ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ distinction between the alien and the national as a trader.

The alien is naturally

lacking in that spirit of loyalty and enthusiasm for the Phil. where he temporarily
FACTS: The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail stays and makes his living. The alien owes no allegiance or loyalty to the State, and
Business). Its purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Phil. from the State cannot rely on him/her in times of crisis or emergency.
having a stranglehold upon the people’s economic life.
While the citizen holds his life, his person and his property subject to the needs of
 a prohibition against aliens and against associations, partnerships, or the country, the alien may become the potential enemy of the State.
corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by Filipinos, from
engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade The alien retailer has shown such utter disregard for his customers and the people on
 aliens actually engaged in the retail business on May 15, 1954 are allowed to whom he makes his profit. Through the illegitimate use of pernicious designs and
continue their business, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with practices, the alien now enjoys a monopolistic control on the nation’s economy
law, until their death or voluntary retirement. In case of juridical persons, ten endangering the national security in times of crisis and emergency.
years after the approval of the Act or until the expiration of term.
I. The case and issue, in general
Citizens and juridical entities of the United States were exempted from this Act. This Court has before it the delicate task of passing upon the validity and
 provision for the forfeiture of licenses to engage in the retail business for constitutionality of a legislative enactment, fundamental and far-reaching in
violation of the laws on nationalization, economic control weights and measures significance. The enactment poses questions of due process, police power and equal
and labor and other laws relating to trade, commerce and industry. protection of the laws. It also poses an important issue of fact, that is whether the
 provision against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the conditions which the disputed law purports to remedy really or actually exist.
retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business Lao Ichong, in Admittedly springing from a deep, militant, and positive nationalistic impulse, the
his own behalf and behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships law purports to protect citizen and country from the alien retailer. Through it, and
affected by the Act, filed an action to declare it unconstitutional for the ff: within the field of economy it regulates, Congress attempts to translate national
reasons: aspirations for economic independence and national security, rooted in the drive and
1. It denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives urge for national survival and welfare, into a concrete and tangible measures
them of their liberty and property without due process. designed to free the national retailer from the competing dominance of the alien, so
2. The subject of the Act is not expressed in the title that the country and the nation may be free from a supposed economic dependence
3. The Act violates international and treaty obligations and bondage. Do the facts and circumstances justify the enactment?
4. The provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail
business thru hereditary succession xxx
ISSUE: WON the Act deprives the aliens of the equal protection of the laws.
IX. Alleged violation of international treaties and obligations
HELD: The law is a valid exercise of police power and it does not deny the aliens
the equal protection of the laws. There are real and actual, positive and fundamental Another subordinate argument against the validity of the law is the
differences between an alien and a citizen, which fully justify the legislative supposed violation thereby of the Charter of the United Nations and of the
classification adopted. Declaration of the Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
We find no merit in the Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations
RATIO: The equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality among regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects (Hans Kelsen, The Law of the
residents. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like United Nations, 1951 ed. pp. 29-32), and the Declaration of Human Rights contains
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities nothing more than a mere recommendation or a common standard of achievement
enforced. The classification is actual, real and reasonable, and all persons of one for all peoples and all nations (Id. p. 39.) That such is the import of the United
class are treated alike. The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitutes Nations Charter aid of the Declaration of Human Rights can be inferred the fact that
a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power. members of the United Nations Organizations, such as Norway and Denmark,
prohibit foreigners from engaging in retail trade, and in most nations of the world
Official statistics point out to the ever-increasing dominance and control by laws against foreigners engaged in domestic trade are adopted.
