BCDA v. COA, G.R. No. 178160, February 26, 2009 No. the Court is not impressed.

No. the Court is not impressed. The court partially granted the petition
and affirmed the decision of the Commission on Audit with the
Facts Modification that the Board Members and the Full – time consultants of
the Bases Conversion and Development Authority are not required to
 RA 7227, was enacted to create the petitioner, Bases Conversion refund the year – end benefits that have already received.
and Development Authority, stated therein Section 9, giving
powers to its Board of Directors. The Court held that some of the constitutional Provisions invoked in the
 Section 10 of the said Act, specifies the Function of the Board and Present case were taken from Article II of the Constitution, specifically,
Corresponding compensation and benefit scheme that is at least Section 5 and 18, the provisions of which the court categorically ruled to
equivalent to that from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. be non – self – executing.
 Subsequently, a new compensation and benefit scheme was
adopted, granting a year end benefit of 10,000 to all contractual Article II of the Constitution is entitled Declaration of Principles and State
and regular employees, which was then approved by the President Policies, by its very title, Article II is a statement of General ideological
Ramos through a memorandum. principles and policies. It is therefore not a source of enforceable rights.
 Years later, upon the increase of benefits in BSP’s officials and
employees, as pursuant to Section 10 of the Act, BCDA then
passed and approved a resolution increasing the benefits of its BFAR Employees Union v. COA, G.R. No. 169815, August 13, 2008
employees as equivalent thereof to the BSP, amounting to 30,000.
 Upon issuance of Audit Observation Memorandum by the State FACTS:
Auditor Espano of COA, it states that the year-end benefit to Board On October 18, 1999, petitioner Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Members was contrary to the Department of Budget and Resources (BFAR) Employees Union, Regional Office No.
Management, issuance thereof a notice of disallowance of the year VII, Cebu City issued Resolution No. 01, series of 1999 requesting the
end benefit for the Board Member and Full time consultants. BFAR Central Office for a Food Basket Allowance. It justified its request
 Commission on Audit. Affirming the disallowance, and held that on the high cost of living. It also relied on the Employees Suggestions and
the presumption of good faith did not apply to them Incentive Awards System (ESIAS), pursuant to Book V of Executive Order
No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987, and approved by the Civil
 BCDA claims that the Board Members and Full – time consultants
Service Commission on December 3, 1996. The ESIAS includes the
should be granted the year – end benefit because the granting of
granting of incentives that will help employees overcome present
year end benefit is consistent with Section 5 and 18 of Article II of
economic difficulties, boost their morale, and further commitment and
the Constitution.
dedication to public service. The resolution was approved at the rate
 Hence, this Petition in the Court.
of P10,000.00 each to the 130 employees of BFAR Region VII, or in the
total amount of P1, 322,682.00. On the strength of the approval, Regional
Issues
Director Corrales released the allowance to the BFAR employees.
Whether or not the Board Members and the Full – time Consultants
On post audit, the Commission on Audit Legal and Adjudication
should be granted with the Year – end Benefit pursuant to Article II of the
Office (COA-LAO) Regional Office No. VII, Cebu City disallowed the grant
Constitution or the Declaration of Principles and State Policies?
of Food Basket Allowance under Notice of Disallowance No. 2003-022-101
(1999) dated September 19, 2003. It ruled that the allowance had no
Ruling
legal basis.
 On February 26, 2004, BFAR Regional Office No. VII, through
Regional Director Corrales, moved for reconsideration and prayed for the
lifting of the disallowance. It argued that the grant would enhance the Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003
welfare and productivity of the employees and that the approval by the
Honorable Drilon, Undersecretary for Fisheries and Livestock, of the said Purpose of election laws is to give effect to voters’ will; in case of
benefit was the law itself which vested the specific authority for its doubt, construe election laws as to give life to the popular
release. COA-LAO Region VII, Cebu City denied the motion. Petitioners mandate freely expressed through the ballot
appealed to COA-LAO, National Quezon City but petition was still denied,
hence the appeal to SC. FACTS:
Petitioner cites the following grounds for its appeal: In the barangay elections of July 15, 2002, Romeo N. Rulloda and
1. The disallowance in question is unconstitutional as it
Remegio L. Placido were the contending candidates for Barangay
contravenes the fundamental principle of the State
enshrined under Sections 9 and 10, Article II of the Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan. On June 22, 2002,
1987 Constitution, which provide as follows: Romeo suffered a heart attack and passed away at the Mandaluyong City
SEC. 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic Medical Center
social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from His widow, petitioner Petronila Betty Rulloda, wrote a letter to the
poverty through policies that provide adequate Commission on Elections on seeking permission to run as candidate for
social services, promote full employment, a rising Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband. Petitioners
standard of living, and an improved quality of life for request was supported by the Appeal-Petition containing several
all.
signatures of people purporting to be members of the electorate of
SEC. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development. Barangay Sto. Tomas.

ISSUE: During the July 15, 2002 elections, petitioner garnered 516 votes
Is the disallowance in question unconstitutional? while respondent Remegio Placido received 290 votes. Despite this, the
Board of Canvassers proclaimed Placido as the Barangay Chairman of
HELD: Sto. Tomas.
NO. Petitioner invokes the provisions of the 1987 Constitution on
social justice to warrant the grant of the Food Basket Allowance. Time After the elections, petitioner learned that the COMELEC issued
and again, we have ruled that the social justice provisions of the Resolution No. 5217 dated July 13, 2002 which denied due course of her
Constitution are not self-executing principles ready for enforcement Certificate of Candidacy.
through the courts. They are merely statements of principles and
policies. To give them effect, legislative enactment is required. As we held The above-quoted Resolution cited as authority the COMELECs
in Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Morato, the principles and state
Resolution No. 4801 dated May 23, 2002, setting forth the guidelines on
policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are "not
self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause the filing of certificates of candidacy in connection with the July 15, 2002
of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, more
constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation." particularly Section 9 thereof which reads:
 Sec. 9. Substitution of candidates. There shall be no cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the
substitution of candidates for barangay and sangguniang kabataan electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally
officials. construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:
Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995
WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when
petitioner’s request to run for elections was denied. Will of majority cannot substitute qualification for office required
by the Constitution
HELD:
Relevant Provisions:
YES. In our jurisdiction, an election means the choice or selection
of candidates to public office by popular vote through the use of the Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
ballot, and the elected officials which are determined through the will of
the electorate. An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he
expression of the sovereign power of the people. The winner is the is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election,
candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the
the election. Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he
those who receive the highest number of votes cast in the election for shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one
that office. For, in all republican forms of government the basic idea is year immediately preceding the day of the election.
that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared
FACTS:
carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes
cast in the election.[11] Petitioner Agapito Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position
of Representative for the Second District of Makati City. Private
Contrary to respondents claim, the absence of a specific provision
respondents Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo
governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections can not be
Bedon,Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Brgy.Cembo, Makati City,
inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive
filed a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground that the latter lacked
construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not written.
the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which, under
Indeed, there is more reason to allow the substitution of candidates
Sec. 6, Art. VI of the Constitution, should be for a period not less than 1
where no political parties are involved than when political considerations
year immediately preceding the elections.
or party affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law.
ISSUE:
To reiterate, it was petitioner who obtained the plurality of votes in
the contested election. Technicalities and procedural niceties in election
Whether or not the petitioner lacked the residence qualification as a Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001 (concurring
candidate for congressman as mandated by Sec. 6, Art.VI of the opinion of J. Vicente V. Mendoza)
Constitution.
Sovereignty & right of the people to change their government vs.
HELD: republicanism

In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of FACTS:

the Second District of Makati City, he must prove that he has established
not just residence but domicile of choice. 1.) On October 4, 2000, then President Joseph Estrada was embroiled
in a corruption scandal after a close friend, Ilocos Sur Governor
Petitioner, in his certificate of candidacy for the 1992 elections, indicated Luis Chavit Singson, revealed that Estrada and his family allegedly
not only that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 received money from Jueteng lords.
but that he was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately 2.) The revelation prompted Senator Teofisto Guingona to deliver a
preceding that elections. At that time, his certificate indicated that he privilege speech, detailing the anomalies done by President
was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth certificate Estrada. The public now calls for Estrada’s resignation. Eventually,
places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of his parents. What stands he had to face an impeachment trial in the Senate by December 7.
consistently clear and unassailable is that his domicile of origin of record 3.) On January 16, 2001, in a vote of 11-10, the Senator-Judges ruled
up to the time of filing of his most recent certificate of candidacy for the against opening the second envelope which allegedly contains
1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac. evidence wherein Estrada held P3.3 billion in a secret bank
account under the name "Jose Velarde."
The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident 4.) At this point, everyone snapped. The prosecutors tendered their
in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. While a lease resignation - prompting the Senate to postpone the impeachment
contract maybe indicative of petitioner’s intention to reside in Makati proceedings indefinitely. People started marching towards EDSA to
City, it does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove call for Estrada’s resignation. On January 19, both the AFP and
abandonment of one’s original domicile. PNP declared that they are withdrawing their support of the
Estrada administration.
Petitioner’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to 5.) On January 20, (12 noon), Chief Justice Davide administered Vice
Makatiis a bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts. To President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s oath as the new President of
successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual the Republic of the Philippines. At around 2:30 PM, Estrada and
removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of his family hurriedly left Malacanang. Estrada then issued the
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and following statement:
definite acts which correspond withthe purpose. In the absence of clear
and positive proof, the domicile of originshould be deemed to continue.
“At twelve o'clock noon today, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
took her oath as President of the Republic of the Philippines. While along
with many other legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious
doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA"
President, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of
unity and order in our civil society.

It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the seat of the 7.) On January 22, now President Arroyo started discharging her
presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the functions as President. She appointed new cabinet members,
healing process of our nation. I leave the Palace of our people with ambassadors and special envoys. Foreign state leaders also expressed
gratitude for the opportunities given to me for service to our people. I will their recognition to Arroyo’s administration (including then President
not shirk from any future challenges that may come ahead in the same George Bush from the White House). Congress issued House Resolution
service of our country. 175 to express support to the new admin. The court also issued the
following Resolution in Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC, to wit:

"A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC — In re: Request of Vice President Gloria

I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in to promotion of a Macapagal-Arroyo to Take her Oath of Office as President of the Republic
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. of the Philippines before the Chief Justice — Acting on the urgent request
of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President of
the Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and
confirmed by a letter to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request
May the Almighty bless our country and beloved people.
was treated as an administrative matter, the court Resolve unanimously
to confirm the authority given by the twelve (12) members of the Court
then present to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the
MABUHAY! (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA" oath of office of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of
the Philippines, at noon of January 20, 2001.

