Consti 1 - 1st Batch CD

JEAN JAMAILAH TOMUGDAN 17-1680-73
CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 LIST OF CASES: LAUREL, J.:
I. THE FACTS
A. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner
PHILIPPINES and took his oath of office as member of the National
Assembly of the Commonwealth Government. On December
1. DE LEON VS. ESGUERRA 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed a resolution
SECTION 27, ARTICLE 18, 1987 CONSTITUTION confirming the election of those who have not been subject
(G.R. NO. 78059. AUGUST 31, 1987) of an election protest prior to the adoption of the said
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: resolution.
FACTS: On December 8, 1935, however, private

In the May 17, 1982 Barangay elections, petitioner respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest against the
Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain and the petitioner before the Electoral Commission of the National
other petitioners Angel S. Salamat, et al., as Barangay Assembly. The following day, December 9, 1935, the
Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. Electoral Commission adopted its own resolution providing
On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo M, de that it will not consider any election protest that was not
Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 submitted on or before December 9, 1935.
but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra
on February 8, 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Citing among others the earlier resolution of the
Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, National Assembly, the petitioner sought the dismissal of
Rizal. The designation made by the OIC Governor was "by respondent’s protest. The Electoral Commission however
authority of the Minister of Local Government." denied his motion.
Also on February 8, 1987, Esguerra signed a
Memorandum, antedated December 1, 1986 designating II. THE ISSUE
respondents Remigio M. Tigas, et al., as members of the
Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality. Did the Electoral Commission act without or in
Petitioners maintain that with the ratification of the excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the protest
1987 Constitution, Esguerra no longer has the authority to filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the
replace them and to designate their successors. previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the
However, respondents rely on Section 2, Article III National Assembly?
of the Provisional Constitution, which provided:
III. THE RULING
SECTION 2. All elective and appointive officials
and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in [The Court DENIED the petition.]
office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive
order or upon the designation or appointment and NO, the Electoral Commission did not act
qualification of their successors, if such appointment is made without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking
within a period of one year from February 25, 1986. cognizance of the protest filed against the election of
the petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation
ISSUE: Whether the designation of the respondents to of such election by resolution of the National Assembly.
replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year
period which ended on February 25, 1987. The Electoral Commission acted within the
legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in
HELD: assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the
respondent Ynsua against the election of the petitioner
NO. While February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still Angara, and that the earlier resolution of the National
within the one year deadline under the Provisional Assembly cannot in any manner toll the time for filing
Constitution, the same must be deemed to have been election protests against members of the National Assembly,
overtaken by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the
Constitution reading: rules of the Electoral Commission might prescribe.
“This Constitution shall take effect immediately The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to
upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is
previous Constitutions.” intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had
remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite that power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial
on February 2, 1987. By that date, the Provisional of the exercise of that power by the National Assembly. xxx.
Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.
Having become inoperative, Section 2, Article III of the [T]he creation of the Electoral Commission carried
Provisional Constitution could not be relied on by the with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to
respondent OIC Governor. The memorandum dated limit the time with which protests intrusted to its cognizance
February 8, 1987 by should be filed. [W]here a general power is conferred or duty
the respondent OIC Governor could no longer have any enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise
legal force and effect. of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred.
In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating
The act of ratification is the act of voting by the to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the
people. The canvass of the votes thereafter is merely the Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power to
mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of
of the plebiscite, and the proclamation of the President is its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the
merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which election, returns and qualifications of members of the
was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary
Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral
plebiscite. Commission.
B. THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE
1. BACANI V. NACOCO
2. ANGARA V. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, G.R. [GRN L-9657 NOVEMBER 29, 1956]
No. L-45081, July 15, 1936 BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
DECISION FACTS:
(En Banc)
COLLEGE OF LAW
The plaintiffs are court stenographers assigned in 2. PVTA VS.CIR

Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the
[GRN L-32052 JULY 25, 1975]
pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled
Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant
FACTS:
Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for defendant,
Private respondents filed with the CIR a petition,
requested said stenographers for copies, of the transcript of
allegingtheir employment relationship, the overtime services
the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing.
in excess of the regular eight hours a day rendered by them,
Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel
and the failure to pay them overtime compensation in
Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and
accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444. Their prayer
thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their
was for the differential between the amount actually paid to
fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of
them and the amount allegedly due them. Petitioner
P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration denied the
for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page.
allegations. The then Presiding Judge Arsenio T. Martinez of
Upon inspecting the books of this corporation, the
respondent Court sustained the claims of private
Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and
respondents for overtime services from December 23, 1963
sought the recovery of the amounts paid. The respondents
up to the date the decision was rendered on March 21, 1970,
argue that National Coconut Corporation may be considered
and directing petitioner to pay the same, minus what it had
as included in the term "Government of the Republic of the
already paid. Petitioner claims that the matter is beyond the
Philippines" for the purposes of the exemption of the legal
jurisdiction of the CIR as it is exercising governmental
fees provided for in Rule 1-30 of the Rules of Court.
functions and that it is exempt from the operation of C.A.
444, invoking the doctrine announced in the leading
ISSUE: Whether or not NACOCO is a part of the
Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration
Government of the Philippines by virtue of its performance of
decision, and the distinction between constituent and
government functions.
ministrant functions of governments as set forth in Bacani v.
National Coconut Corporation.
HELD:
No, NACOCO does not acquire that status for the
ISSUE: Whether or not the traditional classification of
simple reason that it does not come under the classification
function of government as ministrant and constituent
of municipal or public corporation. To resolve the issue in
applicable in the case at bar.
this case requires a little digression on the nature and
functions of our government as instituted in our Constitution.
HELD:
To begin with, we state that the term "Government" may be
No. The irrelevance of such a distinction
defined as "that institution or aggregate of institutions by
considering the needs of the times was clearly pointed out
which an independent society makes and carries out those
by the present Chief Justice. Under this traditional
rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in
classification, such constituent functions are exercised by
a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming
the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to
that society by those who possess the power or authority of
promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people -
prescribing them" (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil., 332). This
these latter functions being ministrant, the exercise of which
institution, when referring to the national government, has
is optional on the part of the government."
reference to what our Constitution has established
Nonetheless, as he explained so persuasively:
composed of three great departments, the legislative,
"The growing complexities of modern society, however, have
executive, and the judicial, through which the powers and
rendered this traditional classification of the functions of
functions of government are exercised. These functions are
government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas
twofold: constitute and ministrant. The former are those
which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and
which constitute the very bonds of society and are
which the government was called upon to enter optionally,
compulsory in nature; the latter are those that are
and only 'because it was better equipped to administer for
undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of
the public welfare than is any private individual or group of
society, and are merely optional.
individuals,' continue to lose their well-defined boundaries
To this latter class belongs the organization of
and to be absorbed within activities that the government
those corporations owned or controlled by the government to
must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the
promote certain aspects of the economic life of our people
increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost
such as the National Coconut Corporation. These are what
everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a
we call government-owned or controlled corporations which
greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course this
may take on the form of a private enterprise or one
development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national
organized with powers and formal characteristics of a private
policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle
corporation under the Corporation Law.
concerning the promotion of social justice."
But while NACOCO was organized for the
Thus was laid to rest the doctrine in Bacani v.
ministrant function of promoting the coconut industry,
National Coconut Corporation, based on the Wilsonian
however, it was given a corporate power separate and
classification of the tasks incumbent on government into
distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the
constituent and ministrant in accordance with the laissez
provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate
faire principle.
existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned
WHEREFORE, the appealed Order of March 21,
(sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518).
1970 and the Resolution of respondent Court, denying a
“Government of the Republic of the Philippines"
motion for reconsideration are hereby affirmed.
used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers
only to that government. entity through which the functions of
the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty,
and in this are included those arms through which political
authority is made effective whether they be provincial,
municipal or other form of local government. These are what
we call municipal corporations. They do not include
government entities which are given a corporate personality.
separate and distinct from the government and 'which are
governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, duties and
liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and of
their corporate charters.
As this Court has aptly said, "The mere fact that 3. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS V.
the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does MONTE DE PIEDAD
not make it a public corporation" (National Coal Co. vs. (G.R. NO. L-9959, DECEMBER 13, 1916)
Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil., 586-597). "By TRENT, J.:
becoming a stockholder in the National Coal Company, the
Government divested itself of its sovereign character so far FACTS:
as respects the transactions of the corporation. Unlike the About $400,000, were subscribed and paid into
Government, the corporation may be sued without its the treasury of the Philippine Islands by the inhabitants of
consent, and is subject to taxation. Yet the National Coal the Spanish Dominions of the relief of those damaged by the
Company remains an agency or instrumentality of earthquake which took place in the Philippine Islands on
government." (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. June 3, 1863. Subsequent thereto a central relief board was
Springer, 50 Phil., 288.) appointed to distribute the moneys thus voluntarily
contributed and allotted $365,703.50 to the various sufferers
named in its resolution. By order of the Governor-General of
the Philippine Islands, a list of these allotments, together
with the names of those entitled thereto, was published in
COLLEGE OF LAW
the Official Gazette of Manila. These were later distributed Government to maintain the action rests on the fact that the
up to the sum of $30,299.65, leaving a balance of money, being given to a charity became a public property,
$365,403.85. only applicable to the specific purposes to which it was
Upon the petition of the governing body of the intended to be devoted. It is but within those limits
Monte de Piedad, the Philippine Government, by order, consecrated to the public use, and became part of the public
directed its treasurer to turn over to the former the sum of resources for promoting the happiness and welfare of the
$80,000 of the relief fund in installments of $20,000 each Philippine Government. To deny the
and were received on the following dates: February 15, Government's right to maintain this action would be contrary
March 12, April 14, and June 2, 1883, and are still in the to sound public policy.
possession of the Monte de Piedad. On account of various The Supreme Court of the United States in Sohier
petitions of the persons, and heirs of others to whom the vs. Mass. General Hospital, ruled that: “insane persons and
above-mentioned allotments were made, the Philippine person not known, or not in being, apply to the beneficiaries
Islands filed a suit against the Monte de Piedad a recover, of charities, who are often in capable of vindicating their
"through the Attorney-General and in representation of the rights, and justly look for protection to the sovereign
Government of the Philippine Islands," the $80.000, together authority, acting as parens patriae. They show that this
with interest. After due trial, judgment was entered in favor of beneficient functions has not ceased to exist under the
the plaintiff. Defendant appealed and made the following change of government from a monarchy to a republic; but
contentions: that it now resides in the legislative department, ready to be
that the $80,000, given to the Monte de called into exercise whenever required for the purposes of
Piedad y Caja de Ahorros, were so given as a justice and right, and is a clearly capable of being exercised
donation, and that said donation had been in cases of charities as in any other cases whatever.”
cleared; Chancelor Kent says: In this country, the legislature or
that the Government of the Philippine government of the State, as parens patriae, has the right to
Islands has not subrogated the Spanish enforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its general
Government in its rights, as regards an important superintending authority over the public interests, where no
sum of money abovementioned; other person is entrusted with it. (4 Kent Com., 508, note.)
that the only persons who could claim to
be damaged by this payment to the Monte, if it 4.No. In 25 Cyc., 1006, the rule, supported by
was unlawful, are the donors or the cestuis que numerous authorities, is stated as follows:
trustent, thus, the plaintiff is not the proper party to In the absence of express statutory provision to the contrary,
bring the action; statute of limitations do not as a general rule run against the
that the court erred in holding in its sovereign or government, whether state or federal. But the
decision that there is no title for the prescription of rule is otherwise where the mischief to be remedied are of
this suit brought by the Insular Government such a nature that the state must necessarily be included,
against the defendant appellant. where the state goes into business in concert or in
competition with her citizens, or where a party seeks to
ISSUES: enforces his private rights by suit in the name of the state or
1. Whether or not the $80,000 received by Monte de Piedad government, so that the latter is only a nominal party.
was in form of donation. In the instant case the Philippine Government is
2. Whether or not the obligation on the part of the Monte de not a mere nominal party because it, in bringing and
Piedad to return the $80,000 to the Government, even prosecuting this action, is exercising its sovereign functions
considering it a loan, was wiped out on the change of or powers and is seeking to carry out a trust developed upon
sovereignty. it when the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United
3. Whether or not the Government is a proper party to the States.
case under the doctrine of parens patriae. For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed
4. Whether or not the Philippine Government is bound by the from is affirmed.
statute of limitations.
HELD:
4. CO KIM CHAN V. VALDEZ TAN KEH
1.No.Documentary evidence shows that Monte de 75 PHIL 113, SEPTEMBER 17, 1945
Piedad, after setting forth in its petition to the Governor- FERIA, J:
General its financial condition and its absolute necessity for
more working capital, asked that out of the sum of FACTS:
$100,000 held in the Treasury of the Philippine Islands, there Petitioner filed a motion for mandamus praying
be transferred to it the sum of $80,000. The Monte de that the respondent judge be ordered to continue the
Piedad agreed that if the transfer of these funds should not proceedings in civil case no.
be approved by the Government of Spain, the same would 3012 which was initiated under the regime of the so-called
be returned forthwith. It did not ask that the $80,000 be given Republic of the
to it as a donation. Philippines established during the Japanese military
The Department of Finance, acting under the occupation of the islands.
orders of the Governor-General, understood that the The respondent judge refused to take cognizance
$80,000 was transferred to the Monte de Piedad well knew of and continue the proceedings on the following grounds:
that it received this sum as a loan interest." Furthermore, the (1) the proclamation issued on October 23, 1944 by Gen.
Monte de Piedad recognized and considered as late as Mac Arthur had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all
March 31, 1902, that it received the $80,000 "as a returnable judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the
loan, and without interest." Thus, there cannot be the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and
slightest doubt the fact that the Monte de Piedad received the Republic established during the Japanese occupation;(2)
the $80,000 as a mere loan or deposit and not as a the lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of
donation. and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of
the defunct Republic in the absence of enabling law granting
2.No. Court ruled that if legal provisions are in such authority; (3) the government established in the
conflict with the political character, constitution or institutions Philippines during the Japanese occupation was not a de
of the new sovereign, they became inoperative or lost their facto government.
force upon the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United
States, but if they are among "that great body of municipal ISSUES:
law which regulates private and domestic rights," they 1. Whether the government established during the
continued in force and are still in force unless they have Japanese occupation was a de facto government.
been repealed by the present Government. 2. Whether the judicial acts and proceedings of the
From the nature and class of the subject matter, it courts existing in the Philippines under the Phil. Executive
is clear that it falls within the latter class. They are laws Commission and the Republic of the Philippines were good
which are not political in any sense of the word. They and valid and remained so even after the liberation or
conferred upon the Spanish Government the right and duty reoccupation of the Philippines by the US and Filipino forces.
to supervise, regulate, and to some extent control charities 3. Whether the proclamation issued by Gen. Mac
and charitable institutions. The present sovereign, in Arthur declaring “all laws, regulations and processes of any
exempting "provident institutions, savings banks, etc.," all of other government in the Philippines than that of the
which are in the nature of charitable institutions, from Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in
taxation, placed such institutions, in so far as the investment areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and
in securities are concerned, under the general supervision of control” has invalidated al judgments and judicial acts and
the Insular Treasurer. proceedings of the said courts.
4. Whether the courts of Commonwealth, which were
3.Yes.The ground upon which the right of the the same courts existing prior to and continue during the
COLLEGE OF LAW
Japanese military occupation of the Philippines may naval base leased to the American Armed Forces; she
continue those proceedings in contended that the municipal government cannot exercise
said courts at the time the Philippines were reoccupied and therein administrative jurisdiction.
liberated by the US and Filipino forces and the
Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished. ISSUES:
1. Whether municipal ordinance is valid?
HELD: 2. Whether the municipal corporation retains its
1. YES. The government established under the administrative jurisdiction over the area where Gozo’s house
names of Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of was located?
the Philippines during the Japanese occupation was a civil
government and a de facto government of the second kind: HELD:
that which is established and maintained by military forces 1. YES, the municipal ordinance is valid. The
who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the authority to require building permits is predicated upon the
course of war. The distinguishing characteristics of this kind general welfare clause. Its scope is wide, well-nigh all
of de facto government are; (1) that its existence is embracing, covering every aspect of public health, public
maintained by active military power within the territories, and morals, public safety, and the well being and good order of
against the rightful authority of an established and lawful the community.
government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily
be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of 2. YES, the municipal corporation retains its
obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not administrative jurisdiction over the said area. By the
become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though agreement, the Philippine Government merely consents that
not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. This
consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy or
2. YES. Being a de facto government, it necessarily expediency. The Philippine Government has not abdicated
follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine
justice of those governments, which are not of a political territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over
complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty,
known principle of postliminy in international law, remained the United States
good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive
Philippines by the American and Filipino forces. jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine jurisdiction
retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also
3. NO. The phrase “processes of any other such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for
government” is broad and may refer not only to judicial reasons of their own decline to make use of.
processes, but also to administrative or legislative, as well as Moreover, the concept of sovereignty as auto-
constitutional processes of the limitation,is the property of a state-force due to which it has
Republic of the Philippines or other governmental agencies the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-
established in the Islands during the Japanese occupation. restriction. x x x A state is not precluded from allowing
Taking into consideration the fact that, according to the well- another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional
known principles of international law, all judgments and right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no
judicial proceedings, which are not of a political complexion, means follows that such areas become impressed with an
of the de facto government during the Japanese occupation alien character. They retain their status as native soil. They
were good and valid before and remained so after the are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be
occupied territory had come again into the power of the dimished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases
titular sovereign, it should be presumed that it was not, and under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the
could not have been, the intention of the Gen. Mac Arthur, in military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot
using the phrase “processes of any government” to refer to be foreign territory
judicial processes, in violation of said principles of
international law. The only reasonable construction of the
said phrase is that it refers to governmental processes other
than judicial processes, or court proceedings, for according
to a well-known statutory construction, statute ought never to
be construed to violate the law of nations if any other
possible construction remains.
4. YES. Although in theory, the authority of the local