alien of the retail trade. It is this domination and control that is the legislature’s target
in the enactment of the Act. The mere fact of alienage is the root cause of the
 The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the MAXIMO CALALANG vs A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL.,
Republic of China of April 18, 1947 is also claimed to be violated by the law in G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940
question. All that the treaty guarantees is equality of treatment to the Chinese Doctrine: Social Justice
nationals "upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country." But the
nationals of China are not discriminating against because nationals of all other Facts: The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved
countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the to recommend to the Director of the Public Works and to the Secretary
Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. But even supposing of Public Works and Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited
that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification from passing along the following for a period of one year from the date of the
or amendment by a subsequent law (U. S. vs. Thompson, 258, Fed. 257, 260), and opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic:
the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State 1) Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas
(plaston vs. Pennsylvania, 58 L. ed. 539.) Street from 7:30Am to 12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm; and
2) along Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to
X. Conclusion Echague Street from 7 am to 11pm.
The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18, 1940
Resuming what we have set forth above we hold that the disputed law was recommended to the Director of Public Works with the approval of the Secretary of
enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien Public Works the adoption of the measure proposed in the resolution aforementioned
dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and country from in pursuance of the provisions of the Commonwealth Act No. 548 which authorizes
dominance and control; that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police said Director with the approval from the Secretary of the Public Works and
power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and Communication to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use
insures its security and future; that the law does not violate the equal protection of and traffic on national roads.
clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary the approval
between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due of the recommendations made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission
process of law clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the with modifications. The Secretary of Public Works approved the recommendations
privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their on August 10,1940. The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila
privilege; that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulation. As a consequence,
us to be plainly evident — as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the
actually necessary — and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogative of places above mentioned to the detriment not only of their owners but of the riding
the Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the public as well.
Government may not interfere; that the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in Issues: 1) Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents
the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act NO. 548 constitute an unlawful
segment of the population affected; and that it cannot be said to be void for supposed inference with legitimate business or trade and abridged the right to personal liberty
conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on and freedom of locomotion?
the subject and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or 2) Whether the rules and regulations complained of infringe upon the constitutional
any other conventional agreement. precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and
economic security of all the people?
Some members of the Court are of the opinion that the radical effects of the Held: 1) No. The promulgation of the Act aims to promote safe transit upon and
law could have been made less harsh in its impact on the aliens. Thus it is stated that avoid obstructions on national roads in the interest and convenience of the public. In
the more time should have been given in the law for the liquidation of existing enacting said law, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
businesses when the time comes for them to close. Our legal duty, however, is convenience and welfare. It was inspired by the desire to relieve congestion of
merely to determine if the law falls within the scope of legislative authority and does traffic, which is a menace to the public safety. Public welfare lies at the bottom of
not transcend the limitations of due process and equal protection guaranteed in the the promulgation of the said law and the state in order to promote the general welfare
Constitution. Remedies against the harshness of the law should be addressed to the may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and
Legislature; they are beyond our power and jurisdiction. occupations. Persons and property may be subject to all kinds of restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State. To
this fundamental aims of the government, the rights of the individual are
subordinated. Liberty is a blessing which should not be made to prevail over
authority because society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law.
prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The paradox
lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of 2. ID.; ID.; POLICE POWER; PERSONAL LIBERTY; GOVERNMENTAL
insuring its preserving. AUTHORITY. — Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National
2) No. Social justice is “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police power of the state. Said Act, by
anarchy,” but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic virtue of which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to
forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest
may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, therefore, the National
all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure Assembly was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was
economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the least, a
of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of
the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with
or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and
all governments on the time-honored principles of salus populi estsuprema lex. property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure
Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state (U.S. v. Gomer Jesus, 31
among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be Phil., 218). To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual
equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty
economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state should not be made to prevail over authority because then society will fall into
of promoting health, comfort and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then the
greatest good to the greatest number.” individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the required balance of
liberty and authority in his mind through education and, personal discipline, so that
there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF happiness for all. The moment greater authority is conferred upon the government,
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 648; DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE logically so much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty which resides in the
POWER; AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND people. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO precisely the very means of insuring its preservation.
PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. — The provisions of section 1
of Commonwealth Act No. 648 do not confer legislative power upon the Director of 3. ID.; ID.; SOCIAL JUSTICE. — Social justice is "neither communism, nor
Public Works and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The authority despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the
therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational
regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice
merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
orders of the President of the Philippines" and to close them temporarily to any or all equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally,
classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon makes through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,
such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest." The through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the
delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore,
but merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among
application of said law is to be predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations on divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and
the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life,
be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting
requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good
cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend on the to the greatest number."
discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of
determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot
Oposa vs. Factoran
1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
Facts: This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44children, through 2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly
their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of “their generation as pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the government.
well as those generations yet unborn.” Aiming to stop deforestation, it was filed
against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural ISSUE: Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to
Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in “prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?”
the country and to cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber
license agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful HELD: Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
ecology and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. The generations to come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for
petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop others of their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their
issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural law—and personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is based on the concept of
violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation." The case was intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, so it ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature”
was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
Issue: Did the children have the legal standing to file the case? management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters,
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of “intergenerational exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as
responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation well as the future generations.
to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court
recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve
the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
power of the state in the interest of public welfare. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment
constitutes at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.
Oposa vs Factoran (Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law:
Intergenerational Responsibility)
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993 ASSOCIATION OF SMALL HOMEOWNERS VS SEC. OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
FACTS:
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., FACTS: These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including
representing their generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their serious challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 also known as the
parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988"
judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and other
persons acting in his behalf to: In G.R. No. 79777, the petitioners are questioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O Nos. 228
1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country; and 229 on the grounds inter alia of separation of powers, due process, equal
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or protection and the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for
appraising new TLAs; and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and public use without just compensation.
equitable under the premises.” They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in In G.R. No. 79310, the petitioners in this case claim that the power to provide for a
its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to
allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a the Congress and not to the President, the also allege that Proclamation No. 131 and
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in E.O No. 229 should be annulled for violation of the constitutional provisions on just
trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations. compensation, due process and equal protection. They contended that the taking
must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation which such payment is not
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.
 RTC rendered judgment in favour of Pasay City and RREC, and the decision was
In G.R. No. 79744, the petitioner argues that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly affirmed by the CA with modifications.
issued by the President and that the said executive orders violate the constitutional
provision that no private property shall be taken without due process or just ISSUE:
compensation which was denied to the petitioners. I. Whether or not the term “foreshore land” includes the submerged area.
II. Whether or not “foreshore land” and the reclaimed area is within the
In G.R. No 78742 the petitioners claim that they cannot eject their tenants and so are commerce of man.
unable to enjoy their right of retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform
has so far not issued the implementing rules of the decree. They therefore ask the HELD:
Honorable Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue the said The Court ruled that it is erroneous and unsustainable to uphold the opinion of the
rules. respondent court that the term “foreshore land” includes the submerged areas. To
repeat, the term "foreshore lands" refers to:
ISSUE: Whether or not the laws being challenged is a valid exercise of Police power The strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is
or Power of Eminent Domain. alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide.
A strip of land margining a body of water (as a lake or stream); the part of a
RULING: Police Power through the Power of Eminent Domain, though there seashore between the low-water line usually at the seaward margin of a low-tide
are traditional distinction between the police power and the power of eminent terrace and the upper limit of wave wash at high tide usually marked by a beach
domain, property condemned under police power is noxious or intended for noxious scarp or berm. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
purpose, the compensation for the taking of such property is not subject to The duty of the court is to interpret the enabling Act, RA 1899. In so doing, we
compensation, unlike the taking of the property in Eminent Domain or the power of cannot broaden its meaning; much less widen the coverage thereof. If the intention of
expropriation which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner of the Congress were to include submerged areas, it should have provided expressly. That
property expropriated. Congress did not so provide could only signify the exclusion of submerged areas
from the term “foreshore lands.”
It bears stressing that the subject matter of Pasay City Ordinance No. 121, as
REPUBLIC v. COURT OF APPEALS amended by Ordinance No. 158, and the Agreement under attack, have been found to
GR Nos. 103882, 105276 November 25, 1998 be outside the intendment and scope of RA 1899, and therefore ultra vires and null
and void.