This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable

It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001, he signed the case that may be filed by a proper party."
following letter (sent to House Speaker Fuentebella and Senate President
Pimentel): 8.) The Senate then passed Resolution No. 83 which officially moved to
terminate the impeachment proceeding. Senator Miriam Defensor-
Santiago stated "for the record" that she voted against the closure of the
impeachment court on the grounds that the Senate had failed to decide
"Sir: By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the
on the impeachment case and that the resolution left open the question of
Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am unable
whether Estrada was still qualified to run for another elective post.
to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and
the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the Acting President. 9.) Estrada on the other hand is now facing charges of plunder, graft, and
corruption under the office of the Ombudsman. He then filed a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the Ombudsman from "conducting any release as a later act. If, however, it was prepared after the press release,
further proceedings in or any other criminal complaint that may be filed still, it commands scant legal significance. Estrada's resignation from the
in his office, until after the term of petitioner as President is over. presidency cannot be the subject of a changing caprice nor of a whimsical
will especially if the resignation is the result of his reputation by the
10.) Thru another counsel, Estrada filed for Quo Warranto. He prayed for people.
judgment to confirm him as the lawful and incumbent President of the Petitioner contends that the impeachment proceeding is an
Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him
his office, and declaring respondent (Arroyo) to have taken her oath as from resigning. The court held otherwise. The exact nature of an
and to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity. impeachment proceeding is debatable.
Even assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it
ISSUES/HELD: can not be considered pending at the time Estrada resigned because the
process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted
(1) WON Estrada officially resigned as a president.
against the opening of the second envelope, the public and private
please also read Section 8, Article VII of the Constitution
prosecutors walked out, the public prosecutors filed their Manifestation
YES. We hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed
doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the press indefinitely. There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against
release containing his final statement: (1) he acknowledged the oath- Estrada when he resigned.
taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with
(2) WON Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as president.
reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the
please read section 11, Article VII of the Constitution.
Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to
NO. By virtue of the said letter, Estrada has officially resigned and
begin the healing process of our nation.
has in effect, relinquished his powers as president.
He also called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a
Even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the
cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground
national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he
that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid
did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioner's
to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de
valedictory, his final act of farewell.
jure, president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be
As to the second letter (addressed to Fuentebella and Pimentel),
reviewed by this Court.
the court held that it is wrapped in mystery since Estrada did not reveal
the circumstances that led to its preparation. It was all too easy for him to By virtue of the said letter, Estrada has officially resigned and has
tell the Filipino people in his press release that he was temporarily unable in effect, relinquished his powers as president.
to govern and that he was leaving the reins of government to respondent
Arroyo for the time bearing. Even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he
Under any circumstance, however, the mysterious letter cannot cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground
negate the resignation of Estrada. If it was prepared before the press that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid
to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de In representative democracy, elected leaders reign only by
jure, president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be obtaining the consent of the electorate during election
reviewed by this Court.
FACTS

(3) WON the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to GR 127116 (DAVID CASE)
prejudicial publicity.
Dec 1996 Brgy Chairman Alex David as president of Liga ng mga
Barangay sa Pilipinas filed a petition to prohibit the holding of barangay
NO. Estrada also contends that respondent Ombudsman should be election scheduled on the second Monday of May 1997.
stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed against him
due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt. He submits that
the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set file the Jan 1997 the SolGen (sided with David) gave his comment in
criminal cases violation of his right to due process.
praying that the election scheduled on 12 May 1997 be in abeyance.
COMELEC opposed the petition. 11 Feb 1997 the Court issued a
The court held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity,
there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly Resolution giving due course to the petition and required the parties to
submit their respective memoranda, it also requested Former Senator
influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity.
Pimentel to act as amicus curiae. The Court noted but did not grant the
There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the motions of David.
preliminary investigation of the petitioner by the respondent
Ombudsman. Petitioner needs to offer more than hostile headlines to
discharge his burden of proof.
GR 128039 (RILLON CASE)
The accuracy of the news reports referred to by the petitioner
20 Feb 1997 Bonifacio Rillon as a president of Liga ng mga
cannot be the subject of judicial notice by this Court especially in light of
Barangay QC Chapter led a petition to seek a judicial review by certiorari
the denials of the respondent Ombudsman as to his alleged prejudice and
to declare unconstitutional:
the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official
duty to which he is entitled. 0. Sec 43(c) of RA 7160

PETITION IS DISMISSED. ⁃ The term of office of barangay officials and members of the
sangguniang kabataan shall be for 3 years which shall begin after the
regular election of barangay officials on the second Monday of May 1994
David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116, April 8, 1997
 COMELEC Resolution Nos. 2880 and 2887 in fixing the date of the the barangay chairman by the entire barangay electorate, separately from
barangay elections on 12 May 1997 and other related activities the 7 kagawads.

The 400M appropriated budget contained in RA 8250 aka General THIRD During the election, the voters elected one punong
Appropriations Act of 1997 intended to defray the costs and expenses in barangay and seven kagawads, if we agree with the thesis of the
holding the 1997 barangay elections. petitioners, it follows that they were elected illegaly.

FOURTH In enacting General Appropriations Act of 1997,

Congress appropriated 400M to cover the expenses for the elections, this
25 Feb 1997 The Court consolidated the two cases for they is an express statement of the Congress that barangay officials shall be
basically raise the same issue. elected on the May of 1997.

FIFTH the judicial decision in Paras v COMELEC, as per Art 8 of

the Civil Code, is now part of the Philippine legal system.
ISSUES/HELD:
SIXTH Petitioners are wrong in claiming that RA 6679 should
1. WON RA 7160 or RA 6679 governs the term of public
prevail. RA 7160 is a general law, It is a special law insofar as it governs
officials?
the term of office of barangay officials. In its repealing clause, RA 7160
RA 7160 GOVERNS. FIRST states that all general and special laws which are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Code are repealed or modified accordingly.
There is clear legislative intent and design to limit term to three
years. RA 7160 was enacted later than RA 6679, it is basic that in case of 2. WON RA 7160 is unconstitutional for shortening the term
an irreconcilable conflict between two laws of different vintages, the later of barangay officials?
enactment prevails.
THREE-YEAR TERM NOT REPUGNANT WITH THE
Under RA 7160 the term of barangay officials is 3 years which CONSTITUTION.
shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second
Sec 8, Art X of the 1987 Constitution
Monday of May 1994, this provision is inconsistent with RA 6679 which
states that the term of barangay officials shall be for 5 years. Note that The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay
both laws refer to the same officials who were elected on the second officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years, and no
Monday of May 1994. such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as
SECOND RA 6679 requires the barangay voters to elect 7
an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which
kagawads and the candidate obtaining the highest votes shall be the
he was elected.
punong barangay. On the other hand, RA 7160 mandates a direct vote on
 The Constitution did not probibit Congress from fixing any term of tested and photographed over their objection. The military also
office for barangay officials. Congress merely determines the term to the inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle
lawmaking body, without specific limitation or prohibition, thereby grenades, and several rounds of ammunition found in the premises.
leaving to the lawmakers full discretion to fix such term in accordance
with the exigencies of public service. The petitioners came to this Court in a petition for prohibition and
mandamus with preliminary injunction and restraining order. Their
It must be remembered that every law has in its favor the purpose was to recover the articles seized from them, to prevent these
presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be from being used as evidence against them, and to challenge their finger-
shown that there is a clear and unequivocal (not just implied) breach of printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of their right
the Constitution. To strike down a law as unconstitutional, there must be against self-incrimination.
a clear and unequivocal showing that what the fundamental law prohibits,
the statute permits. The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge The petitioners demand the return of the arms and ammunition on
this burden and to show clearly the unconstitutionality they aver. the ground that they were taken without a search warrant as required by
the Bill of Rights. The respondents, while admitting the absence of such
warrant, sought to justify their act on the ground that they were acting
under superior orders. There was also the suggestion that the measure
Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. L-69401 June 23, 1987 was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem
generated by the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
A contingent of more than two hundred Philippine marines and
elements of the home defense forces raided the compound occupied by Whether or not the arrest made by the military is a clear by-pass
the petitioners at Gov. Alvarez street, Zamboanga City, in search of loose of civil courts in determining probable cause to conduct search.
firearms, ammunition and other explosives.

The military operation was commonly known and dreaded as a

"zona," which was not unlike the feared practice of the kempeitai during RULING:
the Japanese Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality, arresting
the persons fingered by a hooded informer, and executing them outright Yes. Superior orders cannot countermand the Constitution. The
(although the last part is not included in the modern refinement). fact that the petitioners were suspected of the Climaco killing did not
excuse the constitutional short-cuts the respondents took. The precarious
The initial reaction of the people inside the compound was to state of lawlessness in Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly
resist the invasion with a burst of gunfire. The soldiers returned fire and a did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against
bloody shoot-out ensued, resulting in a number of casualties. unreasonable searches and seizures.

The besieged compound surrendered the following morning, and The record does not disclose that the petitioners were wanted
sixteen male occupants were arrested, later to be finger-printed, paraffin- criminals or fugitives from justice. At the time of the "zona," they were
merely suspected of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even been violence in Metro Manila in the light of the escalating cases of crime and
investigated for it. As mere suspects, they were presumed innocent and lawlessness in the city.
not guilty as summarily pronounced by the military. Indeed, even if were
assumed for the sake of argument that they were guilty, they would not The President declared that the services of the Marines in the anti-
have been any less entitled to the protection of the Constitution, which crime campaign are merely temporary in nature and for a reasonable
covers both the innocent and the guilty. period only, until such time when the situation shall have improved.

In the instant case, the respondents simply by-passed the civil Subsequently, the IBP filed a special civil action for certiorari and
courts, which had the authority to determine whether or not there was prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
probable cause to search the petitioner's premises. Instead, they seeking to nullify on constitutional grounds the order of President Joseph
proceeded to make the raid without a search warrant on their own Ejercito Estrada commanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines
unauthorized determination of the petitioner's guilt. They also defied the (the “Marines”) to join the Philippine National Police (the “PNP”) in
precept that "civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military" visibility patrols around the metropolis.
so clearly proclaimed in the 1973 Constitution.
ISSUES/HELD:
The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of the raid
(1) Whether or not petitioner has legal standing.
because it was in fact not urgent. There was absolutely no reason at all
why they should disregard the orderly processes required by the On the first issue The Supreme Court ruled that the petition
Constitution and instead insist on arbitrarily forcing their way into the has no merit. First, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it is in
petitioner's premises with all the menace of a military invasion. possession of the requisites of standing to raise the issues in the petition.
Second, the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction nor did he commit a violation
IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000 of the civilian supremacy clause of the Constitution.