civil and judicial administration is suspended as a matter of
course as soon as military occupation takes place, in
practice, the invader does not usually take the administration
of justice into his own hands, but continues the ordinary
courts or tribunals to administer the laws of the country to
which he is enjoined, unless absolutely prevented. If the
proceedings pending in the different courts of the Islands
prior to the Japanese military occupation had been
continued during the Japanese military administration, the 6. LAUREL V. MISA
Philippine Executive Commission and the so-called Republic 77 PHIL 856, JANUARY 30, 1947
of the Philippines, it stands to reason the same courts, which PER CURIAM:
become reestablished and conceived of as having been in
continued existence upon the reoccupation and liberation of FACTS:
the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminy, may Sometime in May 1945, Anastacio Laurel, herein petitioner,
continue the proceedings in cases then pending in said a Filipino citizen, was arrested by the US Army and was
courts, without necessity of enacting laws conferring interned, under a commitment order “for his active
jurisdiction upon them to continue said proceedings. collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese
occupation”. He was charged with treason as defined and
penalized by Art. 114 of the Penal Code. But in September
5. PEOPLE V. GOZO 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth government
53 SCRA 476, OCTOBER 26, 1973 and since then he has been under the custody of the
FERNANDO, J: Director of Prisons.
Petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus
FACTS: mainly asserting that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime
Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside of treason for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the
the US Naval Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently,
Olangapo City. She demolished the house and built another the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then
one in its place without securing a building permit from the suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty
City Mayor of Olangapo City. The City Court of Olangapo over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine
found her guilty of violating a municipal ordinance that Republic.
requires permit from the municipal mayor for construction of
building as well as any modification, repairs or demolition ISSUES:
thereof. 1. Whether the sovereignty of the legitimate
On appeal with the Court of Appeals, Gozo put in government in the Philippines and, consequently, the
issue the validity of such ordinance by invoking due process. correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens were suspended
She likewise questioned the applicability of the ordinance to during the Japanese occupation.
her in view of the location of her dwelling within the 2. Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the
COLLEGE OF LAW
crime of treason by giving aid and support to the enemy By the occupation of the Philippines by Japanese forces, the
during the Japanese occupation. officers and men of the Philippine army did not cease to be
fully in the service, though, in a measure, only in measure,
HELD: they were not subject to the military jurisdiction, if they were
1. NO. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the not in active duty. In the latter case, like officers and soldiers
inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their on leave of absence or held as prisoners of war, they could
legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or not be held guilty of breach of the discipline of the command
severed by the enemy’s occupation, because the or of a neglect of duty x x x; but for an act unbecoming of a
sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not gentleman or an act which constitutes an offense of the
transferred thereby to the occupier and if its is not class specified in the 95th Article of War, they may in
transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain general be legally held subject to military jurisdiction and
vested in the legitimate government; that the sovereignty trial.
vested in the titular government must be distinguished from Moreover, petitioners, by their acceptance of
the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be appointments as officers in the Bolo Area from the General
destroyed, or severed and transferred to another, but it Headquarters of the 6th Military District, they became
cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty members of the Philippine Army amenable to the Articles of
cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or War. x x x As officers in the Bolo Area and the 6th Military
divesting the possessor thereof at least during the so-called District, the petitioners operated under the orders of a duly
period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the established and duly appointed commanders of the United
exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and States Army and thus covered by Article 2 of the Articles of
government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes War which provides for persons subject to military law.
temporarily to the occupant; x x x and that as a corollary of
the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended 2. YES, 93(d) of the Articles of War was
and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of constitutional. It does not violate Article VII, section 2 of the
the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign Constitution which provides that “the National Assembly may
subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended not deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction over
allegiance. all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment”. Court Martial are agencies of executive
2. YES. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was character, and one of the authorities “for ordering of courts
applicable to treason committed against the national security martial has been held to be attached to the constitutional
of the legitimate government because the inhabitants of the functions of the President as Commander in Chief,
occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to the independently of legislation”. Unlike courts of law, they are
latter during the enemy’s occupation. not a portion of the judiciary. x x x court martial are in fact
Just as a citizen or subject of a government or simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by
sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason Congress for the President as Commander in
committed in a foreign country, in the same way a inhabitant Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy
of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized under his orders
may commit treason against his own legitimate or sovereign or those of his authorized military representatives.
if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid
and comfort.
I. PEOPLE
7. RUFFY VS. CHIEF OF STAFF 1. Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Comm. On
75 PHIL 875, AUGUST 20, 1946 Immigration
TUASON, J:
FACTS:
FACTS: This is a case filed to enjoin the Commissioner of
During the Japanese occupation, herein petitioner, Immigration from causing the arrest and deportation of the
Ramon Ruffy, a Provincial Commander of the Philippine petitioner herein - Lau Yuen Yueng.
Constabulary, retreated in the mountains instead of
surrendering to the enemy. He organized and led a guerrilla Petitioner herein applied for a passport visa to enter the
outfit known as Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area. The said Philippines as a non-immigrant. She is a Chinese residing in
Bolo Area was a contingent of the 6th Military District, which Kowloon, Hong Kong and that she desired to take a pleasure
has been recognized and placed under the operational trip to the Philippines and to visit her great grand uncle for a
control of the US Army in the South Pacific. period of one month.
Sometime later, Col. Jurado effected a change of
command in the Bolo Area. Major Ruffy who was then acting When she arrived in the Philippines, Asher Y Cheng filed a
as Commanding Officer for the Bolo Area was relieved of his bond in the amount of PHP1, 000 to undertake among
position. Later on or on October 19, 1944, Lieut. Col Jurado others that Lau Yuen Yueng would actually depart from the
was slain allegedly by the petitioners. It was this murder Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized
which gave rise to petitioner’s trial. period of stay in this country or within the period as in his
The trial court convicted petitioner and he now discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized
filed this instant petition with the contention that he was not representative might properly allow.
subject to military law at the time the offense for which he
had been placed on trial was committed. Petitioners After repeated extensions, petitioner was allowed to stay
contended that by the enemy occupation of the Philippines, until Feb. 13, 1962. But on January 25, 1962, she contracted
the National Defense Act and all laws and regulations marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim
creating and governing the existence of the Philippine Army an alleged Filipino Citizen.
including the Articles of War, were suspended and in
abeyance during such belligerent occupation. He also Because of the contemplated action of the respondent to
assailed the constitutionality of 93d Article of War which confiscate her bond and order her arrest deportation, after
provides that “any person subject to military law who the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought this action
commits murder in the time of war should suffer death or for injunction with preliminary injunction.
imprisonment for life, as the court martial may direct.”
Petitioner argued that the said law was in violation of Article During the hearing, it was admitted that Lao Yuen Yueng
VII, section 2 of the Constitution since 93d of Article of War could not write either English or Tagalog. Except a few
fails to allow a review by the Supreme Court of judgments of words she could not speak either English or Tagalog. She
courts martial imposing death or life imprisonment. could not even name any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino
name except one, Rosa.
ISSUES:
1. Whether petitioner was subject to military law at ISSUE:
the time the alleged offense was committed. Whether or not marriage by Lao Yuen Yueng made her ipso
2. Whether 93d of Articles of War was constitutional. facto a citizen of the Philippines.
HELD: HELD:
1. YES, petitioner was subject to military law at the Pertinent part of Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No 473,
time the alleged offense was committed. The rule that laws upon which petitioners rely, reads.
of political nature or affecting political relations are
considered superseded or in abeyance during the military Any woman who is not or may hereafter be married to a
occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully
inhabitants of the occupied territory. It is not intended for and naturalised shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.
does not bind the enemies in arms.
COLLEGE OF LAW
Citing several cases decided by the Supreme Court, the Hence, petitioners files action for the writs of
phrase, "who might herself be lawfully naturalised," refer to a certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of
class or race who might be lawfully naturalized, and that Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the country’s
compliance with the other conditions of the naturalization archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of
laws was not required. nearby territories.
Being the criterion of whether or not an alien wife "may be

lawfully naturalised," what should be required is not only that
Issues:
she must not be disqualified under Section 4 but she must
Whether or not RA 9522, the amendatory Philippine
also possess the qualifications enumerated in Section 2,
Baseline Law is unconstitutional.
such as those of age, residence, good moral character,
adherence to the underlying principles of the Philippine
Discussions:
Constitution, irreproachable conduct, lucrative employment
or ownership of real estate, capacity to speak and write
The provision of Art I 198 Constitution clearly
English or Spanish and one of the principal local languages,
affirms the archipelagic doctrine, which we connect the
education of children in certain schools, etc.
outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines
and consider all the waters enclosed thereby as internal
In Philippine jurisprudence it was held that an alien wife is
waters. RA 9522, as a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the
required to prove only that she may herself be lawfully
Country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under
naturalized, that she is not one of the disqualified persons
UNCLOS III, gave nothing less than an explicit definition in
enumerated in the Section 4 of the law, on order to establish
congruent with the archipelagic doctrine.
her citizenship status as a fact.
Rulings:
Section 15 of the Naturalization law (Commonwealth Act
473), an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or
No. The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional. It is a
naturalised, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is
Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Country’s Maritime Zones
not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under
and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate
Section 4 of the same law. likewise, an alien woman married
Philippine Territory. It is a vital step in safeguarding the
to an alien who i subsequently naturalised here follows the
country’s maritime zones. It also allows an internationally-
Philippines citizenship of her husband the moment he takes
recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippine’s
his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer
maritime zones and continental shelf.
from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4.
Additionally, The Court finds that the conversion of
Seciton 4 reads:
internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk the
1. Person opposed to organised government or affiliate with
Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the UNCLOS III,
any associations or group of persons who uphold and teach
an archipelagic State has sovereign power that extends to
doctrines opposing all organised governments.
the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,
2. Persons defending or teaching the necessityof propriety of
regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. It is
violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success
further stated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes
and predominance of their ideas.
passage will not affect the status of its archipelagic waters or
3. Polygamists, or believers in the practice of polygamy.
the exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space, bed
4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.
and subsoil and the resources therein.
5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases.
The Court further stressed that the baseline laws are
6. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the
mere mechanisms for the UNCLOS III to precisely describe
Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or
the delimitations. It serves as a notice to the international
who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
family of states and it is in no way affecting or producing any
the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos.
effect like enlargement or diminution of territories.
7. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines
are at war, during the period of such war.
8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than United III. GOVERNMENT
States, whose laws does not grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
1. Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh
II. TERRITORY 2. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER
1. RA 3046 PHILIPPINES AND/OR OLIVER A. LOZANO
2. RA 5446 VS. PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINO, ET
3. PD 1599 AL.
G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986
4. RA 9522 – New Phils.
Baseline Law
FACTS:
5. MAGALONA VS ERMITA On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino

G.R. No. 187167 16Aug2011 issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice
President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986,
proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the
Facts: Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the
"new government was installed through a direct exercise of
In March 2009, R.A. 9522 was enacted by the the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New
Congress to comply with the terms of the United Nations Armed Forces of the Philippines."
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 ISSUE:
law decreased the national territory of the Philippines. Some Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino
of their particular arguments are as follows: is legitimate.
RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and
logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power,
in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying
the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties. HELD:
RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is
the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics
aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national where only the people are the judge. The Court further held
security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and that the people have accepted the Aquino government which
damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a
constitutional provisions. de facto government but in fact and law a de jure
RA 9522’s treatmentof the KIG as “regime of government. The community of nations has recognized the
islands” not only results in the loss of a large maritime area legitimacy of the new government.
but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
COLLEGE OF LAW
3. VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN 2. RAMON RUFFY, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE

(39 PHIL 778) CHIEF OF STAFF, PHILIPPINE ARMY, ET
AL., respondents.
FACTS:
G.R. No. L-533 August 20, 1946
Respondent Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of
Manila, for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vise,
ordered the segregated district for women of ill repute, which
Nature of the Action: Petition for prohibition, praying that
had been permitted for a number of years in the City of
respondents be commanded to desist from further
Manila, closed. The women were kept confined to their
proceedings in the trial of petitioners before the military court
houses in the district by the police. At about midnight of
October 25, the police, acting pursuant to the orders from
the chief of the police and Justo Lukban, descended upon Facts: During the Japanese insurrection in the Philippines,
the houses, hustled some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, military men were assigned at designated camps or military
and placed them aboard the steamers “Corregidor” and bases all over the country. When the Japanese forces
“Negros”. They had no knowledge that they were destined reached Mindoro, Ruffy and his band were forced to retreat
for a life in to the mountains. A guerilla outfit was then organized, called
Mindanao. The two steamers with their unwilling passengers as the “Bolo Area”. However, a certain Capt. Esteban
sailed for Davao during the night of October 25, 1918. Beloncio relieved petitioners of their positions and duties in
the “Bolo Area”, after Lieut. Col. Enrique Jurado effected a
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the Mayor of the City of change of command. The latter, however, was slain
Manila is constitutional. allegedly by petitioners, and it was this murder which gave
rise to petitioners’ trial, the legality of which is now being
HELD: contested.
The Supreme Court condemned the mayor’s act.
Respondent’s intention to suppress the social evil was
commutable. But his methods were unlawful. Issue: Were the petitioners subject to the military law at the
Alien prostitutes can be expelled from the time of war and Japanese occupation?
Philippines in conformity with an act of Congress. The
Governor-General can order the eviction of undesirable
aliens after a hearing from the Islands. One can search in Ruling: Our conclusion, therefore, is that the petition has no
vain for any law, order, or regulation, which even hints at the merit and that it should be dismissed with costs.
right of the Mayor of the City of Manila or the Chief of Police
of that City to force citizens of the Philippine Islands, and
these women despite their being in a sense, lepers of Ratio Decidendi: Yes, the petitioners were subject to
society are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens military law. By their acceptance of appointments as officers
protected by the same constitutional guarantees as other in the Bolo Area, they became members of the Philippine
citizens. Army—the Bolo Area being a contingent of the 6th military
Law defines power. The law is the only supreme district which is recognized by the United States army. Thus,
power in our system of government, and every man who by petitioners are covered by the National Defense Act, Articles
accepting office participates in its functions is only the more of War, and other pertinent laws during an occupation.
strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe
the limitations which gives itself and imposes upon the
exercise of the authority which it gives.
The fundamental rights of life, liberty and the
3. William C. Reagan, Petitioner vs.
pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, Commission of Internal Revenue
are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are
the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race Facts:
in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the The petitioner is a citizen of the United State and
reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language an employee of Bendix Radio, Divison of Bendix Aviation
of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the Corporation, which provided technical assistance to the
commonwealth may be “government of laws and not of United States Air Force was assigned at the Clark Air Base
men”. Pampanga, honor about July 7, 19. Nine months, before his
tour duty expires, petitioner imported a tax free 1960
Cadillac car which valued at $6443.83. More than two
IV. SOVEREIGNTY months after the car was imported, petitioner requested the
Clark Air Base Commander for a permit to sell the car. The
request was granted with the condition that he would sell it to
1. WILLIAM F. PERALTA v. THE DIRECTOR a member of the United States Armed Forces or an
OF PRISONS employee of the U.S. Military Bases.
75 Phil 285 | November 12, 1945 On July 11, 1960, petitioner sold the car to Willie
Ponente: Feria, J. Johnson for $6600, a private in US Marine Corps, Sangby
Point, Cavite as shown by a bill of sale executed at Clark Air
FACTS: Base. On the same date William Johnson Jr. sold the car to
William Peralta was prosecuted for the crime of robbery and Fred Meneses for P32,000 as evidence by a deed of sale
was sentenced to life imprisonment as defined and executed in Manila.
penalized by Act No. 65 of the National Assembly of the The respondent after deducting the landed cost of
Republic of the Philippines. The petition for habeas corpus is the car and the personal exemption which the petitioner was
based on the contention that the Court of Special and entitled, fixed as his net income arising from such
Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. 7 transaction the amount of P17912.34 rendering him liable for
was a political instrumentality of the military forces of Japan income tax of P2979.00. After paying the sum, he sought
and which is repugnant to the aims of the Commonwealth of refund from the respondent claiming that he is exempted. He
the Philippines for it does not afford fair trial and impairs the filed a case within the Court of Tax Appeals seeking
constitutional rights of the accused. recovery of the sum P2979.00 plus legal rate of interest.
ISSUE:
Whether the creation of court by Ordinance No. 7 is Issue:
constitutional.
Whether or not the said income tax of P2979.00 was legally
HELD: collected by respondent from petitioner.
Yes, it is constitutional. There is no room for doubt to the
validity of Ordinance No. 7 since the criminal jurisdiction Ruling:
established by the invader is drawn entirely from the law The Philippine is an independent and sovereign
martial as defined in the usages of nations. It is merely a country or state. Its authority may be exercised over its
governmental agency. The sentence rendered, likewise, is entire domain. Its laws govern therein and everyone to
good and valid since it was within the power and whom it applies must submit to its term. It does not prelude
competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate Act from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of
No. 65. All judgments of political complexion of the courts jurisdictional rights over certain portions of its territory. Such
during Japanese regime ceased to be valid upon areas sustain their status as native soil and still subject to its
reoccupation of the Islands, as such, the sentence which authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished but it does not
convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political complexion disappear.
must be considered as having ceased to be valid.
The Clark Air Base is one of he bases under lease
to the American armed forces by virtue of the Military Bases
COLLEGE OF LAW
Agreement which states that a “national of the US serving or Whether there is a violation of the people’s right to
employed in the Philippines in connection with the information on matters of public concern (1987 Constitution,
construction, maintenance, operation, or defense of the Article III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all
bases and residing in the Philippines only by reason such its transactions involving public interest (1987
unemployment is not to be taxed on his income unless Constitution, Article II, Sec. 28) including public consultation
derived in the bases which one clearly derived the Phil. under Republic Act No. 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Therefore the Supreme Court sustained the CODE OF 1991?
decision of the Court of Tax Appeals rendering the petitioner
liable of the income tax arising from the sale of his HELD: YES. The right of the people to information on
automobile that have taken place in Clark Air Field which is matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
within our territory to tax. official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
4. PROVINCE OF NORTH COTOBATO VS. limitations as may be provided by law.
As early as 1948, in Subido v. Ozaeta, the Court
GRP PEACE PANEL has recognized the statutory right to examine and inspect
GR No. 183591, October 14, 2008
public records, a right which was eventually accorded
constitutional status. The right of access to public
FACTS:
documents, as enshrined in both the 1973 Constitution and
When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
the 1987 Constitution, has been recognized as a self-
assumed office, the military offensive against the MILF was
executory constitutional right.
suspended and the government sought a resumption of the
In the 1976 case of Baldoza v. Hon. Judge
peace talks. The MILF, according to a leading MILF
Dimaano,the Court ruled that access to public records is
member, initially responded with deep reservation, but when
predicated on the right of the people to acquire information
President Arroyo asked the Government of Malaysia through
on matters of public concern since, undoubtedly, in a
Prime
democracy, the pubic has a legitimate interest in matters of
Minister Mahathir Mohammad to help convince the MILF to
social and political significance. The incorporation of this
return to the negotiating table, the MILF convened its Central
right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental
Committee to seriously
role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There
discuss the matter and, eventually, decided to meet with the
can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation’s
GRP.
problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision-making if
The parties met in Kuala Lumpur on March 24,
they are denied access to information of general interest.
2001, with the talk being facilitated by the Malaysian
Information is needed to enable the members of society to
government, the parties signing on the same date the
cope with the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly
Agreement on the General Framework for the Resumption of
observed: “Maintaining the flow of such information depends
Peace Talks Between the GRP and the MILF. The MILF
on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination
thereafter suspended all its military actions.
since, if either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably
Formal peace talks between the parties were held
ceases.”
in Tripoli, Libya from June 20-22, 2001, the outcome of
In the same way that free discussion enables
which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli
members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time,
Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) containing
access to information of general interest aids the people in
the basic principles and agenda on the following aspects of
democratic decision-making by giving them a better
the negotiation: Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and
perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation, so that
Ancestral Domain Aspect. With regard to the Ancestral
they may be able to criticize and participate in the affairs of