FACTS: On June 22, 1957, RA 1899 was approved granting authority to all
municipalities and chartered cities to undertake and carry out at their own expense
the reclamation by dredging, filling, or other means, of any foreshore lands bordering Cruz vs Secretary of DENR (Natural Resources and Environmental Law;
them, and to establish, provide, construct, maintain and repair proper and adequate Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine)
docking and harbor facilities as such municipalities and chartered cities may GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
determine in consultation with the Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications. FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and
mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain
Pursuant to the said law, Ordinance No. 121 was passed by the city of Pasay for the provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s
reclamation of foreshore lands within their jurisdiction and entered into an agreement Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The
with Republic Real Estate Corporation for the said project. petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public
Republic questioned the agreement. It contended, among others, that the agreement domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the
between RREC and the City of Pasay was void for the object of the contract is regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
outside the commerce of man, it being a foreshore land.
Pasay City and RREC countered that the object in question is within the commerce ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
of man because RA 1899 gives a broader meaning on the term “foreshore land” than
that in the definition provided by the dictionary. HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining
the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the
natural resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources CHAVEZ V. PEA AND AMARI
in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to Facts: In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered into a contract to
the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, reclaim areas of Manila Bay with the Construction and Development Corportion of
as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the Philippines (CDCP).
the small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their
large scale development and exploitation. PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President Marcos under P.D.
1084, tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the transferred to the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Cavite Road
public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, and Reclamation Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant all future projects under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA.
from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands to
their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right PEA. It was followed by the transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the
to alienate the same. Register of Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the three reclaimed islands known
as the FREEDOM ISLANDS.
LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR
Jan. 21, 2004 Subsequently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with
AMARI, a Thai-Philippine corporation to develop the Freedom Islands. Along with
Facts: R.A. No. 7942 defines the modes of mineral agreements for mining another 250 hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would later transfer
operations, outlines the procedure for their filing and approval, assignment/transfer said lands to AMARI. This caused a stir especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the
and withdrawal, and fixes their terms. Similar provisions govern financial or agreement, claiming that such lands were part of public domain (famously known as
technical assistance agreements. the “mother of all scams”).

Petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for Petitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer praying for mandamus, a
a temporary restraining order alleging that at the time of the filing of the petition, writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA
100 FTAA applications had already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million to AMARI and from implementing the JVA. Following these events, under President
hectares, 64 of which applications are by fully foreign-owned corporations covering Estrada’s admin, PEA and AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chaves
a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at least one by a fully foreign-owned mining claim that the contract is null and void.
company over offshore areas. Issue: w/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed as part of the
stipulations in the (Amended) JVA between AMARI and PEA violate Sec. 3 Art. XII
Issue: Are foreign-owned corporations in the large-scale exploration, development, of the 1987 Constitution.
and utilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils limited to “technical” or
“financial” assistance only? w/n: the court is the proper forum for raising the issue of whether the amended joint
venture agreement is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Ruling: Only technical assistance or financial assistance agreements may be entered
into, and only for large-scale activities. These are contract forms which recognize Held:
and assert our sovereignty and ownership over natural resources since the foreign On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the constitution:
entity is just a pure contractor and not a beneficial owner of our economic resources. 1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
The proposal recognizes the need for capital and technology to develop our natural covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
resources without sacrificing our sovereignty and control over such resources by the domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or
safeguard of a special law which requires two-thirds vote of all the members of the transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these
Legislature. lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987
It is true that the word “technical” encompasses a broad number of possible services. Constitution and existing laws.
However, the law follows the maxim “casus omisus pro omisso habendus est” which
means a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have 2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
been omitted intentionally. resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open
to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government can
make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public
domain, which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their
present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the
commerce of man.

3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation,

ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for
being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156
hectares111 of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.
PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the
reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer
needed for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the
public domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the
1987Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.