Example of allowable participation of military force in civilian law When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the Court
enforcement can exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites
are complied with, namely: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate
FACTS case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at
Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, President Joseph the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis
Ejercito Estrada, as commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the mota of the case. The IBP has not sufficiently complied with the requisites
Philippines, directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate of standing in this case. Legal standing or locus standi has been
with each other for the proper deployment and utilization of the Marines defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the
to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. The term “interest” means a
material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as On the third issue, the Supreme Court disagrees to the contention
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere that by the deployment of the Marines, the civilian task of law
incidental interest. Though it is their duty to uphold the laws to the enforcement is “militarized” in violation of Sec. 3, Art. II of the
interest of the people, and this is one of the bases of their petition, the Constitution. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach
IBP failed to show that they will suffer direct injury upon the deployment of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the Marines constitutes
of marines. Having failed to do so the court cannot take cognizance of the permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement. The local
case at bar when the parties have no legal standing. police forces are the ones in charge of the visibility patrols at all times,
the real authority belonging to the PNP
(2) Whether or not the President’s factual determination of the
necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial review Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the PNP does
not unmake the civilian character of the police force. The real authority in
On the second issue the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s the operations is lodged with the head of a civilian institution, the PNP,
discretion in calling of the Armed Forces of the Philippines is not subject and not with the military. Since none of the Marines was incorporated or
to judicial review. The discretion exercised by the president is a question enlisted as members of the PNP, there can be no appointment to civilian
of wisdom, and not the legality of law. There is no provision under Section position to speak of. Hence, the deployment of the Marines in the joint
18, Article VII of the Constitution dealing with the revocation or review of visibility patrols does not destroy the civilian character of the PNP.
the President’s action to call out the armed forces. The distinction places
the calling out power in a different category from the power to declare
martial law and power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. The reason for the difference in the treatment of the said powers Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v.
highlights the intent to grant the President the widest leeway and Duque, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007
broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered
International law can become part of domestic law either by
as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power to suspend
transformation or by incorporation; meaning of “generally
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose
accepted principle of IL”
martial law, both of which involve the curtailment and suppression of
certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating Facts:
safeguards by Congress and review by the Court. The petitioners failed to
establish that the calling of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to be - Executive Order No. 51 (The Milk Code - TMC) was issued by Pres.
deployed in Metro Manila for peacekeeping purposes was not without Aquino on Oct. 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted
factual basis. There was escalating crime and lawlessness in the city. to her under the Freedom Constitution.
(1) One of the preambular clauses of TMC – the law seeks to give
(3) Whether or not the calling of the armed forces to assist the effect to Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of
PNP in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional provisions Breastmilk Substituttes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the WHA
(World Health Assembly) in 1981.
on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character
- In 1990, the Philippine ratified the International Convention on the
of the PNP Rights of the Child. Art. 24 of the instrument mandates that States
 should take measure to diminish infant mortality and should ensure Held: No. However what may be implemented is the RIRR based on the
that all segments of society are informed of the advantages of Milk Code which in turn is based on the ICMBS as this is deemed part of
breastfeeding. the law of the land. The other WHA Resolutions however cannot be
- From 1982 – 2006, the WHA adopted several resolutions to the effect imposed as they are not deemed part of the law of the land.
that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected,
hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not Ratio:
permitted for breastmilk substitutes.
- May 15, 2006 – DOH issues the assailed RIRR (Revised Implementing 1. Are the international instruments referred to by the respondents part
Rules and Regulations of E.O. 51 or A.O. No. 2006-0012) which was of the law of the land?
to take effect on July 7, 2006. – The RIRR imposes a ban on all - The various international instruments invoked by respondents are:
advertisements of breastmilk substitutes (1) The UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child
- June 28, 2006 – Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari and (2) The International Convenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO or Writ of Rights
Preliminary injunction. (3) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
- August 15, 2006 – the Court issued a Resolution granting the TRO, Against Women
enjoining the respondents from implementing the assailed RIRR. - These instruments only provide general terms of the steps that
- Petitioner assails the RIRR for going beyond the provisions of TMC States must take to prevent child mortality. Hence, they do not have
thereby amending and expanding the coverage of the said law. anything about the use and marketing of breastmilk substitutes
- DOH meanwhile contends that the RIRR implements not only TMC
but also various international instruments regarding infant and - The ICMBS and other WHA Resolutions however, are the
young child nutrition. They posit that the said international international instruments which have specific provisions on
instruments are deemed part of the law of the land and therefore breastmilk substitutes
may be implemented by the DOH in the RIRR. - Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of
domestic law in 2 ways:
(1) Transformation – an international law is transformed into a
Issue: W/n the RIRR is unconstitutional? domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local
legislation
Sub-issue(s): W/n the RIRR is in accord with TMC? W/n pertinent  Treaties become part of law of the land through this method,
international agreements entered into by the Philippines are part of the pursuant to Art 7, Sec 21 – wherein “no treaty or international
law of the land and may thus be implemented through an RIRR, if so, is agreement shall be valid.. unless concurred by at least 2/3 of
the RIRR in accord with such international agreements? Senate”
 The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are NOT treaties as they
haven’t been concurred in by the required 2/3 vote.
 HOWEVER, the ICMBS has been transformed into domestic
Note: I focused on the parts on international law. The other matters (in law through local legislation that is TMC.
case ma’am asks) are at the bottom of the digest.  Therefore, it is not the ICMBS per se that has the force
of law but it’s TMC.
o While TMC is almost a verbatim reproduction of the
ICMBS, it did not adopt the latter’s provision on the
 absolute prohibition on advertising of products within - According to the WHO Constitution, it’s the WHA which determines
the scope of the ICMBS. Instead the MC provides that the policies of the WHO, the former also has the power to “adopt
advertising promotion or other marketing materials regulations concerning advertising and labeling of pharmaceutical
may be allowed if such materials are approved by a and similar products” and “to make recommendations to members on
committee. any matter within the Organization’s competence”
(2) Incorporation – by mere constitutional declaration, international - Note that the legal effect of a regulation as opposed to
law is deemed to have the force of domestic law recommendation is quite different
 This is found under Art 2, Sec 2 – The Philippines… adopts (1) Regulations which are duly adopted by the WHA are binding on
generally accepted principles of international law as part of member states
the law of the land (2) On the other hand, recommendations of the WHA do not come
 In Mihares v. Ranada: International law becomes customary into force for its members unlike regulations. Rather, they carry
rules accepted as binding as a result of two elements: moral and political weight as they constitute the judgment on a
1.) Established, widespread, and consistent practice on part health issue of the collective membership of the highest body in
of the state the field of health.
2.) Opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or - The WHA resolution adopting the ICMBS and the subsequent WHA
necessity. resolutions urging states to implement the ICMBS are merely
 Generally accepted principles of international law refer to recommendatory and legally non-binding.
norms of general or customary international law which are - Hence, unlike the ICMBS which has become TMC through legislative
binding on all states, valid through all kinds of human enactment, the subsequent WHA Resolutions, which provide for
societies, and basic to legal systems generally exclusive breastfeeding and prohibition on advertisements and
 Fr. Bernas has a definition similar to the one above. promotions of breastmilk have not been adopted as domestic law.
Customary international law has two factors: - WHA Resolutions have been viewed to constitute “soft law” or non-
1.) Material factor – how states behave binding norms, which influence state behavior. Soft law has been
 The consistency and the generality of the practice noted to be a rapid means of norm creation, in order to reflect and
2.) Psychological or subjective factor – why they behave the respond to the changing needs and demands of constituents (of the
way they do UN.)
 Once state practice has been established, now - As previously discussed, for an international rule to be considered
determine why they behave they do. Is it our of courtesy customary law, it must be established that such rule is followed by
or opinio juris (the belief that a certain type of behavior states because it is considered obligatory (opinio juris).
is obligatory) - In the case at bar, respondents have not presented any evidence to
 When a law satisfies the two factors it becomes part of prove that the WHA Resolutions are in fact enforced or practice by
customary international law which is then incorporated into member states. Further, they failed to establish that provisions of
our domestic system pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary international law that may
be deemed part of law of the land.
2. Since the WHA Resolutions have not been embodied in any local - Hence, legislation is necessary to transform the WHA resolutions
legislation, have they attained the status of customary law and hence into domestic law. They cannot thus be implemented by executive
part of our law of the land? agencies without the need of a law to be enacted by legislature.
- The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of the international
specialized agencies of the UN. On other issues:
W/n the petitioner is the real party in interest? Yes. - Only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of the subsequent
- An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack WHA Resolutions, can be validly implemented by the DOH through
of direct interest of its members are affected by the action. An the subject RIRR.
organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents.
(Exec Sec vs CA)
- The Court has rules that an association has the legal personality to W/n the provisions of the RIRR being in accordance with the Milk Code?
represent its members because the results of the case will affect Not all of them
their vital interests. (Purok Bagong Silang Association Inc. vs.
Yuipco) - Assailed provisions: [1] extending the coverage to young children; [2]
- In the petitioner’s Amended Articles of Incorporation, it states that imposing exclusive breastfeeding for infants from 0-6 months; [3]
the association is formed “to represent directly or through approved imposes an absolute ban on advertising and promotion for breastmilk
representatives the pharmaceutical and health care industry before substitutes; [4] requiring additional labeling requirements; [5]
the Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the medical prohibits the dissemination of information on infant formula; [6]
professions and the general public.” forbids milk manufacturers and distributors to extend assistance in
- Therefore, the petitioner, as an organization, has an interest in research and continuing education Although the DOH has the power
fulfilling its avowed purpose of representing members who are part under the Milk Code to control information regarding breastmilk vis-
of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. Petitioner is duly à-vis breastmilk substitutes, this power is not absolute because it has
authorized to bring to the attention of the government agencies and no power to impose an absolute prohibition in the marketing,
courts any grievance suffered by its members which are directly promotion and advertising of breastmilk substitutes. Several
affected by the assailed RIRR. provisions of the Milk Code attest to the fact that such power to
- The petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its members, control information is not absolute.
should be considered as a legal party-in-interest which stands to be - Sections 11 and 4(f) of the RIRR are clearly violative of the Milk
benefited or injured by any judgment in the case. Code because such provisions impose an absolute prohibition on
advertising, promotion and marketing of breastmilk substitutes,
which is not provided for in the Milk Code. Section 46 is violative of
W/n the DOH has the power to implement the WHA Resolutions under the Milk Code because the DOH has exceeded its authority in
the Revised Administrative Code even in the absence of a domestic law? imposing such fines or sanctions when the Milk Code does not do so.
Only the provisions of the Milk Code. (as per the discussion above) Other assailed provisions are in accordance with the Milk Code.

- Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the RAC of 1987 provides that the

DOH shall define the national health policy and can issue orders and W/n Section 13 of the RIRR providing a sufficient standard? Yes.
regulations concerning the implementation of established health
policies. - Questioned provision, in addition to Section 26 of Rule VII provide
- A.O. No 2005 -0014 which provides the national policy on infant and labeling requirements for breastmilk substitutes  found to be in
young child feeding, does not declare that as part of its policy, the consonance with the Milk Code
advertisement or promotion of breastmilk substitutes should be - The provisions in question provide reasonable means of enforcing
absolutely prohibited. related provisions in the Milk Code.
W/n Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws?

- Section in question only repeals orders, issuances and rules and

regulations, not laws. The provision is valid as it is within the DOH’s
rule-making power.
- An administrative agency has quasi-legislative or rule-making power.
However, such power is limited to making rules and regulation Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No.175352, July 15, 2009 (decision)
subjected to the boundaries set by the granting statute and the
Constitution. The power is also subject to the doctrine of non- GR: Congress cannot create a private corporation with legislative
delegability and separability of powers. The power, which includes charter; EXC: Phil. National Red Cross (PNRC) has legislative
amending, revising, altering or repealing, is granted to allow for charter, but it is not invalid as the PNRC is not an ordinary
flexibility in the implementation of the laws. corporation but has a special status under IHL as an auxiliary of
the Philippine government to assist in discharging its obligations
W/n On Section 4, 5(w), 11, 22, 32, 47 and 52 violates the due process under the Geneva Conventions; Creation of the PNRC (thru
clause of the Constitution (Article III Section 1)? legislative charter) an adherence to the Geneva Convention, which
has the force and effect of law under the incorporation clause
- Despite the fact that the present Constitution enshrines free
enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the
Facts:
power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general
welfare… free enterprise does not call for the removal of protective Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador
regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent M. Viari (Officers of the Board of Directors of Quezon City Red Cross
evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in Chapter) filed with this Court a Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon
the restraint of trade. as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate, respondent Gordon is the
- Section 4 – proscription of milk manufacturers’ participation in any Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of
policymaking body; Section 22 – classes and seminars for women and Governors.
children; Section 32 – giving of assistance, support and logistics or
training; Section 52 – giving of donations During respondents incumbency as a member of the Senate of the
- In the instant case, petitioner failed to show how the aforementioned Philippines,[1] he was elected Chairman of the PNRC during the 23
sections hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes. They also failed February 2006 meeting of the PNRC Board of Governors. Petitioners
to establish that these activities are essential and indispensable to allege that by accepting the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of
their trade. Governors, respondent has ceased to be a member of the Senate as
provided in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution, which reads:
Disposition: The Petition is Partially Granted. Only sections 4(f),
11 and 46 of A.O. 2006-0014 are declared null and void for being SEC. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
ultra vires. The TRO is lifted insofar as the rest of the provisions of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in
A.O. 2006-0012 is concerned. the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
 controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his Respondent also maintains that if the petition is treated as one for
term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be declaratory relief, this Court would have no jurisdiction since original
appointed to any office which may have been created or the jurisdiction for declaratory relief lies with the Regional Trial Court.
emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he
was elected. Respondent further insists that the PNRC is not a government-
owned or controlled corporation and that the prohibition under Section
Petitioners claimed that PNRC is a government-owned or
13, Article VI of the Constitution does not apply in the present case since
controlled corporation (Based on Camporedondo v. NLRC) and that in
volunteer service to the PNRC is neither an office nor an employment.
accepting and holding the position of Chairman of the PNRC Board of
Governors, respondent has automatically forfeited his seat in the Senate,
pursuant to Flores v. Drilon,[3] which held that incumbent national In their Reply, petitioners claim that their petition is neither an
legislators lose their elective posts upon their appointment to another action for quo warranto nor an action for declaratory relief. Petitioners
government office. maintain that the present petition is a taxpayers suit questioning the
unlawful disbursement of funds, considering that respondent has been
Respondent asserts that petitioners have no standing to file this
drawing his salaries and other compensation as a Senator even if he is no
petition which appears to be an action for quo warranto, since the
longer entitled to his office. Petitioners point out that this Court has
petition alleges that respondent committed an act which, by provision of
jurisdiction over this petition since it involves a legal or constitutional
law, constitutes a ground for forfeiture of his public office. Petitioners do
issue which is of transcendental importance.
not claim to be entitled to the Senate office of respondent. Under Section
5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only a person claiming to be Issues/Held:
entitled to a public office usurped or unlawfully held by another may
bring an action for quo warranto in his own name. If the petition is one 1. Whether the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a
for quo warranto, it is already barred by prescription since under Section government- owned or controlled corporation?
11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the action should be PNRC is a Private Organization Performing Public Functions
commenced within one year after the cause of the public officers
forfeiture of office. In this case, respondent has been working as a Red May 22, 1947 – Pres. Manuel Roxas signed RA95 (PNRC Charter)
Cross volunteer for the past 40 years. Respondent was already Chairman adhering to the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929. PNRC is:
of the PNRC Board of Governors when he was elected Senator in May
2004, having been elected Chairman in 2003 and re-elected in 2005. - A non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary, humanitarian organization whose
mission is to bring timely, effective, and compassionate humanitarian
Respondent contends that even if the present petition is treated as assistance for the most vulnerable w/o consideration of nationality, race,
a taxpayers suit, petitioners cannot be allowed to raise a constitutional religion, gender, social status, or political affiliation.
question in the absence of any claim that they suffered some actual
damage or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal act of - A member of National Society of the International Red Cross and Red
respondent. Furthermore, taxpayers are allowed to sue only when there is Crescent Movement. 7 Fundamental Principles: Humanity, Impartiality,
a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that public money is Neutrality, Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity, Universality.
being diverted to any improper purpose, or where petitioners seek to
restrain respondent from enforcing an invalid law that results in wastage - Must be autonomous, neutral and independent; not appear to be
of public funds. instrument/agency that implements government policy to merit the trust
of all and effectively carry out its mission – therefore, it cannot be
owned/controlled by the government.
The Philippine government does not own the PNRC- Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No.175352, July 15, 2009 January 18, 2011
(resolution on the MR)
–does not have government assets and does not receive any appropriation
from the Congress. It is financed primarily by contributions from Facts:
privateindividuals/entities obtained through solicitation campaigns
organized by its Board of Governors(Sec. 11, PNRC Charter). Respondent filed a motion for partial reconsideration on a
Supreme Court decision which ruled that being chairman of the
-The government does not control the PNRC. Only 6 of the 30 members of Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) did not disqualify him from being a
the PNRC Board of Governors are appointed by the President of the Senator, and that the charter creating PNRC is unconstitutional as the
Philippines(Sec. 6, PNRC Charter). A majority of 4/5 of the PNRC Board PNRC is a private corporation and the Congress is precluded by the
are elected/chosen by the private sector members of the PNRC. Constitution to create such. The Court then ordered the PNRC to
-The PNRC Chairman is not appointed by the President or any incorporate itself with the SEC as a private corporation. Respondent
subordinate gov’t official, therefore, he is not an official/employee of the takes exception to the second part of the ruling, which addressed the
Philippine Government. Sec. 16, Art. VII of Consti. constitutionality of the statute creating the PNRC as a private
corporation. Respondent avers that the issue of constitutionality was only
-President appoints all officials & employees in the Executive branch touched upon in the issue of locus standi. It is a rule that the
whose appointments are vested in the President by the Consti or by law. constitutionality will not be touched upon if it is not the lis mota of the
case
-President also appoints those whose appointments are not otherwise
provided by law. The law may also authorize the “heads Issue:
of deparment, agencies, commissions, or boards.”
Whether it was proper for the Court to have ruled on the
constitutionality of the PNRC statute?
2. Whether petitioners may legally institute this petition
against respondent? Held:

Petitioners Have No Standing to File this Petition because it is an YES. In the case at bar, the constitutionality of the PNRC statute
action for quo warranto. Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court was raised in the issue of standing. As such, the Court should not have
provides: declared certain provisions of such as unconstitutional.

Section 1. Action by Government against individuals - An On the substantive issue, the PNRC is sui generis. It is unlike the
action for the usurpation of a public office, position or private corporations that the Constitution wants to prevent Congress
franchise may be commenced by a verified petition from creating. First, the PNRC is not organized for profit. It is an
brought in the name of the Republic of the organization dedicated to assist victims of war and administer relief to
Philippines against (b) A public officer who does or those who have been devastated by calamities, among others. It is
suffers an act which by provision of law, constitutes a entirely devoted to public service. It is not covered by the prohibition
ground for the forfeiture of his office. since the Constitution aims to eliminate abuse by the Congress, which
tend to favor personal gain. Secondly, the PNRC was created in order to
participate in the mitigation of the effects of war, as embodied in the Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of
Geneva Convention. The creation of the PNRC is compliance with Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB reported
international treaty obligations. Lastly, the PNRC is a National Society, Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station.
an auxiliary of the government. It is not like government instrumentalities
and GOCC. The PNRC is regulated directly by international humanitarian More than a month later , the Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr.
law, as opposed to local law regulating the other mentioned entities. Tagitis's wife, filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the
Court of Appeals (CA).
As such, it was improper for the Court to have declared certain
portions of the PNRC statute as unconstitutional. However, it is the stand The petition was directed against certain members of the Armed
of Justice Carpio that there is no mandate for the Government to create a Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP):
National Society to this effect. He also raises the fact that the PNRC is Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army; Gen.
not sui generis in being a private corporation organized for public needs. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, PNP; Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief, Criminal
Justice Abad is of the opinion that the PNRC is neither private or Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina,
governmental, hence it was within the power of Congress to create. Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao,
Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror
It has been consistently held in Jurisprudence that the Task Force Comet [collectively referred to as petitioners].
Court should exercise judicial restraint when it comes to issues of
constitutionality where it is not the lis mota of the case. The petition went on to state:

“Soon after the Tagitis left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension
Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009 house to take his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly
men believed to be police intelligence operatives, forcibly took him”
1.) Generally accepted principles of IL may be relied upon to
interpret municipal laws; International Convention for the When Kunnong could not locate Engr. Tagitis, he sought the help
Protection of All Persons from Enforced legally-binding on the of another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency.
He was immediately given a ready answer that Engr. Tagitis could have
Philippines although the Philippines has not signed or ratified it
been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group; Information from persons in the
and has not passed a law penalizing enforced disappearance as a military who stated that Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed
crime men; and according to reliable information received by Tagitis, her
husabnd is in the custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically
2.) Prohibition against enforced disappearances with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an
earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. Tagistis with
FACTS: the different terrorist groups.

Engr. Morced N. Tagitis is a consultant for the World Bank and the Tagitis filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the
Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo, seeking their help to find her husband,
Scholarship Programme. He was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. but Tagitis's request and pleadings failed to produce any positive results.

The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the petitioners to

Tagitis's request for assistance in locating Engr. Tagitis who had been
declared missing for almost 2 months, clearly indicated that the  any action or inaction attributable to the
petitioners were actually in physical possession and custody of Engr. petitioners in the performance of their duties
Tagitis. in the investigation of Tagitis’ disappearance;

Tagitis who had already exhausted all administrative ii. implead the members of PNP-CIDG regional office in
avenues and remedies but to no avail had no other adequate Zamboanga alleged to have custody over her husband;
remedy except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO.
iii. attach the affidavits of witnesses to support her
The CA dismissed the petition against Tagistis and immediately issued the accusations;
Writ of Amparo.
iv. specify what legally available efforts she took to
Petitioners appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court. determine the fate or whereabouts of her husband.
ISSUES: The Court ruled that the framers of the Amparo Rule never
intended Section 5(c) of the Rule to be complete in every detail in
1. WON the petition for writ of amparo filed is sufficent in form and
substance; stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights.

RULING: i. As in any other initiatory pleading, the pleader must

of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of
1. YES, In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of action, omitting the evidentiary details.
the respondent’s Amparo petition, the petitioners contend that
the petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo ii. In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement
Rule. must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the
a. SPECIFICALLY, the petitioners allege that Tagitis failed to, proceeding, which addresses a situation of uncertainty;
in her petition: hence the one filing the petition may not be able to describe
with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who
i. allege:
actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her, or
 any ACT or OMISSION the petitioners where the victim is detained, because these information
committed in violation of Tagitis’ rights to may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who
LIFE, LIBERTY, and SECURITY caused the disappearance.
 in a complete manner HOW Tagitis was
ABDUCTED, the persons RESPONSIBLE for To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while
his DISAPPEARANCE, and the respondent’s addressing the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the
SOURCE of INFORMATION; petition should be to determine whether it contains the details
 the abduction was committed at the available to the one filing the petition under the circumstances,
petitioners’ instructions or with their WHILE presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the
consent;
victim’s rights to life, liberty and security through State or private
party action.
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949
The petition should likewise be read in its totality, to determine if
the required elements-–-namely, of the disappearance, the State or Prohibition of war of aggression and war crimes
private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the rights
FACTS:
to life, liberty or security-–- are present.
Shigenori Kuroda was the highest ranking Japanese officer
Applying these rules in the present case, the petition amply recites
stationed in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. He was then
in its paragraphs 4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis
charged before the Military Commission, headed by Major General Rafael
suddenly dropped out of sight after engaging in normal activities,
Jalandoni, due to the atrocities that were done against non-combatant
and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite efforts to locate
civilians and prisoners during the war.
him.
His trial was in pursuant to E.O. No. 68 which established the
If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its
National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations
lack of supporting affidavit, as required by Section 5(c) of the
governing the trial of accused war criminals.
Amparo Rule. This requirement, however, should not be read as an
absolute one that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition Kuroda is questioning the legality of the said EO arguing that the
if not strictly followed. same is not provided for in the Constitution. He further underscores the
fact that the Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague Convention on the
Where, as in this case, the petitioner has substantially complied
Rules and Regulations Covering Land Warfare hence we cannot impose
with the requirement by submitting a verified petition sufficiently
against him any criminal charges because it has no laws to base on,
detailing the facts relied upon, the strict need for the sworn
national or international.
statement that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled.
ISSUE:
Section 5(d) of the Amparo Rule requires that prior investigation
of an alleged disappearance must have been made, specifying the WoN Kuroda can be charged in Philippine courts?
manner and results of the investigation.
HELD:
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Tagitis's
petition did not comply with the Section 5(d) requirements of the YES. EO No.68 is constitutional hence the Philippine courts can
Amparo Rule, as the petition specifies in its paragraph 11 that take cognizance of the case at bar. EO No. 68 is in pursuant to the
Kunnong and his companions immediately reported Tagitis’ constitutional provision that states “the Philippines renounces war as an
disappearance to the police authorities in Jolo, Sulu as soon as instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted
they were relatively certain that he indeed had disappeared. principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.”
 The Hague Convention and other similar conventions whose Commission were considered de facto governments of paramount force
principles are generally accepted are hence considered as part of the law administered by military authority, supported more or less directly by
of the land. military force yet it is considered as good and valid. As it only follows the
necessary judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice which are
not of a political complexion. Also, the principle of postliminy
(postliminium) in international law states, “does not, except in a very few
Co Kim Cham v. Valdez, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945
cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader, which for one
The concept of jus postliminium reason or another it is within his competence to do. Thus judicial acts
done under his control, when they are not of a political complexion,
administrative acts so done, to the extent that they take effect during the
continuance of his control, and the various acts done during the same
FACTS Petitioner Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case initiated during time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain
the Japanese military occupation, with the Court of First Instance of good.” The next question focuses on the interpretation of the phrase,
Manila. After the liberation of Manila, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to “processes of any other government” and whether or not he intended to
continue hearings on his case, citing that the proclamation of Gen. annul all other judgments and judicial proceedings of courts during the
Douglas McArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings Japanese military occupation. It should be presumed that it was not his
and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an enabling intention of abrogating judicial processes as this is a violation of the
law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue principles of international law. The construction of the said phrase refers
judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the to the governmental processes and not the judicial processes of court. A
Philippines under the Japanese military occupation. rule of statutory construction states, “A statute ought never to be
construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction
ISSUES
remains.” If a belligerent occupant is required to establish courts of
Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the justice in the territory occupied and forbids the nationals from asserting
Japanese military occupation were valid and remained valid even after the their civil rights then the military commander of the forces of liberation
American occupation. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation or the restored government is restrained from nullifying or setting aside
by Gen. McArthur invalidates all judgments and judicial acts and the judgments rendered by said courts in their litigation during the
proceedings of the courts. And whether or not if they weren’t invalidated period of occupation. Lastly, the proceeding of the pending cases in the
by the general’s proclamation, could the courts continue hearing the said court may continue without necessity of enacting a law conferring
cases pending before them. jurisdiction. As the courts and laws of the Philippines didn’t become the
courts and laws of Japan. Also, on January 3, 1942, when Manila was
HELD occupied, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Forces ordered, "all
the laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as executive and
International and political law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of
a de facto government are good and valid. During the Japanese military judicial institutions, shall continue to be affective for the time being as in
occupation, the Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Executive the past," and "all public officials shall remain in their present post and
carry on faithfully their duties as before." In addition, “A law once Petitioners argued, inter alia, that the VFA violates §25, Article
established continues until changed by a competent legislative power. It XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “foreign military
is not merely change by sovereignty.” Clearly, the Court of First Instance bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except
of Manila has a jurisdiction to continue the final judgment of the under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as a treaty
proceedings. by the other contracting State.”