Domain Aspect, the parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001 simply
the government in a responsible, reasonable and effective
agreed “that the same be discussed further by the Parties in
manner. It is by ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited
their next meeting.”
exchange of ideas among a well-informed public that a
A second round of peace talks was held in
government remains responsive to the changes desired by
Cyberjaya, Malaysia on August 5-7, 2001 which ended with
the people.
the signing of the Implementing Guidelines on the Security
The MOA-AD is a matter of public concern
Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement 2001 leading to a ceasefire
status between the parties. This was followed by the
That the subject of the information sought in
Implementing Guidelines on the Humanitarian Rehabilitation
the present cases is a matter of public concern faces no
and Development Aspects of the Tripoli Agreement 2001,
serious challenge. In fact, respondents admit that the
which was signed on
MOA-AD is indeed of public concern. In previous cases,
May 7, 2002 at Putrajaya, Malaysia. Nonetheless, there
the Court found that the regularity of real estate
were many incidence of violence between government
transactions entered in the Register of Deeds, the need
forces and the MILF from 2002 to 2003. Meanwhile, then
for adequate notice to the public of the various laws, the
MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away on July 13,
civil service eligibility of a public employee, the proper
2003 and he was replaced by Al Haj Murad, who was then
management of GSIS funds allegedly used to grant
the chief peace negotiator of the MILF. Murad’s position as
loans to public officials, the recovery of the Marcoses’
chief peace negotiator was taken over by Mohagher Iqbal.
alleged ill-gotten wealth,[120] and the identity of party-
In 2005, several exploratory talks were held
list nominees, among others, are matters of public
between the parties in Kuala Lumpur, eventually leading to
concern. Undoubtedly, the MOA-AD subject of the
the crafting of the draft MOA-AD in its final form, which, as
present cases is of public concern, involving as it does
mentioned, was set to be signed last August 5, 2008. Before
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State,
the Court is what is perhaps the most contentious
which directly affects the lives of the public at large.
“consensus” ever embodied in an instrument – the MOA-AD
which is assailed
Matters of public concern covered by the right
principally by the present petitions bearing docket numbers
to information include steps and negotiations leading to
183591, 183752, 183893, 183951 and 183962. Commonly
the consummation of the contract. In not distinguishing as
impleaded as respondents are the GRP Peace Panel on
to the executory nature or commercial character of
Ancestral Domain and the
agreements, the Court has categorically ruled that the right
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (PAPP)
to information “contemplates inclusion of negotiations
Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. On July 23, 2008, the Province of
leading to the consummation of the transaction.” Certainly, a
North Cotabato [and Vice-Governor
consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise
Emmanuel Pinol filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No.
of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can never
183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the
exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if one
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose
Restraining Order. Invoking the right to information on
its defects.
matters of public concern, petitioners seek to compel
respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and
Requiring a consummated contract will keep
official copies of the MOA-AD including its attachments, and
the public in the dark until the contract, which may be
to prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD, pending the
grossly disadvantageous to the government or even
disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the holding of
illegal, becomes fait accompli. This negates the State
a public consultation thereon. Supplementarily, petitioners
policy of full transparency on matters of public concern,
pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional. This
a situation which the framers of the Constitution could
initial petition was followed by several other petitions by
not have intended. Such a requirement will prevent the
other parties. The Court ordered the consolidation of the
citizenry from participating in the public discussion of
petitions.
any proposed contract, effectively truncating a basic
right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We can allow neither
ISSUE:
COLLEGE OF LAW
an emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the 2. Lasco v. UN Revolving Fund, 241 S 681
State of its avowed “policy of full disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest.”
FACTS:
Intended as a “splendid symmetry” to the right to
information under the Bill of Rights is the policy of public
disclosure under Section 28, Article II of the Constitution. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
The policy of full public disclosure enunciated in above- and damages after being dismissed from their employment
quoted Section 28 complements the right of access to with the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural
information on matters of public concern found in the Bill of Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE) which was involved in a
Rights. The right to information guarantees the right of the joint project of the Philippine Government and the United
people to demand information, while Section 28 recognizes Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island.
the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody The UNRFNRE filed a Motion to Dismiss and alleged that
demands. respondent Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over its
personality since the UNRFNRE enjoyed diplomatic
The policy of public disclosure establishes a immunity pursuant to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges
concrete ethical principle for the conduct of public affairs in a and Immunities of the United Nations. The respondent
genuinely open democracy, with the people’s right to know attached a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs
as the centerpiece. It is a mandate of the State to be acknowledging its immunity from suit, prompting the Labor
accountable by following such policy. These provisions are Arbiter to issue an order dismissing the complaints.
vital to the exercise of the freedom of expression and Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was
essential to hold public officials at all times accountable to denied.
the people. Whether Section 28 is self-executory, the
records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
ISSUE: Did the private respondent waive its diplomatic
so disclose.
immunity when it engaged in exploration work and entered
into a contract of employment with the petitioners?
C. STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT HELD:
Basis: Constitutional and No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition,
Jurisprudence stating that the presence of the private respondent in the
Philippines was not because of a commercial venture but
because of a joint project entered into by the Philippine
1. REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR Government and the United Nations for mineral exploration
54 SCRA 84 (1973)
in Dinagat Island. The mission of the UNRFNRE was not to
exploit our natural resources and gain monetarily but to help
FACTS:
improve the quality of life of the people which included that
A decision was rendered in a Special Proceeding
of the petitioners.
against the Republic of the Philippines thereby confirming
the arbitration award of P1,712,396.40 in favor of respondent
corporation. After he decision became final and executory,
respondent judge issued an order directing the sheriff to
execute the said decision, and the corresponding alias writ
of execution was thus issued.
Hence the sheriff served notices of garnishment 3. SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES
with several banks especially the monies due to the AFP in DEVELOPMENT CENTER-AQUACULTURE
the form of deposits sufficient to cover the amount DEPARTMENT (SEAFDEC-AQD), DR. FLOR
mentioned in the writ. PNB and Philippine Veterans Bank LACANILAO (CHIEF), RUFIL CUEVAS (HEAD,
received such notice. As certified by the AFP Comptroller,
these funds of the AFP with the said banks are public funds ADMINISTRATIVE DIV.), BEN DELOS REYES
for the pensions, pay, and allowances of its military and (FINANCE OFFICER), petitioners,
civilian personnel. vs.
The petitioner, in this certiorari and prohibition NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
proceedings, challenges the validity of the Order issued by
Judge Villasor declaring the decision final and executory and COMMISSION and JUVENAL
subsequently issuing an alias writ of execution directed LAZAGA, respondents.
against the funds of the AFP in pursuance thereof.
FACTS:
ISSUE: May the writs of execution and notices of This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set
garnishment be sued against public funds? aside the decision of the NLRC sustaining the labor arbiter,
in holding herein petitioners liable to pay private
HELD: respondent the amount of P126,458.89 plus interest thereon
NO. Although the State may give its consent to be computed from May 16, 1986 until full payment thereof is
sued by private parties, there is corollary that public funds made, as separation pay and other post-employment
cannot be the object of garnishment proceedings even if the benefits.
consent to be sued has been previously granted and the On April 20, 1975, private respondent Juvenal
state’s liability has been adjudged. Lazaga was employed as a Research Associate an a
Thus in the case of Commission of Public probationary basis by the SEAFDEC-AQD and was
Highways vs. San Diego, such a well-settled doctrine was appointed Senior External Affairs Officer on January 5, 1983
restated in the opinion of Justice Teehankee. The universal with a monthly basic salary of P8,000.00 and a monthly
rule that where the state gives its consent to be sued by allowance of P4,000.00. Thereafter, he was appointed to the
private parties either by general or special law, it may limit position of Professional III and designated as Head of
claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings External Affairs Office with the same pay and benefits.
anterior to the stage of execution and that the power of the SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international
courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since the organization, the Southeast Asian Fisheries
government funds and properties may not be seized under Development Center, organized through an agreement
writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment, is entered into in Bangkok, Thailand on December 28, 1967
based on obvious considerations of public policy. by the governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand,
Disbursement of public funds must be covered by the Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines with Japan as
corresponding appropriations as required by law. The the sponsoring country
functions and public services rendered by the State cannot
be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by diversion of
public funds from their legitimate and specific object is On May 8, 1986, petitioner Lacanilao in his
appropriated by law. capacity as Chief of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of
termination to private respondent informing him that due
to the financial constraints being experienced by the
department, his services shall be terminated at the close of
office hours on May 15, 1986 and that he is entitled to
separation benefits equivalent to one (1) month of his basic
salary for every year of service plus other benefits.
COLLEGE OF LAW
Upon petitioner SEAFDEC-AQD’s failure to pay Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor
private respondent his separation pay, the latter filed on Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity
March 18, 1987 a complaint against petitioners for non- pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
payment of separation benefits plus moral damages and
attorney’s fees with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC IRRI wrote the Labor Arbiter to inform him that the Institute
enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1620, 5 and that it invokes such
Petitioners in their answer with counterclaim diplomatic immunity and privileges as an international
alleged that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case organization in the instant case filed by petitioner, not having
inasmuch as the SEAFDEC-AQD is an international waived the same.
organization and that private respondent must first secure
clearances from the proper departments for property or While admitting IRRI's defense of immunity, the Labor
money accountability before any claim for separation pay will Arbiter, nonetheless, cited an Order issued by the Institute
be paid, and which clearances had not yet been obtained by to the effect that "in all cases of termination, respondent IRRI
the private respondent. waives its immunity," and, accordingly, considered the
LABOR ARBITER: ordered petitioner to pay the benefits defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving
claimed the case.
NLRC: affirmed the LA. The NLRC found merit in private respondent's appeal and,

