's plea for injunctive relief,
who are holders of licenses and non-holders thereof in the the petitioners averred that: As earlier shown, the
imposition of penalties, Rep. Act No. 8042 does not make amended petition for declaratory relief is devoid of merit
any distinction. The penalties in Section 7(a) and (b) being for failure of petitioner to demonstrate convincingly that
based on an invalid classification are, therefore, the assailed law is unconstitutional, apart from the defect
repugnant to the equal protection clause, besides being and impropriety of the petition.
excessive; hence, such penalties are violative of Section
19(1), Article III of the Constitution. 9 It was also pointed On December 5, 1997, the appellate court came out with
out that the penalty for officers/officials/employees of a four-page decision dismissing the petition and affirming
recruitment agencies who are found guilty of economic the assailed order and writ of preliminary injunction issued
sabotage or large-scale illegal recruitment under Rep. Act by the trial court. The appellate court, likewise, denied the
No. 8042 is life imprisonment. petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the said
The respondent also posited that Section 6(m) and
paragraphs (15) and (16), Sections 8, 9 and 10,  Issue: The core issue in this case is whether or
paragraph 2 of the law violate Section 22, Article III of the not the trial court committed grave abuse of its
Constitution 10 prohibiting ex-post facto laws and bills of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
attainder. This is because the provisions presume that a jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order and the
licensed and registered recruitment agency is guilty of writ of preliminary injunction on a bond of only
illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage, upon a P50,000; and
finding that it committed any of the prohibited acts under
the law. Furthermore, officials, employees and their  Whether or not the appellate court erred in
relatives are presumed guilty of illegal recruitment affirming the trial court's order and the writ of
involving economic sabotage upon such finding that they preliminary injunction issued by it.
committed any of the said prohibited acts.

28 I A. C. JUCO
Ratio: The matter of whether to issue a writ of preliminary oriented while the recruitment agencies it purports to
injunction or not is addressed to the sound discretion of represent are profit-oriented.
the trial court. However, if the court commits grave abuse
of its discretion in issuing the said writ amounting to The petition is meritorious. The respondent has
excess or lack of jurisdiction, the same may be nullified locus standi to file the petition in the RTC in
via a writ of certiorari and prohibition. representation of the eleven licensed and registered
recruitment agencies impleaded in the amended
The possible unconstitutionality of a statute, on its face, petition. The modern view is that an association has
does not of itself justify an injunction against good faith standing to complain of injuries to its members. This
attempts to enforce it, unless there is a showing of bad view fuses the legal identity of an association with
faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that that of its members. 16 An association has standing
would call for equitable relief. The "on its face" invalidation to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct
of statutes has been described as "manifestly strong interest if its members are affected by the action. An
medicine," to be employed "sparingly and only as a last organization has standing to assert the concerns of
resort," and is generally disfavored. its constituents.

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction to enjoin the We note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, the
enforcement of a law assailed to be unconstitutional, the respondent was organized for the purposes inter alia of
party must establish that it will suffer irreparable harm in promoting and supporting the growth and development of
the absence of injunctive relief and must demonstrate that the manpower recruitment industry, both in the local and
it is likely to succeed on the merits, or that there are international levels; providing, creating and exploring
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and the employment opportunities for the exclusive benefit of its
balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor. general membership; enhancing and promoting the
general welfare and protection of Filipino workers; and, to
Just as the incidental "chilling effect" of such statutes act as the representative of any individual, company,
does not automatically render them unconstitutional, so entity or association on matters related to the manpower
the chilling effect that admittedly can result from the very recruitment industry, and to perform other acts and
existence of certain laws on the statute books does not in activities necessary to accomplish the purposes
itself justify prohibiting the State from carrying out the embodied therein.
important and necessary task of enforcing these laws
against socially harmful conduct that the State believes in
good faith to be punishable under its laws and the In view of standing in behalf of unskilled workers
Constitution. However, the respondent has no locus standi to file the
petition for and in behalf of unskilled workers. We note
One who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality that it even failed to implead any unskilled workers in its
must prove its invalidity beyond reasonable doubt (Caleon petition. Furthermore, in failing to implead, as parties-
v. Agus Development Corporation, 207 SCRA 748). All petitioners, the eleven licensed and registered
reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the recruitment agencies it claimed to represent, the
constitutionality of a statute (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56). respondent failed to comply with Section 2 of Rule 63 20
This presumption of constitutionality is based on the of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, since the eleven
doctrine of separation of powers which enjoin upon each licensed and registered recruitment agencies for which
department a becoming respect for the acts of the other the respondent filed the suit are specifically named in the
departments (Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 204 SCRA petition, the amended petition is deemed amended to
516 [1991]). avoid multiplicity of suits.