DECISION ISSUE:

Writ of mandamus is the speedy and adequate remedy that is issued to Was the VFA unconstitutional?
the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering him to take
cognizance and continue the final judgment of the proceedings in civil RULING:
case no. 3102 of the said court.
[The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that the
petitioners did not commit grave abuse of discretion, and
sustained the constitutionality of the VFA.]
Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000 (Include
constitutionality of the VFA) NO, the VFA is not unconstitutional.

Pacta sunt servanda mandates that the Philippines honor its Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases,
international obligation under the VFA troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are
sufficiently met, viz:
FACTS:
(a) it must be under a treaty;
The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America
entered into an agreement called the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and,
The agreement was treated as a treaty by the Philippine government and when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of the votes
was ratified by then-President Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 cast by the people in a national referendum; and
of the total membership of the Philippine Senate.
(c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.
The VFA defines the treatment of U.S. troops and personnel
There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in
visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such
the case of the VFA. The concurrence handed by the Senate through
visits, and further defines the rights of the U.S. and the Philippine
Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the provisions of the
governments in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel
Constitution . . . the provision in [in §25, Article XVIII] requiring
and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being
supplies.
unnecessary since Congress has not required it.
 This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to
treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges take advantage of businessman who entered the country to take
the agreement as a treaty. To require the other contracting state, the advantage of business opportunities here particularly in the retail
United States of America in this case, to submit the VFA to the United business.
States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord
strict meaning to the phrase. For sometime he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a
“monopoly” in the local market in Pasay. Until June 1954 when Congress
Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of
Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business.
technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus
attached to them prevails. Its language should be understood in the sense Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the
they have in common use. ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which
according to him, violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund
Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats servanda) He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business
the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, here in the country he should be given equal opportunity.
an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as
the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, Issue:
the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty.
W/N a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally
The records reveal that the United States Government, through accepted principles.
Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard, has stated that the United States
Held:
government has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. For
as long as the United States of America accepts or acknowledges the VFA Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or generally accepted principle.
as a treaty, and binds itself further to comply with its obligations under In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally
the treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the accepted principle and with RA The equal protection clause “does not
Constitution. demand absolute equality amongst residents, it merely requires that all
persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions
both as privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”, and, that the equal
Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957 protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which applies only to
those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all
Treaty must clearly provide the basis for a claimed right; persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a
otherwise, the invocation of pacta sunt servanda will not result in distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do
the grant of the relief prayed for not.”

Facts:
 For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a The treaty could not have been intended to modify the laws and
treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines
because it represented an exercise of the police power which, being for the reason the executive may not encroach upon the constitutional
inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the prerogative of the supreme court to promulgate rules for admission to the
medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to practice of the law in the Philippines.
operate his market stalls in the Pasay City market.
The power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being
reserved only to the congress of the Philippines.

In re Garcia, August 15, 1961

Treaty must clearly provide the basis for a claimed right; Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, October 22, 1963
otherwise, the invocation of pacta sunt servanda will not result in
the grant of the relief prayed for GR: Treaties are of the same plane as statutes; in case of conflict
between a treaty and a statute, the later one shall prevail; EXC:
Facts: President may not, by executive agreement, enter into a
transaction prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto
Arturo E. Garcia, has applied for admission to the practice of law
in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. FACTS:

In his verified petition, he avers among others that he is a Filipino Exec. Secretary Hechanova authorised the importation of foreign
citizen born in Bacolod City of Filipino parentage. He finished rice to be purchased from private sources. Gonzales filed a petition
Bachillerato Superior in Spain. He was allowed to practice law profession opposing the said implementation because RA No. 3542 which allegedly
in Spain under the provision of the treaty on academic degrees and the repeals or amends RA No. 2207, prohibits the importation of rice and
corn "by the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government
exercise of profession between the Republic of the Philippines. agency."
Respondents alleged that the importation permitted in RA 2207 is
Issue: to be authorized by the President of the Philippines, and by or on behalf
of the Government of the Philippines. They add that after enjoining the
Whether or not treaty can modify regulations governing admission Rice and Corn administration and any other government agency from
to the Philippine bar. importing rice and corn, S. 10 of RA 3542 indicates that only private
parties may import rice under its provisions. They contended that the
Held: government has already constitute valid executive agreements with
Vietnam and Burma, that in case of conflict between RA 2207 and 3542,
The court resolved to deny the petition. The provision of the treaty the latter should prevail and the conflict be resolved under the American
on academic degrees between the Republic of the Philippines and jurisprudence.
Spanish state cannot be invoked by the applicant. said treaty was intend
to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice their profession in Spain. ISSUE:
W/N the contracts entered constitute valid executive agreements? Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group
W/N an international agreements may be invalidated within our courts? established to represent the marginalized sectors of society. Respondent
Blas F. Ople, now deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs during
RULING: the period material to this case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was
Yes. Such agreements became binding effective upon the signing
impleaded in his capacity as then Executive Secretary.
thereof by representatives the parties thereto; that in case of conflict
between Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452 on the one hand, and
aforementioned contracts, on the other, the latter should prevail,
because, if a treaty and a statute are inconsistent with each other, the
conflict must be resolved — under the American jurisprudence — in favor Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
of the one which is latest in point of time; that petitioner herein assails
the validity of acts of the Executive relative to foreign relations in the Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute
conduct of which the Supreme Court cannot interfere; and the establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) with “the power to
aforementioned contracts have already been consummated, the exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of
Government of the Philippines having already paid the price of the rice international concern x x x and shall be complementary to the national
involved therein through irrevocable letters of credit in favor of the sell of criminal jurisdictions.” The serious crimes adverted to cover those
the said commodity. considered grave under international law, such as genocide, crimes
As to the second issue, our constitution has clearly settled in the against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.
affirmative, by providing, in Sec. 2 of Art. VIII thereof, that the SC may
not be deprived of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique
affirm on appeal, certiorari. Or writ of error as the law or the rules of A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute which, by its terms, is “subject to
court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in – all ratification, acceptance or approval” by the signatory states. As of the
cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, filing of the instant petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory countries
ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question. In other words, appear to have completed the ratification, approval and concurrence
our constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it process. The Philippines is not among the 92.
conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an
act of Congress.
RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement

On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US

Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011
Embassy Note No. 0470 to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
Exchange of notes (not a formal treaty) as a mode of concluding a proposing the terms of the non-surrender bilateral agreement
legally binding written contract between/among states (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the RP.

Facts: Via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-037 dated May 13, 2003 (E/N
BFO-028-03, hereinafter), the RP, represented by then DFA Secretary
Ople, agreed with and accepted the US proposals embodied under the US
Embassy Note adverted to and put in effect the Agreement with the US or transfer of that person by the third country to any international
government. In esse, the Agreement aims to protect what it refers to and tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security
defines as “persons” of the RP and US from frivolous and harassment Council, absent the express consent of the Government of the [US].
suits that might be brought against them in international tribunals.8 It is
reflective of the increasing pace of the strategic security and defense 5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one year after the date on
partnership between the two countries. As of May 2, 2003, similar which one party notifies the other of its intent to terminate the
bilateral agreements have been effected by and between the US and 33 Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement shall continue to apply with
other countries. respect to any act occurring, or any allegation arising, before the
effective date of termination.
The Agreement pertinently provides as follows:

1. For purposes of this Agreement, “persons” are current or former

Government officials, employees (including contractors), or military In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo L.
personnel or nationals of one Party. Benipayo on the status of the non-surrender agreement, Ambassador
Ricciardone replied in his letter of October 28, 2003 that the exchange of
2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, diplomatic notes constituted a legally binding agreement under
absent the express consent of the first Party, international law; and that, under US law, the said agreement did not
require the advice and consent of the US Senate.
(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international
tribunal for any purpose, unless such tribunal has been established by the In this proceeding, petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to
UN Security Council, or respondents in concluding and ratifying the Agreement and prays that it
be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared as without force
(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or and effect.
third country, or expelled to a third country, for the purpose of surrender
to or transfer to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been Issue:
established by the UN Security Council.
Whether or not the RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT is
3. When the [US] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person void ab initio for contracting obligations that are either immoral or
of the Philippines to a third country, the [US] will not agree to the otherwise at variance with universally recognized principles of
surrender or transfer of that person by the third country to any international law.
international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the
UN Security Council, absent the express consent of the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines [GRP].
Ruling:
4. When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person
The petition is bereft of merit.
of the [USA] to a third country, the [GRP] will not agree to the surrender
Validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement denominated ‘agreements’ or ‘protocols.’” As former US High
Commissioner to the Philippines Francis B. Sayre observed in his work,
Petitioner’s initial challenge against the Agreement relates to The Constitutionality of Trade Agreement Acts:
form, its threshold posture being that E/N BFO-028-03 cannot be a valid
medium for concluding the Agreement. The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other
governments ends and agreements – whether denominated executive
Petitioners’ contention––perhaps taken unaware of certain well- agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise – begin, may sometimes be
recognized international doctrines, practices, and jargons––is untenable. difficult of ready ascertainment. x x x
One of these is the doctrine of incorporation, as expressed in Section 2,
Article II of the Constitution, wherein the Philippines adopts the generally It is fairly clear from the foregoing disquisition that E/N BFO-028-
accepted principles of international law and international jurisprudence 03––be it viewed as the Non-Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral
as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, instrument of acceptance thereof or as consent to be bound––is a
cooperation, and amity with all nations. An exchange of notes falls “into recognized mode of concluding a legally binding international written
the category of inter-governmental agreements,” which is an contract among nations.
internationally accepted form of international agreement. The United
Nations Treaty Collections (Treaty Reference Guide) defines the term as
follows:
Agreement Not Immoral/Not at Variance with Principles of
International Law

An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement, that has many Petitioner urges that the Agreement be struck down as void ab
similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the initio for imposing immoral obligations and/or being at variance with
exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of allegedly universally recognized principles of international law. The
the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual immoral aspect proceeds from the fact that the Agreement, as petitioner
procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to would put it, “leaves criminals immune from responsibility for
record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity; x x
Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The technique of exchange x it precludes our country from delivering an American criminal to the
of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, [ICC] x x x.”63
or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.