finding that IRRI did not waive its immunity, ordered the
PETITIONER CONTENDS that: SEAFDEC-AQD is immune aforesaid decision of the Labor Arbiter set aside and the
from suit owing to its international character and the complaint dismissed.
complaint is in effect a suit against the State which cannot
be maintained without its consent. In this petition petitioner contends that the immunity of the
IRRI as an international organization granted by Article 3 of
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is within the scope of application Presidential Decree No. 1620 may not be invoked in the
of Philippine labor laws (WON SEAFDEC is immuned from case at bench inasmuch as it waived the same by virtue of
suit) its Memorandum on "Guidelines on the handling of
dismissed employees in relation to P.D. 1620."
HELD:
Petitioner Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Issue: Did the (IRRI) waive its immunity from suit in this
Center-Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an dispute which arose from an employer-employee
international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public relationship?
respondent NLRC.
Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC Held: No.
including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional
independence and freedom from control of the state in P.D. No. 1620, Article 3 provides:
whose territory its office is located.
In so far as they are autonomous and beyond the Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall
control of any one State, they have a distinct juridical enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative
personality independent of the municipal law of the State proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been
where they are situated. As such, according to one leading expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institute or
authority “they must be deemed to possess a species of his authorized representatives.
international personality of their own.” (Salonga and Yap,
Public International Law, 83 [1956 ed.]) The SC upholds the constitutionality of the aforequoted law.
One of the basic immunities of an international There is in this case "a categorical recognition by the
organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e.,that it is Executive Branch of the Government that IRRI enjoys
immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the immunities accorded to international organizations, which
tribunals of the country where it is found. The obvious determination has been held to be a political question
reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarass a
to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient political department of Government.
medium thru which the host government may interfere in It is a recognized principle of international law and under our
there operations or even influence or control its policies and system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is
decisions of the organization; besides, such subjection to essentially a political question and courts should refuse to
local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the
discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is
member-states. recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the
WHEREFORE, finding SEAFDEC-AQD to be an government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the
international agency beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate
local agency of the Philippine government, the questioned suggestion by the principal law officer of the government or
decision and resolution of the NLRC dated July 26, 1988 and other officer acting under his direction.
January 9, 1989, respectively, are hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE for having been rendered without jurisdiction. The raison d'etre for these immunities is the assurance of
unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies
concerned.
4. ERNESTO CALLADO vs. INTERNATIONAL RICE
RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IRRI) The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and
G.R. No. 106483 May 22, 1995/ ROMERO, J.: an express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by
which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity.
Facts: In cases involving dismissed employees, the Institute may

Ernesto Callado, petitioner, was employed as a driver at the waive its immunity, signifying that such waiver is
IRRI. One day while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip discretionary on its part.
to the NAIA and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an
accident.
TESTS TO DETERMINE IF SUIT IS AGAINST
Petitioner was informed of the findings of a preliminary THE STATE
investigation conducted by the IRRI's Human Resource
Development Department Manager. In view of the findings,
he was charged with: 1. BEGOSO v. PVA 32 SCRA 466
(1) Driving an institute vehicle while on official duty
under the influence of liquor; Facts:
(2) Serious misconduct consisting of failure to report to Gaudencio Begosa, plaintiff-appellee, was an
supervisors the failure of the vehicle to start because of a "enlisted men of the Phil. Commonwealth Army,
problem with the car battery, and inducted in the service of the USAFFE" having taken "active
(3) Gross and habitual neglect of duties. participation in the battle of Bataan" as well as
the "liberation drive against the enemy" thereafter became
Petitioner submitted his answer and defenses to the charges "permanently incapacitated from work due to
against him. However, IRRI issued a Notice of Termination injuries he sustained in line of duty xxx."
to petitioner. Pltff. filed his claim for disability pension as far back as
3/4/55; but it was erroneously disapproved on 6/21/55,
because his dishonorable discharge from the Army was not
COLLEGE OF LAW
a good or proper ground for the said disapproval, and that on

reconsideration asked for by him on 11/1/57, w/c he “the action of del Mar was premature because of his failure
continued to follow up, the Board of Administrators, Phil.
Veterans Administration finally approved his claim on 9/2/64, to exhaust administrative remedies before invoking judicial
at the rate of P30/mo. Judge Soriano noted that: "had it not
been for the said error, it appears that there was no good intervention”
ground to deny the said claim, so the latter was valid and
meritorious even as of the date of its filing on 3/4/55, hence (3) The case is a suit against the state.
to make the same effective only as of the date of its approval
on 9/2/64-- according to defendant's stand-- would be greatly
unfair and prejudicial to plaintiff
The appeal assigns as one error what it considers “the court a quo was without jurisdiction to try the case as
to be the failing of the LC in not holding that the complaint in
this case is in effect a suit against the State w/c has not del Mar demand partakes of a money claim against the PVA
given its consent thereto.
— a mere agency of the Philippine Government — and, in
HELD:
It does not admit of doubt that if the suit were in effect, of a suit against the Government which is not suitable
fact against the State, the LC should have dismissed the
complaint. Nor is it to be doubted that while ostensibly an without its consent.”
action may be against a public official, the defendant may in
reality be the government. As a result, it is equally well- (4) It was discretionary on the part of PVA to discontinue
settled that where a litigation may have adverse
consequences on the public treasury, whether in the pension.
disbursement of funds or loss of prop., the public official
proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity,
then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately be
invoked. It has no application, however, where the suit Held:
against such a functionary had to be instituted because of
his failure to comply w/ the duty imposed by statute (1) When a case is a suit against the state:
appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or
petitioner. Such is the present case.
xxx However, where the judgement in such a case would “As a general proposition, the rule — well-settled in this
result not only in the recovery of possession of the prop. in
favor of said citizen but also in a charge against or financial jurisdiction — on the immunity of the Government from suit
liability of the Government then the suit should be regarded
as one against the government itself, and consequently, it without its consent holds true in all actions resulting in
cannot prosper or be validly entertained by the courts except
w/ the consent of said Government. “adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether in
the disbursements of funds or loss of property.”
(2) Suits against the state must be dismissed

2.Del Mar vs Philippine Veterans Administration
[G.R. L-27299] June 27, 1973
Facts: (3) When a case is not a suit against the state:
Del Mar, the petitioner, was relieved with honorable
discharge with permanent total physical disability. Philippine “where a claimant institutes an action against a functionary
Veterans administration granted him pension but was soon who fails to comply with his statutory duty to release the
discontinued because he received the same pension under amount claimed from the public funds already appropriated
the United States Veterans Administration. by statute for the benefit of the said claimant.”
(4) The case is not premature. Administrative liability is not
Issue: required.
The PVA decided that:
“Suffice it to state that where a case as in the present
(1) Petitioner is barred from receiving any pension from the controversy — involves a question solely of a legal nature,
Philippine Veterans Administration. there arises no need for the litigant to resort to all
administrative remedies available to him before seeking
judicial relief.”
“The PVA reiterated its contention that del Mar’s receipt of a
(5) The act committed by the PVA, in suspending a provision
similar pension from the United States Government
of law, is against the constitution.
effectively barred him from claiming and receiving from the
Philippine Government the monthly life pension granted him
as well as the monthly allowances he claimed for his five “… the Constitution limits the authority of the President, in
living unmarried minor children below eighteen years of whom all executive power resides, to take care that the laws
age.” be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive
(2) The filing of the case is premature. office or agency then can, contrary to the express language
of the Constitution, assert for itself a more extensive
prerogative. Necessarily, it is bound to observe the

COLLEGE OF LAW
license, even without a certificate of membership from

constitutional mandate. There must be strict compliance with PADPAO
the legislative enactment. Its terms must be followed. The Issue:
statute requires adherence to, not departure from, its whether or not VMPSI’s complaint against the PC
Chief and PC-SUSIA is a suit against the State without its
provisions. No deviation is allowable.” consent
Held:
3. Veterans Manpower and Protective
Yes. The State may not be sued without its
Services, Inc. v. CA consent (Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution).
G.R. No. 91359, September 25, 1992
Invoking this rule, the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA contend that,
Grino-Aquino, J.
being instrumentalities of the national government exercising
a primarily governmental function of regulating the
Facts:
organization and operation of private detective, watchmen,
or security guard agencies, said official (the PC Chief) and
The constitutionality of the following provisions of
agency (PC-SUSIA) may not be sued without the
R.A. 5487(otherwise known as the “Private Security Agency
Government’s consent, especially in this case because
Law”), as amended, is questioned by VMPSI in its complaint:
VMPSI’s complaint seeks not only to compel the public
respondents to act in a certain way, but worse, because
SEC.
VMPSI seeks actual and compensatory damages in the sum
4. Who may Organize a Security or Watchman Agency. -
of P1,000,000.00, exemplary damages in the same amount,
Any Filipino citizen or a corporation, partnership, or
and P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees from said public
association, with a minimum capital of five thousand pesos,
respondents. Even if its action prospers, the payment of its
one hundred per cent of which is owned and controlled by
monetary claims may not be enforced because the State did
Filipino citizens may organize a security or watchman
not consent to appropriate the necessary funds for that
agency: Provided, That no person shall organize or have
purpose.
aninterest in, more than one such agency except those
which are alreadyexisting at the promulgation of this Decree:
While the doctrine of state immunity appears to
x x x.” (As amended by P.D. Nos. 11 and 100.)
prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is
also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the
SEC. 17. Rules and Regulations by Chief, Philippine
state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge
Constabulary. -The Chief of the Philippine Constabulary, in
of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such
consultation with thePhilippine Association of Detective and
officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative
Protective Agency Operators,Inc. and subject to the
act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the
provision of existing laws, is hereby authorized to issue the
amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them,
rules and regulations necessary to carry out the purpose of
the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although
this Act.”
it has not been formally impleaded.
VMPSI alleges that the above provisions of R.A.
A public official may sometimes be held liable in
No. 5487 violate the provisions of the 1987 Constitution
his personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or
against monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction, however,
restraint of trade, and tend to favor and institutionalize the
since the acts for which the PC Chief and PC¬-SUSIA are
Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency
being called to account in this case, were performed by them
Operators, Inc. (PADPAO) which is monopolistic because it
as part of their official duties, without malice, gross
has an interest in more than one security agency.
negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be had against
them in their private capacities.
Respondent VMPSI likewise questions the validity
of paragraph 3, subparagraph (g) of the Modifying
The correct test for the application of state
Regulations on the Issuance of License to Operate and
immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by the State but
Private Security Licenses and Specifying Regulations for the
the legal nature of the act.
Operation of PADPAO issued by then PC Chief Lt. Gen.
Fidel V. Ramos, through Col. Sabas V. Edades, requiring
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only
that “all private security agencies/company security forces
when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions
must register as members of any PADPAO Chapter
of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
organized within the Region where their main offices are
economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to
located...”. As such membership requirement in PADPAO is
have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be
compulsory in nature, it allegedly violates legal and
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only
constitutional provisions against monopolies, unfair
when it enters into a business contract. It does not apply
competition and combinations in restraint of trade.
where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign
functions.
On May 12, 1986, a Memorandum of Agreement
was executed by PADPAO and the PC Chief, which fixed the
In the instant case, the Memorandum of
minimum monthly contract rate per guard for eight (8) hours
Agreement entered into by the PC Chief and PADPAO was
of security service per day at P2,255.00 within Metro Manila
intended to professionalize the industry and to standardize
and P2,215.00 outside of Metro Manila.
the salaries of security guards as well as the current rates of
security services, clearly, a governmental function. The
On June 29, 1987, Odin Security Agency (Odin)
execution of the said agreement is incidental to the purpose
filed a complaint with PADPAO accusing VMPSI of cut-throat
of R.A.5487, as amended, which is to regulate the
competition by undercutting its contract rate for security
organization and operation of private detective, watchmen or
services rendered to the Metropolitan Waterworks and
security guard agencies.
Sewerage System (MWSS), charging said customer lower
than the standard minimum rates provided in the
Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986.
PADPAO found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat

competition, hence, the PADPAO Committee on Discipline
recommended the expulsion of VMPSI from PADPAO and
the cancellation of its license to operate a security agency
(Annex D, Petition).
The PC-SUSIA made similar findings and likewise

recommended the cancellation of VMPSI’s license.
As a result, PADPAO refused to issue a

clearance/certificate of membership to VMPSI when it
requested one.
VMPSI wrote the PC Chief on March 10, 1988,

requesting him to set aside or disregard the findings of
PADPAO and consider VMPSI’s application for renewal of its
COLLEGE OF LAW
the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private

SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES corporations.
1. PNB vs. CIR

G.R. No. L-32667 81 SCRA 214 January 31, 1978 2. Social Security System v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41299, 21
Facts:
February 1983
A writ of execution in favor of private respondent Gabriel V.
Manansala had previously been issued. He was the counsel
of the prevailing party, the United Homesite Employees and
Laborers Association. The validity of the order assailed is En Banc
challenged on two grounds: [MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.]
FACTS: Spouses David B. Cruz and Socorro Concio Cruz
 That the appointment of respondent Gilbert P. applied for and were granted a real estate loan by the SSS
Lorenzo as authorized deputy sheriff to serve the writ of with their residential lot located at Lozada Street, Sto.
execution was contrary to law and Rosario, Pateros, Rizal. Claiming that the conditions of
 That the funds subject of the garnishment “may be mortgage have been broken, SSS filed an application for
public in character.” In thus denying the motion to foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
The Cruz spouses, together with their daughter Lorna C.
quash, petitioner contended that there was on the part
Cruz, instituted before the Court of First Instance of Rizal an
of respondent Court a failure to abide by authoritative
action for damages and attorney’s fees against the Social
doctrines amounting to a grave abuse of discretion.
Security System (SSS) and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) moves to quash the alleging, among other things, that they had fully and
notice of garnishment is denied for the lack of merit. PNB is
religiously paid their monthly amortizations and had not
therefore ordered to comply within five days from receipt with
the ‘notice of Garnishment’ dated May 6, 1970.” defaulted in any payment.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was

denied. Hence, this certiorari petition.
ISSUE: Can the SSS, exercising governmental functions, be
Issues: held liable for damages?
Whether or not the order denying motion to quash a notice of
garnishment can be stigmatized as a grave abuse of
discretion. HELD: YES.
There should be no question on this score considering that
Discussions:
the SSS is a juridical entity with a personality of its own. It
According to the doctrine of state immunity, under suits
against Government Agencies: has corporate powers separate and distinct from the
Government. SSS’ own organic act specifically provides that
“An incorporated Agency has a charter of its own that invests
it with a separate judicial personality. If the agency is it can sue and be sued in Court. These words “sue and be
incorporated, the test of suability is found in its charter.”
sued” embrace all civil process incident to a legal action. So
From the opinion being penned by the great Chief Justice
that, even assuming that the SSS, as it claims, enjoys
Marshall. As was pointed out by him: “It is, we think, a sound
principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any immunity from suit as an entity performing governmental
trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the
transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and functions, by virtue of the explicit provision of the aforecited
takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to enabling law, the Government must be deemed to have
the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends
to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes waived immunity in respect of the SSS, although it does not
the character which belongs to its associates, and to the
business which is to be transacted. thereby concede its liability. That statutory law has given to
the private-citizen a remedy for the enforcement and
Rulings:
protection of his rights. The SSS thereby has been required
No. Supreme Court ruled that there has not been a grave
abuse of discretion. The premise that the funds could be to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts, subject to its right
spoken of as public in character may be accepted in the to interpose any lawful defense. Whether the SSS performs
sense that the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation
was a government-owned entity It does not follow though governmental or proprietary functions thus becomes
that they were exempt from garnishment.
unnecessary to belabor. For by that waiver, a private citizen
may bring a suit against it for varied objectives, such as, in
As stated in “National Shipyard and Steel Corporation v. this case, to obtain compensation in damages arising from
Court of Industrial Relations”, a government owned and
controlled corporation has a personality of its own, distinct contract and even for tort.
and separate from that of the Government. It may sue and
be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like
any other corporation.
Justice Ozaeta held that it is well settled that when the

government enters into commercial business, it abandons its
sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other
corporation. By engaging in a particular business thru the
instrumentality of a corporation, the governmnent divests
itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render
COLLEGE OF LAW
3. Rayo, et al. v. Court of First Upon the Solicitor General's motion, the trial court dismissed
Instance, G.R. No. L-55273-83, 19 December 1981 the complaint. It ruled that it had no jurisdiction because the
PNR, being a government instrumentality, the action was a
Second Division
suit against the State (Sec. 16, Art. XV of the Constitution).
[ABAD SANTOS, J.]
The Malong spouses appealed to this Court pursuant to
Republic Act No. 5440
FACTS: During the height of that infamous typhoon
“KADING” the respondent corporation, acting through its
R.A. No. 5440 changed the mode of appeal from courts of
plant superintendent, Benjamin Chavez, opened or caused
first instance (now Regional Trial Courts) to the Supreme
to be opened simultaneously all the three floodgates of the
Court in cases involving only questions of law, or the
Angat Dam. And as a direct and immediate result of the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, etc.
sudden, precipitate and simultaneous opening of said
or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll, etc., or
floodgates several towns in Bulacan were inundated.
the jurisdiction of any inferior court, from ordinary appeal —
Hardest-hit was Norzagaray. About a hundred of its
i.e., by notice of appeal, record on appeal and appeal bond,
residents died or were reported to have died and properties
under Rule 41— to appeal by certiorari, under Rule 45
worth million of pesos destroyed or washed away. Cases
were filed against the respondent.Respondent argued that
Issue/s:
“in the operation of the Angat Dam,” it is “performing a purely
governmental function”, hence it “can not be sued without
WON PNR is immune from suit.
the express consent of the State.”
WON the State acted in a sovereign capacity or in a

ISSUE: Were the functions of National Power Corporation in
corporate capacity when it organized the PNR for the
the management of dam non-governmental and that it can
purpose of engaging in transportation
be sued for tort?
WON the State acted differently when it organized the PNR

HELD: YES.
as successor of the Manila Railroad Company
It is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on
whether or not the NPC performs a governmental function
Held: No, PNR is NOT immune. The State divested itself of
with respect to the management and operation of the Angat
its sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR which is no
Dam. It is sufficient to say that the government has
different from its predecessor, the Manila Railroad Company.
organized a private corporation, put money in it and has
The PNR did not become immune from suit. It did not
allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter.
remove itself from the operation of articles 1732 to 1766 of
(R.A. No. 6395, Sec. 3 (d).) As a government owned and
the Civil Code on common carriers
controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct
and separate from that of the Government. (See National
Shipyards and Steel Corp. vs. CIR, et al., L-17874, August
31, 1963, 8 SCRA 781.) Moreover, the charter provision that
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is reversed and set
the NPC can “sue and be sued in any court” is without
aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for further
qualification on the cause of action and accordingly it can
proceedings. Costs against the Philippine National Railways.
include a tort claim such as the one instituted by the
petitioners.
Ratio:
4. Malong vs. PNR