In view of retroactivity
In view of petitioner's standing In People v. Diaz, 24 we held that Rep. Act No. 8042 is
The petitioners contend that the respondent has but an amendment of the Labor Code of the Philippines
no locus standi. It is a non-stock, non-profit and is not an ex-post facto law because it is not applied
organization; hence, not the real party-in-interest as retroactively.
petitioner in the action. Although the respondent filed
the petition in the Regional Trial Court in behalf of In view of equal protection clause
licensed and registered recruitment agencies, it failed
to adduce in evidence a certified copy of its Articles In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the
of Incorporation and the resolutions of the said rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory
members authorizing it to represent the said agencies measures is certainly much wider. To pretend that
in the proceedings. Neither is the suit of the licensing or accreditation requirements violates the due
respondent a class suit so as to vest in it a personality process clause is to ignore the settled practice, under the
to assail Rep. Act No. 8042; the respondent is service- mantle of the police power, of regulating entry to the
practice of various trades or professions. Professionals
29 I A. C. JUCO
leaving for abroad are required to pass rigid written and Arbiter is based on speculations. Even if true, such
practical exams before they are deemed fit to practice inconvenience or difficulty is hardly irreparable injury.
their trade.
Preliminarily, the proliferation of illegal job recruiters and
Finally, it is a futile gesture on the part of petitioners to syndicates preying on innocent people anxious to obtain
invoke the non-impairment clause of the Constitution to employment abroad is one of the primary considerations
support their argument that the government cannot enact that led to the enactment of The Migrant Workers and
the assailed regulatory measures because they abridge Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. Aimed at affording greater
the freedom to contract. protection to overseas Filipino workers, it is a significant
improvement on existing laws in the recruitment and
The equal protection clause is directed principally against placement of workers for overseas employment.
undue favor and individual or class privilege. It is not
intended to prohibit legislation which is limited to the By issuing the writ of preliminary injunction against the
object to which it is directed or by the territory in which it petitioners sans any evidence, the trial court frustrated,
is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but albeit temporarily, the prosecution of illegal recruiters and
merely that all persons be treated alike under like allowed them to continue victimizing hapless and innocent
conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities people desiring to obtain employment abroad as overseas
imposed. workers, and blocked the attainment of the salutary
policies 52 embedded in Rep. Act No. 8042.

In view of the VALIDITY of Sec. 6 of RA 8042 The trial court committed a grave abuse of its discretion
The validity of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 which provides amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the
that employees of recruitment agencies may be criminally assailed order and writ of preliminary injunction. It is for
liable for illegal recruitment has been upheld in People v. this reason that the Court issued a temporary restraining
Chowdury: An employee of a company or corporation order enjoining the enforcement of the writ of preliminary
engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as injunction issued by the trial court.
principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he
actively and consciously participated in illegal KILOSBAYAN VS GUINGONA
recruitment. FACTS: In 1993, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office decided to put up an on-line lottery system which
By its rulings, the Court thereby affirmed the validity of will establish a national network system that will in turn
the assailed penal and procedural provisions of Rep. Act expand PCSO’s source of income.
No. 8042, including the imposable penalties therefor. Until
the Court, by final judgment, declares that the said A bidding was made. Philippine Gaming Management
provisions are unconstitutional, the enforcement of the Corporation (PGMC) won it. A contract of lease was
said provisions cannot be enjoined. awarded in favor of PGMC.

Penalizing unlicensed and licensed recruitment agencies Kilosbayan opposed the said agreement between PCSO
and their officers and employees and their relatives and PGMC as it alleged that:
employed in government agencies charged with the
enforcement of the law for illegal recruitment and  PGMC does not meet the nationality requirement
imposing life imprisonment for those who commit large because it is 75% foreign owned (owned by a
scale illegal recruitment is not offensive to the Malaysian firm Berjaya Group Berhad);
Constitution. The accused may be convicted of illegal  PCSO, under Section 1 of its charter (RA
recruitment and large scale illegal recruitment only if, after 1169), is prohibited from holding and
trial, the prosecution is able to prove all the elements of conducting lotteries “in collaboration,
the crime charged. association or joint venture with any person,
association, company or entity”;
The respondent merely speculated and surmised that  The network system sought to be built by
licensed and registered recruitment agencies would close PGMC for PCSO is a telecommunications
shop and stop business operations because of the network. Under the law (Act No. 3846), a
assailed penal provisions of the law. A writ of preliminary franchise is needed to be granted by the
injunction to enjoin the enforcement of penal laws cannot Congress before any person may be allowed
be based on such conjectures or speculations. The to set up such;
respondent even failed to adduce any evidence to prove  PGMC’s articles of incorporation, as well as
irreparable injury because of the enforcement of Section the Foreign Investments Act (R.A. No. 7042)
10(1)(2) of Rep. Act No. 8042. Its fear or apprehension does not allow it to install, establish and
that, because of time constraints, its members would have operate the on-line lotto and
to defend foreign employees in cases before the Labor telecommunications systems.