In another perspective, the terms “exchange of notes” and

The above argument is a kind of recycling of petitioner’s earlier
“executive agreements” have been used interchangeably, exchange of
position, which, as already discussed, contends that the RP, by entering
notes being considered a form of executive agreement that becomes
into the Agreement, virtually abdicated its sovereignty and in the process
binding through executive action. On the other hand, executive
undermined its treaty obligations under the Rome Statute, contrary to
agreements concluded by the President “sometimes take the form of
international law principles.
exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents
 The Court is not persuaded. Suffice it to state in this regard that external self-determination; countervailing principle: right to
the non-surrender agreement, as aptly described by the Solicitor General, territorial integrity; UN DRIP does not authorize MOA-AD
“is an assertion by the Philippines of its desire to try and punish crimes
under its national law. x x x The agreement is a recognition of the primacy Facts:
and competence of the country’s judiciary to try offenses under its The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign on August
national criminal laws and dispense justice fairly and judiciously.”
5, 2008 a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) of the Ancestral Domain
(AD) Aspect of the GRP - MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in
Petitioner, we believe, labors under the erroneous impression that
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. But this was assailed by various petitioners and
the Agreement would allow Filipinos and Americans committing high consolidated by the court as per below.
crimes of international concern to escape criminal trial and punishment.  GR 183591 by the Province of Cotabato and Vice Governor Pinol
This is manifestly incorrect. Persons who may have committed acts on its petition to declare unconstitutional and to have the MOA-AD
penalized under the Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in the disclosed to the public and be open for public consultation.
Philippines or in the US; or with the consent of the RP or the US, before  GR 183752 by the City of Zamboanga et al on its prayer to declare
the ICC, assuming, for the nonce, that all the formalities necessary to null and void said MOA-AD and to exclude the city to the
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE).
bind both countries to the Rome Statute have been met. For perspective,
what the Agreement contextually prohibits is the surrender by either  GR 183893 by the City of Iligan enjoining the respondents from
party of individuals to international tribunals, like the ICC, without the signing the MOA-AD and additionally impleading Exec. Sec.
consent of the other party, which may desire to prosecute the crime under Ermita.
its existing laws. With the view we take of things, there is nothing
immoral or violative of international law concepts in the act of the  GR 183951 by the Province of Zamboanga del Norte et al, praying
to declare null and void the MOA-AD and without operative effect
Philippines of assuming criminal jurisdiction pursuant to the non-
and those respondents enjoined from executing the MOA-AD.
surrender agreement over an offense considered criminal by both
Philippine laws and the Rome Statute.  GR 183692 by Maceda, Binay and Pimentel III, praying for a
judgment prohibiting and permanently enjoining respondents from
formally signing and executing the MOA-AD and or any other
agreement derived therefrom or similar thereto, and nullifying the
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral MOA-AD for being unconstitutional and illegal and impleading
Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008 Iqbal.

1.) The International Concept of Association; “A state within a Memorandum of Agreement-Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD)
state”
Used as reference in the birth of this MOA-AD are the Tripoli
2.) Right to self-determination (but it does not extend to unilateral Agreement, organic act of ARMM, IPRA Law, international laws such as
right of secession except under the most extreme of cases, under ILO Convention 169, the UN Charter etc., and the principle of Islam i.e
carefully defined circumstances); distinction between internal and compact right entrenchment (law of compact, treaty and order).
Embodied in concepts and principles, is the definition of Bangsamoro as
all indigenous peoples of Mindanao and its adjacent islands. These people negotiation of border agreements or protocols for environmental
have the right to self- governance of their Bangsamoro homeland to which protection and equitable sharing of incomes and revenues involving the
they have exclusive ownership by virtue of their prior rights of occupation bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forming part of the
in the land. The MOA-AD goes on to describe the Bangsamoro people as ancestral domain.
"the ‘First Nation' with defined territory and with a system of government
having entered into treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations." The BJE shall also have the right to explore its resources and that the
It then mentions for the first time the "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) sharing between the Central Government and the BJE of total production
to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral pertaining to natural resources is to be 75:25 in favor of the BJE. And
Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro. they shall have the right to cancel or modify concessions and TLAs.

And lastly in the governance, the MOA-AD claims that the relationship
As defined in the territory of the MOA-AD, the BJE shall embrace between the GRP and MILF is associative i.e. characterized by shared
the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region, involving the present authority and responsibility. This structure of governance shall be further
ARMM, parts of which are those which voted in the inclusion to ARMM in discussed in the Comprehensive Compact, a stipulation which was highly
a plebiscite. The territory is divided into two categories, “A” which will be contested before the court. The BJE shall also be given the right to build,
subject to plebiscite not later than 12 mos. after the signing and “B” develop and maintain its own institutions, the details of which shall be
which will be subject to plebiscite 25 years from the signing of another discussed in the comprehensive compact
separate agreement.
ISSUES:
The BJE shall have jurisdiction over the internal waters-15kms 1. Whether or not the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe
from the coastline of the BJE territory; they shall also have "territorial for adjudication.
waters," which shall stretch beyond the BJE internal waters up to the 2. Whether or not there is a violation of the people's right to information
baselines of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) south east and south on matters of public concern (Art 3 Sec. 7) under a state policy of full
west of mainland Mindanao; and that within these territorial waters, the disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (Art 2, Sec 28)
BJE and the government shall exercise joint jurisdiction, authority and including public consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of
management over all natural resources. There will also be sharing of 1991)
minerals in the territorial waters; but no provision on the internal 3. Whether or not by signing of the MOA, the Government of the Republic
waters. of the Philippines would be binding itself;
a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a
separate state, or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not
Included in the resources is the stipulation that the BJE is free to recognized by law;
enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign b) to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the
countries and shall have the option to establish trade missions in those MOA;
countries, as well as environmental cooperation agreements, but not to c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation
include aggression in the GRP. The external defense of the BJE is to Front for ancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (THE
remain the duty and obligation of the government. The BJE shall have INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT OF 1997), particularly Section 3(g)
participation in international meetings and events" like those of the & Chapter VII (DELINEATION,RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL
ASEAN and the specialized agencies of the UN. They are to be entitled to DOMAINS).
participate in Philippine official missions and delegations for the
RULINGS: The contents of the MOA-AD are a matter of paramount public concern
1. Yes, the petitions are ripe for adjudication. The failure of the involving public interest in the highest order. In declaring that the right
respondents to consult the local government units or communities to information contemplates steps and negotiations leading to the
affected constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate consummation of the contract, jurisprudence finds no distinction as to the
under EO No. 3. Moreover, the respondents exceeded their authority by executory nature or commercial character of the agreement.
the mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution. Any E.O. No. 3 (DEFINING POLICY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
alleged violation of the Constitution by any branch of government is a FOR GOVERNMENT’S COMPREHENSIVE PEACE EFFORTS) itself is
proper matter for judicial review. replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and
As the petitions involve constitutional issues which are of paramount local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building. In fact, it is
public interest or of transcendental importance, the Court grants the the duty of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process to conduct
petitioners, petitioners-in-intervention and intervening respondents the regular dialogues to seek relevant information, comments, advice, and
requisite locus standi in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in David recommendations from peace partners and concerned sectors of society.
v. Macapagal- Arroyo.
In Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre, this Court held: 3. a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a
x x x [B]y the mere enactment of the questioned law or the separate state, or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not
approval of the challenged action, the dispute is said to have recognized by law;
ripened into a judicial controversy even without any other overt act
. Indeed, even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is Yes. The provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that
enough to awaken judicial duty.x x x x the Parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated
By the same token, when an act of the President, who in our state or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it.
constitutional scheme is a coequal of Congress, is seriously alleged to The concept of association is not recognized under the present
have infringed the Constitution and the laws x x x settling the dispute Constitution.
becomes the duty and the responsibility of the courts.
That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized
ripeness. under our laws as having an “associative” relationship with the national
government. Indeed, the concept implies powers that go beyond anything
ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government. It
2. Yes. The Court finds that there is a grave violation of the Constitution also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The
involved in the matters of public concern (Sec 7 Art III) under a state Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction
policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (Art other than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory
2, Sec 28) including public consultation under RA 7160 (Local status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for
Government Code of 1991). independence.
(Sec 7 Art III) The right to information guarantees the right of the people
to demand information, while Sec 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region
give information even if nobody demands. The complete and effective recognized in the Constitution. It is not merely an expanded version of
exercise of the right to information necessitates that its complementary the ARMM, the status of its relationship with the national government
provision on public disclosure derive the same self-executory nature, being fundamentally different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a
subject only to reasonable safeguards or limitations as may be provided state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in
by law. the Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a
defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into Given the limited nature of the President’s authority to propose
relations with other states. constitutional amendments, she cannot guarantee to any third
party that the required amendments will eventually be put in
Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever place, nor even be submitted to a plebiscite. The most she could do is
any portion of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it – which has submit these proposals as recommendations either to Congress or the
betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association – runs counter to people, in whom constituent powers are vested.
the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic.
c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation
The defining concept underlying the relationship between the national Front for ancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (THE
government and the BJE being itself contrary to the present Constitution, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT OF 1997),
it is not surprising that many of the specific provisions of the MOA-AD on particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATION,
the formation and powers of the BJE are in conflict with the Constitution RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS)
and the laws. The BJE is more of a state than an autonomous region. But This strand begins with the statement that it is “the birthright of all
even assuming that it is covered by the term “autonomous region” in the Moros and all Indigenous peoples of Mindanao to identify themselves and
constitutional provision just quoted, the MOA-AD would still be in conflict be accepted as ‘Bangsamoros.’” It defines “Bangsamoro people” as the
with it. natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands
including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or
colonization, and their descendants whether mixed or of full blood,
b) to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the including their spouses.
MOA:
Thus, the concept of “Bangsamoro,” as defined in this strand of the MOA-
The MOA-AD provides that “any provisions of the MOA-AD requiring AD, includes not only “Moros” as traditionally understood even by
amendments to the existing legal framework shall come into force upon Muslims, but all indigenous peoples of Mindanao and its adjacent islands.
the signing of a Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the The MOA-AD adds that the freedom of choice of indigenous peoples shall
necessary changes to the legal framework,” implying an amendment of be respected. What this freedom of choice consists in has not been
the Constitution to accommodate the MOA-AD. This stipulation, in specifically defined. The MOA-AD proceeds to refer to the “Bangsamoro
effect, guaranteed to the MILF the amendment of the Constitution. homeland,” the ownership of which is vested exclusively in the
Bangsamoro people by virtue of their prior rights of occupation. Both
It will be observed that the President has authority, as stated in her oath parties to the MOA-AD acknowledge that ancestral domain does not form
of office, only to preserve and defend the Constitution. Such presidential part of the public domain.
power does not, however, extend to allowing her to change the
Constitution, but simply to recommend proposed amendments or revision. Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
As long as she limits herself to recommending these changes and submits provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of
to the proper procedure for constitutional amendments and revision, her ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, the observance of
mere recommendation need not be construed as an unconstitutional act. the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the statute does not grant the
The “suspensive clause” in the MOA-AD viewed in light of the above- Executive Department or any government agency the power to delineate
discussed standards. and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or
compromise.
Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 The immunity from suit of the Joint United States Military Assistance
requires all national offices to conduct consultations beforeany project or Group to the Republic of the Philippines (JUSMAG-Philippines) is the
program critical to the environment and human ecology including those pivotal issue in the case
that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in
such locality, is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar PARTIES
program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast
territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and FLORENCIO SACRAMENTO
drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of  Private respondent
inhabitants from their total environment.  one of the seventy-four (74) security assistance support personnel
(SASP) working at JUSMAG-Philippines
CONCLUSION:  had been with JUSMAG from December 18, 1969, until April 27,
The Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of 1992
discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process,  held the position of Illustrator 2
as mandated by E.O. No. 3, Republic Act No. 7160, and Republic Act No.  services were terminated allegedly due to the abolition of his
8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and position.
crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts  was the incumbent President of JUSMAG PHILIPPINES-FILIPINO
to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (JPFCEA)
thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal
to perform the duty enjoined. JUSMAG
 created pursuant to the Military Assistance Agreement (The 1947
The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and
Agreement) between the Government of the Republic of the
laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying
Philippines and the Government of the United States of America
them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP
 consist of Air, Naval and Army group
and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the
associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to  primary task was to advise and assist the Philippines, on air force,
independence. army and naval matters