The correct rule is that "not all government entities, whether
corporate or non-corporate, are immune from suits. Immunity
Facts:
from suit is determined by the character of the objects for
which the entity was organized." (Nat. Airports Corp. vs.
The Malong spouses alleged in their complaint that on
Teodoro and Phil. Airlines, Inc., 91 Phil. 203, 206; Santos vs,
October 30, 1977 their son, Jaime Aquino, a paying
Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 285; Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. USA, 104
passenger, was killed when he fell from a PNR train while it
Phil. 593.)
was between Tarlac and Capas. The tragedy occurred
because Jaime had to sit near the door of a coach. The train
Suits against State agencies with respect to matters in which
was overloaded with passengers and baggage in view of the
they have assumed to act in a private or non-governmental
proximity of All Saints Day.
capacity are not suits against the State
The Malong spouses prayed that the PNR be ordered to pay

them damages totaling P136,370.
COLLEGE OF LAW
Like any private common carrier, the PNR is subject to the Disini moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the Immunity
obligations of persons engaged in that private enterprise. It Agreement.
is not performing any governmental function
The Sandiganbayan ignored the motion and issued a new
The point is that when the government enters into a subpoena directing him to testify before it. Subsequently, the
commercial business it abandons its sovereign capacity and PCGG revoked and nullified the Immunity Agreement insofar
is to be treated like any other private corporation (Bank of as it prohibited the Republic from requiring Disini to testify
the U.S. vs. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L. ed. 244, cited against Herminio. Later on, the Sandiganbayan denied
in Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Disinis motion to quash the subpoena. Disini, thus, brought
Company, et al., 73 Phil. 374, 388). the matter to the Supreme Court. The Republic maintained
that the PCGGs power to grant immunity under Section 5 of
There is not one law for the sovereign and another for the Executive Order 14 covered only immunity from civil or
subject, but when the sovereign engages in business and criminal prosecution and did not cover immunity from
the conduct of business enterprises, and contracts with providing evidence in court.
individuals, whenever the contract in any form comes before
the courts, the rights and obligation of the contracting parties The Republic argued that Disini's immunity from testifying
must be adjusted upon the same principles as if both against Herminio contravened the state's policy to recover ill-
contracting parties were private persons. Both stand upon gotten wealth acquired under the regime of former President
equality before the law, and the sovereign is merged in the Marcos. The Republic further argued that under the last
dealer, contractor and suitor (People vs. Stephens, 71 N.Y. sentence of paragraph 3 of the Immunity Agreement which
549). reads: Nothing herein shall affect Jesus P. Disini's obligation
to provide truthful information or testimony, Disini, despite
Justice Abad Santos (Separate Opinion): All corporations the immunity given him against being compelled to testify in
organized by the government are its instrumentality by the other cases, was to provide truthful information or testimony
very reason of their creation. But that fact alone does not in such other cases.
invest them with immunity from suit.
For his part, Disini argued that the Republic, through the
5. DISINI V. SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. NO. PCGG, was estopped from revoking the questioned
180564; JUNE 22, 2010) immunity as it had made him believe that it had the authority
to provide such guarantee. The Republic countered by
FACTS: On 16 February 1989, the Republic of the invoking Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which
Philippines and Disini entered into an Immunity Agreement provides that (t)he right of the State to recover properties
under which Disini undertook to testify for the Republic and unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees from
provide its lawyers with the information, affidavits, and them or from their nominees, or transferees, shall not be
documents they needed in its case against Westinghouse barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.
Electric Corporation before the United States District Court
of New Jersey and in the arbitration case that Westinghouse ISSUE: Did the PCGG act within its authority when it
International Projects Company and others filed against the revoked and nullified the Immunity Agreement?
Republic before the International Chamber of Commerce
Court of Arbitration. Disini worked for his second cousin, HELD: No. PCGG needs to fulfill its obligations honorably as
Herminio, as an executive in the latter's companies from Disini did. More than anyone, the government should be fair.
1971 to 1984. The language of Section 5, Executive Order 14 affords
latitude to the PCGG in determining the extent of the criminal
The Republic believed that the Westinghouse contract for immunity it may grant. It has discretion to grant appropriate
the construction of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, levels of criminal immunity depending on the situation of the
brokered by one of Herminios companies, had been witness and his relative importance to the prosecution of ill-
attended by anomalies. In the Immunity Agreement, the gotten wealth cases. It can even agree, as in this case, to
Republic guaranteed that, apart from the two Westinghouse conditions expressed by the witness as sufficient to induce
cases, it would not compel Disini to testify in any other cooperation. Trusting in the Government's honesty and
domestic or foreign proceeding brought by the Republic fidelity, Disini agreed and fulfilled his part of the bargain.
against Herminio. Disini complied with his undertaking but 18 Surely, the principle of fair play, which is the essence of due
years later, upon the Republic's application, the process, should hold the Republic on to its promise.
Sandiganbayan issued a subpoena against Disini,
commanding him to testify and produce documents before A contract is the law between the parties; it cannot be
that court in an action that the Republic filed against withdrawn except by their mutual consent. This applies with
Herminio. more reason in this case where Disini already complied with
COLLEGE OF LAW
the terms of the Immunity Agreement. To allow the Republic agency. Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on execution the
to revoke the Immunity Agreement at a late stage would run motor vehicles of the DA.
afoul of the rule that a party to a compromise cannot ask for
a rescission after it had enjoyed its benefits. The Court The petitioner charges the NLRC with grave abuse of
should not allow the Republic, to put it bluntly, to double discretion for refusing to quash the writ of execution. The
cross Disini. The Immunity Agreement was the result of a petitioner faults the NLRC for assuming jurisdiction over a
long drawn out process of negotiations with each party trying money claim against the Department, which, it claims, falls
to get the best concessions out of it. under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.
More importantly, the petitioner asserts, the NLRC has
The Republic did not have to enter into that agreement; it disregarded the cardinal rule on the non-suability of the
was free not to. But when it did, it needed to fulfill its State.
obligations honorably as Disini did. More than anyone, the
government should be fair. The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that the
petitioner has impliedly waived its immunity from suit by
It has been a settled rule that by seeking affirmative relief, concluding a service contract with Sultan Security Agency.
voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan constitute waiver on the objection regarding Issues: Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. State applies in the case.
Jurisprudence holds that an objection based on lack of
jurisdiction over the person is waived when the defendant Discussions: Act No. 3083, aforecited, gives the consent of
files a motion or pleading which seeks affirmative relief other the State to be “sued upon any moneyed claim involving
than the dismissal of the case. liability arising from contract, express or implied. However,
the money claim should first be brought to the Commission
PCGG's revocation of the questioned immunity and on Audit. Act 3083 stands as the general law waiving the
Sandiganbayan's denial of Disini's motion to quash the State’s immunity from suit, subject to its general limitation
subpoena were both annulled. expressed in Section 7 thereof that ‘no execution shall issue
upon any judgment rendered by any Court against the
Government of the (Philippines), and that the conditions
provided in Commonwealth Act 327 for filing money claims
6. DEPT OF AGRICULTURE VS against the Government must be strictly observed.
NLRC
G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993
Rulings:
Facts
No. The rule does not say that the State may not be sued
under any circumstances. The State may at times be sued.
The case is regarding money claim against Department of
The general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit
Agriculture (DA) as filed and requested by National Labor
is found in Act No. 3083, where the Philippine government
Relations Commission (NLRC).
“consents and submits to be sued upon any money claims
involving liability arising from contract, express or implied,
Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Sultan Security
which could serve as a basis of civil action between private
Agency entered into a contract for security services to be
parties.”
provided by the latter to the said governmental entity.
Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by
In this case, The DA has not pretended to have assumed a
Sultan Security Agency in the various premises of the DA.
capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it
Thereafter, several guards filed a complaint for
entered into the questioned contract; nor that it could have,
underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay,
in fact, performed any act proprietary in character. But the
uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay,
claims of the complainant security guards clearly constitute
and overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA
money claims.
and the security agency
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly

and severally liable with the security agency for the payment
of money claims of the complainant security guards. The DA
and the security agency did not appeal the decision. Thus,
the decision became final and executory. The Labor Arbiter
issued a writ of execution to enforce and execute the
judgment against the property of the DA and the security

Consti 1 - 1st Batch CD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 1 - 1st Batch CD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 1 - 1st Batch CD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JEAN JAMAILAH TOMUGDAN 17-1680-73

CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 LIST OF CASES: LAUREL, J.:

FACTS: On December 8, 1935, however, private

B. THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE

The plaintiffs are court stenographers assigned in 2. PVTA VS.CIR

4. YES. Although in theory, the authority of the local

Being the criterion of whether or not an alien wife "may be

5. MAGALONA VS ERMITA On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino

3. VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN 2. RAMON RUFFY, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE

C. STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT HELD:

NLRC: affirmed the LA. The NLRC found merit in private respondent's appeal and,

Facts: In cases involving dismissed employees, the Institute may

a good or proper ground for the said disapproval, and that on

the disbursements of funds or loss of property.”

(2) Suits against the state must be dismissed

Facts: (3) When a case is not a suit against the state:

Del Mar, the petitioner, was relieved with honorable

(4) The case is not premature. Administrative liability is not

The PVA decided that:

“Suffice it to state that where a case as in the present

administrative remedies available to him before seeking

Philippine Government the monthly life pension granted him

age.” be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive

of the Constitution, assert for itself a more extensive

prerogative. Necessarily, it is bound to observe the

license, even without a certificate of membership from

the legislative enactment. Its terms must be followed. The Issue:

PADPAO found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat

The PC-SUSIA made similar findings and likewise

As a result, PADPAO refused to issue a

VMPSI wrote the PC Chief on March 10, 1988,

the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private

1. PNB vs. CIR

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was

Justice Ozaeta held that it is well settled that when the

WON the State acted in a sovereign capacity or in a

WON the State acted differently when it organized the PNR

4. Malong vs. PNR

The Malong spouses prayed that the PNR be ordered to pay

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly

You might also like