30 I A. C. JUCO
 PGMC and PCSO, through Teofisto Guingona, VOTER’S STANDING
Jr. and Renato Corona, Executive Secretary and TOLENTINO VS COMELEC
Asst. Executive Secretary respectively, alleged Facts: After becoming president on January 2001, Gloria
that PGMC is not a collaborator but merely a Arroyo nominated Senator Teofista Guingona as vice-
contractor for a piece of work, i.e., the building of president. After confirmation as VP, Resolution 84 was
the network; that PGMC is a mere lessor of the passed by the Senate calling the COMELEC to fill the
network it will build as evidenced by the nature of vacancy with a special election tobe held simultaneously
the contract agreed upon, i.e., Contract of Lease. with the 2001 May regular election. It also provided that
the candidate garnering the 13th highest vote will serve
ISSUE: Whether or not Kilosbayan is correct. for the unexpired term of Guingona. Petitioners, Arturo
Tolentino and Arturo Mojica sought to enjoin COMELEC
HELD: Yes, but only on issues 2, 3, and 4. from proclaiming the winner. They contend that it is
without jurisdiction because it failed to notify the
On the issue of nationality, it seems that PGMC’s foreign electorate of the position to be filled in (special election)
ownership was reduced to 40% though. due to this the people voted without distinction in one
On issues 2, 3, and 4, Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as election for 13 seats irrespective of term.
amended by B.P. Blg. 42, prohibits the PCSO from
holding and conducting lotteries “in collaboration, Issue: Whether or not petitioners have standing to
association or joint venture with any person, association, maintain suit?
company or entity, whether domestic or foreign.” There is
undoubtedly a collaboration between PCSO and PGMC Decision: In questioning the validity of special election,
and not merely a contract of lease. The relations between petitioners assert harm classified as “generalized
PCSO and PGMC cannot be defined simply by the grievance.” They failed to establish direct injury they
designation they used, i.e., a contract of lease. Pursuant suffered from the said governmental act. However, the
to the wordings of their agreement, PGMC at its own Court relaxed the requirement on standing and exercised
expense shall build, operate, and manage the network its discretion to give due course to voter’s suit involving
system including its facilities needed to operate a the right of suffrage.
nationwide online lottery system. PCSO bears no risk and
all it does is to provide its franchise – in violation of its LEGISLATIVE STANDING
charter. Necessarily, the use of such franchise by PGMC OPLE VS TORRES
is a violation of Act No. 3846.
FACTS: Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a
National Computerized Identification Reference System"
TAXPAYER’S STANDING on two important constitutional grounds, viz: one, it is a
usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two,
ITF VS COMELEC it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone
Facts: RA 8046 was passed on 07 June 1995 authorizing of privacy. We grant the petition for the rights sought to be
COMELEC to conduct nationwide computerized election vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against
system. Gloria Arroyo allocated php 2.5 billion fund for the further erosion.
automated election system on 24 January 2003. The
bidding process commenced on the same month and out A.O. No. 308 was published in four newspapers of
of the 57 bidders it was awarded to MPC and TIMC. general circulation on January 22, 1997 and January 23,
Although DOST’s evaluation report states that the two 1997. On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the instant
obtained a number of failed marks in the technical petition against respondents, then Executive Secretary
evaluation. Five individuals and entities protested the Ruben Torres and the heads of the government agencies,
matter to COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating
Abalos rejected the protest, hence the present petition Committee, are charged with the implementation of A.O.
No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a temporary
Issue: Whether or not ITF has standing to file the case? restraining order enjoining its implementation.

Decision: The case at bar is a matter of public concern

and imbued with public interest, it is of paramount public ISSUE: Petitioner contends:
interest and transcendental importance. Taxpayers are A. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL
allowed to sue when there is a claim of “illegal COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE
disbursement of public funds” or if public money is being SYSTEM REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE ACT. THE
“deflected to any improper use,” or when petitioner seek ISSUANCE OF A.O. NO. 308 BY THE PRESIDENT OF
to restrain “wasting of public funds through the THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS,
enforcement of an unconstitutional law.” THEREFORE, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION

31 I A. C. JUCO
OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE CONGRESS respondents themselves have started the implementation
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. of A.O. No. 308 without waiting for the rules. As early as
B. THE APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY January 19, 1997, respondent Social Security System
THE PRESIDENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF (SSS) caused the publication of a notice to bid for the
A.O. NO. 308 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL manufacture of the National Identification (ID) card.
C. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. NO. 308 G.R. No. L-45685 65 Phil 56 November 16, 1937
Held: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and JOSE O. VERA, Judge . of the Court of First Instance of
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a Manila, and MARIANO CU UNJIENG, respondents.
National Computerized Identification Reference System"
declared null and void for being unconstitutional. SO FACTS:
Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in
Ratio: It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 Manila. He filed for reconsideration and four motions for
merely implements the Administrative Code of 1987. It new trial but all were denied. He then elevated to the
establishes for the first time a National Computerized Supreme Court and the Supreme Court remanded the
Identification Reference System. Such a System requires appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting
a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies new trial, he appealed for probation alleging that the he is
— the primacy of national security, the extent of privacy innocent of the crime he was convicted of. The Judge of
interest against dossier-gathering by government, the the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular
choice of policies, etc. Indeed, the dissent of Mr. Justice Probation Office. The IPO denied the application.
Mendoza states that the A.O. No. 308 involves the all- However, Judge Vera upon another request by petitioner
important freedom of thought. allowed the petition to be set for hearing. The City
Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to
Nor is it correct to argue as the dissenters do that A.O. place Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation
No. 308 is not a law because it confers no right, imposes of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which provides that the act of
no duty, affords no protection, and creates no office. Legislature granting provincial boards the power to
Under A.O. No. 308, a citizen cannot transact business provide a system of probation to convicted person.
with government agencies delivering basic services to the Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is applicable to
people without the contemplated identification card. No a city like Manila because it is only indicated therein that
citizen will refuse to get this identification card for no one only provinces are covered. And even if Manila is covered
can avoid dealing with government. It is thus clear as by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the
daylight that without the ID, a citizen will have difficulty Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The said
exercising his rights and enjoying his privileges. Given law provides absolute discretion to provincial boards and
this reality, the contention that A.O. No. 308 gives no right this also constitutes undue delegation of power. Further,
and imposes no duty cannot stand. the said probation law may be an encroachment of the
power of the executive to provide pardon because
providing probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in
Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate.
As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite ISSUES:
standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance
of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As  Whether or not Act No. 4221 constituted an
taxpayer and member of the Government Service undue delegation of legislative power
Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the  Whether or not the said act denies the equal
legality of the misalignment of public funds and the protection of the laws
misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308.

The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not DISCUSSIONS:

affected by the fact that the implementing rules of A.O.
No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople An act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if
assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which
its face. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be the administrative officer or board may be guided in the
promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it. The
32 I A. C. JUCO
probation Act does not, by the force of any of its Act would be in operation in the former province but not in
provisions, fix and impose upon the provincial boards any the latter. This means that a person otherwise coming
standard or guide in the exercise of their discretionary within the purview of the law would be liable to enjoy the
power. What is granted, as mentioned by Justice Cardozo benefits of probation in one province while another person
in the recent case of Schecter, supra, is a “roving similarly situated in another province would be denied
commission” which enables the provincial boards to those same benefits. This is obnoxious discrimination.
exercise arbitrary discretion. By section 11 if the Act, the Contrariwise, it is also possible for all the provincial
legislature does not seemingly on its own authority extend boards to appropriate the necessary funds for the salaries
the benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces but in of the probation officers in their respective provinces, in
reality leaves the entire matter for the various provincial which case no inequality would result for the obvious
boards to determine. reason that probation would be in operation in each and
every province by the affirmative action of appropriation
The equal protection of laws is a pledge of the protection by all the provincial boards.
of equal laws. The classification of equal protection, to be
reasonable, must be based on substantial distinctions
which make real differences; it must be germane to the
purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing
conditions only, and must apply equally to each member
of the class.


The Court concludes that section 11 of Act No. 4221

constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of
legislative authority to the provincial boards and is, for this
reason, unconstitutional and void. There is no set
standard provided by Congress on how provincial boards
must act in carrying out a system of probation. The
provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is
violative of the constitution and the doctrine of the non-
delegation of power. Further, it is a violation of equity so
protected by the constitution. The challenged section of
Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: This
Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the
respective provincial boards have provided for the salary
of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now
provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall
be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be
subject to the direction of the Probation Office.

The provincial boards of the various provinces are to

determine for themselves, whether the Probation Law
shall apply to their provinces or not at all. The applicability
and application of the Probation Act are entirely placed in
the hands of the provincial boards. If the provincial board
does not wish to have the Act applied in its province, all
that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed
amount for the salary of a probation officer.

It is also contended that the Probation Act violates the

provisions of our Bill of Rights which prohibits the denial
to any person of the equal protection of the laws. The
resultant inequality may be said to flow from the
unwarranted delegation of legislative power, although
perhaps this is not necessarily the result in every case.
Adopting the example given by one of the counsel for the
petitioners in the course of his oral argument, one
province may appropriate the necessary fund to defray
the salary of a probation officer, while another province
may refuse or fail to do so. In such a case, the Probation
33 I A. C. JUCO