FACTS
JUSMAG Phils. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 108813, December 15, 1994
 Private respondent filed a complaint with the Department of Labor
Sovereign immunity from suits and Employment on the ground that he was illegally suspended and
dismissed from service by JUSMAG
Doctrines
o He asked for his reinstatement
 JUSMAG then filed a Motion to Dismiss invoking its immunity from
 Declaration of principles & state policies suit as an agency of the United States
 The incorporation clause o alleged lack of employer-employee relationship
o alleged further, that it has no juridical personality to sue
and be sued
 Labor Arbiter Daniel C. Cueto dismissed the subject complaint "
for want of jurisdiction"
  Private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations From the foregoing, it is apparent that when JUSMAG took the services of
Commission (public respondent), assailing the ruling that petitioner private respondent, it was performing a governmental function on behalf
is immune from suit for alleged violation of our labor laws of the United States pursuant to the Military Assistance Agreement.
 JUSMAG filed its Opposition, reiterating its immunity from suit for
its non-contractual, governmental and/or public acts Under the traditional rule of State immunity, a state cannot be sued in the
 NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter as it held that courts of another State, without its consent or waiver. An exception to the
petitioner had lost its right not to be sued because of: doctrine of immunity from suit by a state, thus:
o the principle of estoppel — that JUSMAG failed to refute . . . . Nevertheless, if, where and when the state or its government
the existence of employer-employee relationship under the enters into a contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance
"control test" of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional
o JUSMAG has waived its right to immunity from suit when it legislative authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue
hired the services of private respondent and rights and obligations arise therefrom, and if the law granting
 the case was remanded to the labor arbiter for reception of the authority to enter into such contract does not provide for or
evidence as to the issue on illegal dismissal name the officer against whom action may be brought in the event
of a breach thereof, the state itself may be sued, even without its
RULING OF THE SC consent, because by entering into a contract, the sovereign state has
descended to the level of the citizen and its consent to be sued is
The suit is one against the United States Government considering that the implied from the very act of entering into such contract. . . . .
United States has not waived or consented to the suit, the complaint
against JUSMAG cannot not prosper. Precedent facts are as follows: The application of the doctrine of immunity from suit has been restricted
to sovereign or governmental activities (jure imperii). The mantle of state
immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and proprietary acts
 Article 14 of the 1947 Agreement provides that "the cost of all
(jure gestionis)
services required by the Group, including compensation of locally
employed interpreters, clerks, laborers, and other personnel, except
If the contract was entered into in the discharge of its governmental
personal servants, shall be borne by the Republic of the Philippines"
functions, the sovereign state cannot be deemed to have waived its
 Abovementioned set-up was to change in 1991. Note No 22
immunity from suit
provides that the United States Government, thru its Embassy,
manifested its preparedness "to provide funds to cover the salaries
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
of security assistance support personnel" and security guards, the
rent of JUSMAG occupied buildings and housing, and the cost of
"We sympathize with the plight of private respondent who had served
utilities
JUSMAG for more than twenty (20) years. Considering his length of
 A Memorandum of Agreement was forged between the Armed
service with JUSMAG, he deserves a more compassionate treatment.
Forces of the Philippines and JUSMAG-Philippines. The Agreement Unfortunately, JUSMAG is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
delineated the terms of the assistance-in-kind of JUSMAG for 1991 Nonetheless, the Executive branch, through the Department of Foreign
 A year later, the United States Embassy sent another note of Affairs and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, can take the cudgel for
similar import to the Department of Foreign Affairs extending the private respondent and the other SASP working for JUSMAG, pursuant to
funding agreement for the salaries of SASP and security guards until the aforestated Military Assistance Agreement.
December 31, 1992
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. citizens may be required by law to render personal
Accordingly, the impugned Resolution dated January 29, 1993 of the military or civil service.
National Labor Relations Commission is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No
costs." ISSUE:

Whether or not the National Defense Law is constitutional.

People v. Lagman, G.R. No. L-45892, July 13, 1938 RULING:

Right of the Government to require compulsory military service a YES, National Defense Law is constitutional.
consequence of its duty to defend the state
 The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be
FACTS performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an
army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the
 In this case Traquilino Lagman was charged with a violation of Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who
section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, known as the National volunteer to enlist therein. Hence, the National Defense Law, in so
Defense Law. It is alleged that these two appellants, being far as it establishes compulsory military service, does not go
Filipinos and having reached the age of twenty years in 1936, against this constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in
willfully and unlawfully refused to register in the military service faithful compliance therewith. “The defense of the State is a prime
between the 1st and 7th of April of said year, notwithstanding the duty of government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens
fact that they had been required to do so. may be required by law to render personal military or civil
 The evidence shows that he was duly notified by the corresponding
service.”
authorities to appear before the Acceptance Board in order to
register for military service in accordance with law, and that the
said appellants, in spite of these notices, had not registered up to
the date of the filing of the information. People v. Soza, G.R. No. L-45893, July 13, 1938
 Lagman allege in defense that he did not registered in the military
service because he has a father to support, has no military In 1936, Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo de Sosa were being
learnings, and does not wish to kill or be killed. compelled by Section 60 of Commonwealth Act 1 (National Defense Law)
to join the military service.
 He was sentenced by CFI to one month and one day of
imprisonment, with the costs. In this instance, the validity of the Lagman refused to do so because he has a father to support, has
National Defense Law, under which the accused was sentenced, is no military leanings and he does not wish to kill or be killed and Primitivo
impugned on the ground that it is unconstitutional. de Sosa refused because he is fatherless and has a mother and a brother
o Section 2, Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines eight years old to support.
provides as follows: They did not deny the charges, however they impunged the
 SEC. 2. The defense of the state is a prime duty of unconstitutionality of the said law.
government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all
ISSUE: 1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders
2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists
Whether or not the National Defense Law is constitutional.
HELD: 3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered
plane of a Lebanese arms dealer. This is to prove that they can stir
Yes. Section 2, Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines provides trouble from afar
as follows:
SEC. 2. The defense of the state is a prime duty of government, and in the 4. Honasan’s failed coup
fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render
5. Communist insurgency movements
personal military or civil service.
The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed 6. secessionist movements in Mindanao
except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will
7. devastated economy because of:
of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable
should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. Hence,
1. accumulated foreign debt
the National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes compulsory military
service, does not go against this constitutional provision but is, on the 2. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies
contrary, in faithful compliance therewith.
Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the
respondents to issue them their travel documents and prevent the
implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos from
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989 returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar
his return in the country. He also questioned the claim of the President
Example of an exceptional case where the Court gave primacy to that the decision was made in the interest of national security, public
general welfare and national security over individual human rights safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside
her jurisdiction.
Facts:
According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the life, liberty, property without due process and equal protection of the
presidency via the non-violent “people power” revolution and was forced laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel which
into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired
Philippines to die. But President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire by a court order.
consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of
Issue:
government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just
beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to 1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
bar the return of Marcos and his family. Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines.
Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats &
2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse
following supervening events:
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she
 determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part
poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.
to bar their return.
For issue number 2, the question for the court to determine is
whether or not there exist factual basis for the President to conclude that
Decision: it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses in the
No to both issues. Petition dismissed. Philippines. It is proven that there are factual bases in her decision. The
supervening events that happened before her decision are factual. The
Ratio: President must take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the
country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the Constitution.
Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive
powers. According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009
Constitution, “the executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines.” However, it does not define what is meant by “executive Doctrines
power” although in the same article it touches on exercise of certain  Declaration of principles & state policies
powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over all executive  Renunciation of War
departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the  Independent Foreign Policy
appointing power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons… (art  Nuclear-Free Policy (Sec. 2, 7 & 8)
VII secfs. 14-23). Although the constitution outlines tasks of the
 Related provisions: Sec. 25, Art. XVIII (Re: presence of foreign
president, this list is not defined & exclusive. She has residual &
military bases, troops, or facilities in the Phil.)
discretionary powers not stated in the Constitution which include the
PARTIES
power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is obliged to
protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest.
LANCE CORPORAL (L/CPL) DANIEL SMITH
(Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers, according to
 Respondent
Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the President can do anything which is
not forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to  member of the United States Armed Forces
vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, American President)  charged with the crime of rape committed against a Filipina
and that the president has to maintain peace during times of emergency
but also on the day-to-day operation of the State. SUZETTE S. NICOLAS
 Petitioner
The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible  Rape victim
depending on the circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be
allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light FACTS
solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and
the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which  Substantive part of the complaint filed by Suzette S. Nicolas
clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the below:
present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately
addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are "That on or about the First (1st) day of November 2005, inside the Subic
implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to Bay Freeport Zone, Olongapo City and within the jurisdiction of this
safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or Honorable Court, the above-named accused’s (sic), being then members
of the United States Marine Corps, except Timoteo L. Soriano, Jr.,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, authorities. Pending agreement on such facilities, accused L/CPL.
with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, with DANIEL J. SMITH is hereby temporarily committed to the Makati City
abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of the intoxication of the Jail.
victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sexually
abuse and have sexual intercourse with or carnal knowledge of one Accused L/CPL. DANIEL J. SMITH is further sentenced to indemnify
Suzette S. Nicolas, a 22-year old unmarried woman inside a Starex Van complainant SUZETTE S. NICOLAS in the amount of ₱50,000.00 as
with Plate No. WKF-162, owned by Starways Travel and Tours, with Office compensatory damages plus ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.
address at 8900 P. Victor St., Guadalupe, Makati City, and driven by
accused Timoteo L. Soriano, Jr., against the will and consent of the said SO ORDERED."
Suzette S. Nicolas, to her damage and prejudice."
 Makati court ordered Smith detained at the Makati jail until
 Pursuant to the VFA between the Philippines and the United further orders
States, the United States was granted custody of defendant Smith  Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by a contingent of
pending the proceedings Philippine law enforcement agents acting under orders of the DILG
 During the trial, the United States Government faithfully complied  Smith was then brought to a detention facility under the control of
with its undertaking to bring defendant Smith to the trial court the United States government, provided for under new agreements
every time his presence was required between the Philippines and the United States, referred to as the
 RTC of Makati, rendered its Decision, finding defendant Smith Romulo-Kenney Agreement of December 19, 2006 which states:
guilty. The dispositive portion provides:
"The Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to of the United States of America agree that, in accordance with the
adduce sufficient evidence against accused S/SGT. CHAD BRIAN Visiting Forces Agreement signed between our two nations, Lance
CARPENTER, L/CPL. KEITH SILKWOOD AND L/CPL. DOMINIC Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United States Marine Corps, be returned to U.S.
DUPLANTIS, all of the US Marine Corps assigned at the USS Essex, are military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila."
hereby ACQUITTED to the crime charged.
 Petitioners contend that the Philippines should have custody of
The prosecution having presented sufficient evidence against accused defendant L/CPL Smith because, first of all, the VFA is void and
L/CPL. DANIEL J. SMITH, also of the US Marine Corps at the USS Essex, unconstitutional.
this Court hereby finds him GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
the crime of RAPE defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RULING OF THE SC
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, and, in accordance with
Article 266-B, first paragraph thereof, hereby sentences him to suffer the With regard to unconstitutionality, this Court resolved in favor of the
penalty of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties constitutionality of the VFA. This was in Bayan v. Zamora.
provided for under Article 41 of the same Code.
The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as
Pursuant to Article V, paragraph No. 10, of the Visiting Forces Agreement a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.
entered into by the Philippines and the United States, accused L/CPL.
DANIEL J. SMITH shall serve his sentence in the facilities that shall, The VFA provides that in cases of offenses committed by the members of
thereafter, be agreed upon by appropriate Philippine and United States the US Armed Forces in the Philippines, the following rules apply:
 Article V. Criminal Jurisdiction The Court holds, on these points, as follows:

xxx 1. The VFA is a self-executing Agreement because the parties intend

its provisions to be enforceable, precisely because the Agreement is
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the intended to carry out obligations and undertakings under the RP-US
Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with Mutual Defense Treaty.
United States military authorities, if they so request, from the 2. The VFA is covered by implementing legislation, namely, the Case-
commission of the offense until completion of all judicial Zablocki Act, USC Sec. 112(b), inasmuch as it is the very purpose
proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal and intent of the US Congress that executive agreements registered
notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make under this Act within 60 days from their ratification be immediately
such personnel available to those authorities in time for any implemented.
investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with 3. The RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty was advised and consented to
which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the by the US Senate.
Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States
Government regarding custody, which the United States DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine
judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United "WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED, and the Court of
States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The Appeals’ Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212 dated January 2, 2007 is
one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, MODIFIED. The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of
the one year period will not include any time during which the Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998,
scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States is UPHELD as constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of
authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the
arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so. VFA, and respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs is hereby ordered to
forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives for the
The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is a substantial appropriate agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities
basis for a different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed as provided in Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA, pending which the status quo
forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused. shall be maintained until further orders by this Court.

The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to The Court of Appeals is hereby directed to resolve without delay the
enter one’s territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the related matters pending therein, namely, the petition for contempt and
extent agreed upon. the appeal of L/CPL Daniel Smith from the judgment of conviction.
o Principle: the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over the
forces of the sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the No costs.
parties
SO ORDERED."
The laws (including rules of procedure) of one State do not extend or
apply – except to the extent agreed upon – to subjects of another State
due to the recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as
visiting foreign armed forces.
Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016 a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The Senate, through Senate
Resolution 105, also expressed its position that EDCA needs
The petitions1 before this Court question the constitutionality of the congressional ratification.
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic
of the Philippines and the United States of America (U.S.). Petitioners
allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they entered into EDCA with the Issue 1: W/N the petitions as “citizen’s suit” satisfy the requirements of
U.S.,2 claiming that the instrument violated multiple constitutional legal standing in assailing the constitutionality of EDCA
provisions.3 In reply, respondents argue that petitioners lack standing to
No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act, petitioners
bring the suit. To support the legality of their actions, respondents invoke
suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of having to establish a
the 1987 Constitution, treaties, and judicial precedents. 4
direct and personal interest if they show that the act affects a public
A proper analysis of the issues requires this Court to lay down at the
right. But here, aside from general statements that the petitions involve
outset the basic parameters of the constitutional powers and roles of the
the protection of a public right, and that their constitutional rights as
President and the Senate in respect of the above issues. A more detailed
citizens would be violated, the petitioners failed to make any specific
discussion of these powers and roles will be made in the latter portions.
assertion of a particular public right that would be violated by the
enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to do so, the present petitions
cannot be considered by the Court as citizens’ suits that would justify a
Facts: disregard of the aforementioned requirements.

Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators, questioned Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as “taxpayers”
before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA (Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement), an agreement entered into by the executive No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is neither meant
department with the US and ratified on June 6, 2014. Under the EDCA, to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the disbursement of public funds.
the PH shall provide the US forces the access and use of portions of PH
A taxpayer’s suit concerns a case in which the official act complained of
territory, which are called Agreed Locations. Aside from the right to
directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from
access and to use the Agreed Locations, the US may undertake the
taxation. Here, those challenging the act must specifically show that they
following types of activities within the Agreed Locations: security
have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of public
cooperation exercises; joint and combined training activities;
money, and that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of the
humanitarian and disaster relief activities; and such other activities that
enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle to this case, they
as may be agreed upon by the parties.
must establish that EDCA involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing
Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as medium or spending powers. A reading of the EDCA, however, would show that
of agreement with US violated the constitutional requirement of Art there has been neither an appropriation nor an authorization of
XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves foreign military bases, troops and disbursement.
facilities whose entry into the country should be covered by
Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as “legislator’s suit” No. The EDCA need not be submitted to the Senate for concurrence
because it is in the form of a mere executive agreement, not a treaty.
No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international agreement is an Under the Constitution, the President is empowered to enter into
institutional prerogative granted by the Constitution to the Senate. In a executive agreements on foreign military bases, troops or facilities if (1)
legislator’s suit, the injured party would be the Senate as an institution or such agreement is not the instrument that allows the entry of such and
any of its incumbent members, as it is the Senate’s constitutional function (2) if it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty.
that is allegedly being violated. Here, none of the petitioners, who are
former senators, have the legal standing to maintain the suit. EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it merely involves
“adjustments in detail” in the implementation of the MTD and the VFA.
Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial Review over the These are existing treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. that have
case already been concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have thereby met
the requirements of the Constitution under Art XVIII, Sec 25. Because of
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise matters
the status of these prior agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to
of transcendental importance which justify setting aside the rule on
the Senate.
procedural technicalities. The challenge raised here is rooted in the very
Constitution itself, particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which provides De Castro Dissent
for a stricter mechanism required before any foreign military bases,
troops or facilities may be allowed in the country. Such is of paramount No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct from the VFA
public interest that the Court is behooved to determine whether there and the MDT. Whether the stay of the foreign troops in the country is
was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department. permanent or temporary is immaterial because the Constitution does not
distinguish. The EDCA clearly involves the entry of foreign military
Brion Dissent bases, troops or facilities in the country. Hence, the absence of Senate
concurrence to the agreement makes it an invalid treaty.
Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners satisfied the
requirement of legal standing in asserting that a public right has been
violated through the commission of an act with grave abuse of discretion.
The court may exercise its power of judicial review over the act of the Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011
Executive Department in not submitting the EDCA agreement for Senate
concurrence notbecause of the transcendental importance of the issue, Nuclear-free policy not violated by Baselines Law
but because the petitioners satisfy the requirements in invoking the
court’s expanded jurisdiction. Read more Facts:

Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA agreement for In March 2009, R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress to comply with
concurrence by the Senate violates the Constitution the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on February 27,
1984.Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA 9522
as they contend, among others, that the law decreased the national
territory of the Philippines. Some of their particular arguments are as No. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It is a Statutory Tool
follows: to Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under
UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory. It is a vital step in
1. RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the safeguarding the country’s maritime zones. It also allows an
reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s
Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the maritime zones and continental shelf.
Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties.
2. RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to Additionally, The Court finds that the conversion of internal waters into
maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining archipelagic waters will not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article
Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the 49 of the UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has sovereign power that
country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines, regardless
violation of relevant constitutional provisions. of their depth or distance from the coast. It is further stated that the
regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the status of its
3. RA 9522’s treatmentof the KIG as “regime of islands” not only archipelagic waters or the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air
results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the space, bed and subsoil and the resources therein.
livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
The Court further stressed that the baseline laws are mere mechanisms
Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of certiorari and for the UNCLOS III to precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a
prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522 1 (RA notice to the international family of states and it is in no way affecting or
9522) adjusting the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying the producing any effect like enlargement or diminution of territories.
baseline regime of nearby territories.

Issues:
Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011 concurring
Whether or not RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law is opinion of J. Velasco
unconstitutional.
A statute is a product of hard work and earnest studies of
Discussions: Congress to ensure that no constitutional provision, prescription or
concept is infringed. Withal, before a law, in an appropriate proceeding, is
The provision of Art I 198 Constitution clearly affirms the archipelagic nullified, an unequivocal breach of, or a clear conflict with, the
doctrine, which we connect the outermost points of our archipelago with
Constitution must be demonstrated in such a way as to leave no doubt in
straight baselines and consider all the waters enclosed thereby as
internal waters. RA 9522, as a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s the mind of the Court.[1] In the same token, if a law runs directly afoul of
Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, gave nothing the Constitution, the Courts duty on the matter should be clear and
less than an explicit definition in congruent with the archipelagic simple: Pursuant to its judicial power and as final arbiter of all legal
doctrine. questions,[2] it should strike such law down, however laudable its
purpose/s might be and regardless of the deleterious effect such action
Rulings: may carry in its wake.
 The constitutional provision on national territory, as couched, is
Congress, the Philippines has taken an official position regarding its
broad enough to encompass RA 9522s definition of the archipelagic
baselines. To reiterate, the laying down of baselines is not a mode of baselines to the international community through RA 3046, [25] as amended
acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a state exercises by RA 5446[26] and RA 9522. When the Philippines deposited a copy of RA
sovereignty. They are drawn for the purpose of defining or establishing
9522 with the UN Secretary General, we effectively complied in good
the maritime areas over which a state can exercise sovereign
rights. Baselines are used for fixing starting point from which the faith with our obligation under the 1982 LOSC. A declaration by the Court
territorial belt is measured seawards or from which the adjacent maritime of the constitutionality of the law will complete the bona fides of
waters are measured.
the Philippines vis-a-vis the law of the sea treaty.
As a signatory of the 1982 LOSC, it behooves the Philippines to
honor its obligations thereunder. Pacta sunt servanda, a basic
It may be that baseline provisions of UNCLOS III, if strictly
international law postulate that every treaty in force is binding upon the
implemented, may have an imposing impact on the signatory states
parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. [28] The exacting
jurisdiction and even their sovereignty. But this actuality, without more,
imperative of this principle is such that a state may not invoke provisions
can hardly provide a justifying dimension to nullify the complying RA
in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.
9522. As held by the Court in Bayan Muna v. Romulo,[27] treaties and
international agreements have a limiting effect on the otherwise
encompassing and absolute nature of sovereignty. By their voluntary acts,
states may decide to surrender or waive some aspects of their
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937
sovereignty. The usual underlying consideration in this partial surrender
may be the greater benefits derived from a pact or reciprocal Appropriation for secular purpose, although with incidental
sectarian benefit, not unconstitutional
undertaking. On the premise that the Philippines has adopted the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Facts:
land, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the
Petitioner Aglipay, the head of Phil. Independent Church, filed a writ of
Constitution. prohibition against respondent Ruiz, the Director of Post, enjoining the
Since the 1987 Constitutions definition of national territory does latter from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the
33rd Intl Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic.
not delimit where the Philippines baselines are located, it is up to the
political branches of the government to supply the deficiency. Through
The petitioner invokes that such issuance and selling, as authorized by Alejandro Estrada requested Judge Jose F. Caoibes Jr., presiding judge of
Act 4052 by the Phil. Legislature, contemplates religious purpose – for Branch 253, Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City in his complaint, to
the benefit of a particular sect or church. Hence, this petition. investigate Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter in the said court. Escritor
is living with Luciano Quilapio Jr., who is a man not her husband and has
Issue: borne a son within this live-in arrangement.

Whether or not the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps is Estrada believes that this act constitutes an immoral act and would
tarnish the image of the court as it would appear that the court condones
constitutional?
to such acts. The respondent was charged with committing disgraceful
and immoral conduct under Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, Sec. 46(b)(5) of
Held/Reason:
the Revised Administrative Code.
The Court said YES, the issuing and selling of commemorative stamps by
Escritor testified that she entered into judiciary, one year after her
the respondent does not contemplate any favor upon a particular sect or husband died. She admitted that she was living with Quilapio for twenty
church, but the purpose was only ‘to advertise the Philippines and attract years, when her husband was still alive and was also living with another
more tourist’ and the government just took advantage of an event woman. As a member of the religious sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses
considered of international importance, thus, not violating the and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, respondent contended that
Constitution on its provision on the separation of the Church and State. their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs
and has the approval of her congregation.
Moreover, the Court stressed that ‘Religious freedom, as a constitutional
mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not After living together for ten years, she executed the Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness. The Declaration makes the resulting union moral
denial of its influence in human affairs’. Emphasizing that, ‘when the
and binding within the congregation, and only couples who have been
Filipino people ‘implored the aid of Divine Providence’, they thereby baptized and in good standing may execute such Declaration, which
manifested reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and requires the approval of the elders of the congregation.
nations.
Issue:
The elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as
elsewhere. In fact, certain general concessions are indiscriminately Whether or not Escritor be found guilty of the administrative charge of
accorded to religious sects and denominations.’ disgraceful and immoral conduct.

Ruling:

Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003 (decision) August 4, 2003:

The principle of benevolent neutrality In the decision dated August 4, 2003, it was held that in resolving claims
involving religious freedom, (1) benevolent neutrality or accommodation,
Facts: whether mandatory or permissive is used; and (2) in deciding
respondent’s plea of exemption based on the Free Exercise Clause, the
compelling state interest test must be applied.
However, since the court at that time could not rule definitively on the
ultimate issue, the case was remanded to the Office of the Court
Administrator, and ordered the Office of Solicitor General to intervene in
the case so it can:
a. Examine the sincerity and centrality of respondent’s claimed
religious belief and practice;
b. Present evidence on the state’s “compelling interest” to override
respondent’s religious belief and practice; and
c. Show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is
the least restrictive to the respondent’s religious freedom.

Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006 (resolution)

June 22, 2006:

As a result from the remand on August 4, 2003, it was held that our
Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives
room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free
Exercise Clause.

However, the OSG argued that the respondent should be held

administratively liable as the arrangement was illegal per se because, by
universally recognized standards, it is inherently or by its very nature
bad, improper, immoral and contrary to good conscience. Here, the
Solicitor General failed to appreciate that benevolent neutrality could
allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does
not offend compelling state interests.

Even assuming that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest, it
has to further demonstrate that the state has used the least restrictive
means as to the respondent’s religious freedom. Here, the Solicitor
General failed to prove this element of the test.

Thus, the respondent cannot be held liable for such acts are under the
protection of the Free Exercise Clause; her right to freedom of religion.

The instant administrative complaint is dismissed.