Loading documents preview...
People vs Gozo (53 SCRA 476, 1973) Facts: Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot which was located inside the US Naval Reservation which is within the territorial jurisdiction of
Held: 1.
government are good and valid. The governments by the
some neighbors, she demolished the house standing thereon without acquiring the necessary permits and then later on erected another house. She was then charged by the City Engineer’s Office for violating a municipal order which requires her to secure permits for any demolition
Philippines during the Japanese military occupation being de
government by the inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection
facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts
against the parent state. In re: Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno (210 SCRA
and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy
Olongapo has no administrative jurisdiction over the said lot because it
(postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid
is within a Naval Base of a foreign country. Issue: Is the Municipal Ordinance enforceable within the US Naval Base? Held: Yes. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty
itself rightful government 2. Established through Occupation – (PARAMOUNT FORCE) Maintained by the military forces who invade and occupy the territory of the enemy. 3. Established through Insurrection – Established as an independent
which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid,
thereof by the lower court. She appealed and countered that the City of
control through the force of the voice of the majority and maintains
Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the
and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments,
and/or construction within the City. She was convicted in violation
completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the
It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings and non-political judgments of a de facto
Olongapo City. Upon the advice of an assistant in the Mayor’s Office and
over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself
1. Established through Rebellion – Governments gets possession and
after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces under the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur. 2. It should be presumed that it was not, and could not have been, the "processes of any other government" in said proclamation, to refer to
entire government, including the Judiciary. e) A Screening Committee for the reorganization of the Intermediate
Government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all
judicial processes, in violation of said principles of international law.
Appelate Court and lower courts recommended the return of petitioner
such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of
The only reasonable construction of the said phrase is that it refers to
as Associate Justice of the new court of Appeals and assigned him the
their own decline to make use of (Military Bases Agreement). Hence, in
governmental processes other than judicial processes of court
the exercise of its sovereignty, the State through the City of Olongapo
proceedings. "a statute ought never to be construed to violate the law of
rank of number 11 in the roster of appellate court justices. f) When the appointments were signed by Pres. Aquino, petitioner's
Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on his case saying that the proclamation of Gen Douglas MacArthur has invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and
the phrase
Ministry of Justice. Thus, he ceased to be a member of the Judiciary. d) After February 1986 EDSA Revolution, there was a reorganization of the
preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine
time of the Japanese occupation. After the liberation of Manila Judge
using
Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to BP Blg. 129. c) On 1984, petitioner was appointed to be Deputy Minister of Justice in the
intention
Naval Base. Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh (75 Phil 113 1945) Facts: Petitioner Co Kim Cham had as pending civil Case initiated during the
Douglas MacArthur, in
of the Court of Appeals on 1980. b) On 1983, the Court of Appeals was reorganized and became the
terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or
does have administrative jurisdiction over the lot located within the US
of General
589, 1992) Facts: a) The petitioner, Reynato S. Puno, was first appointed as Associate Justice
nations if any other possible construction remains." If a belligerent occupant is required to establish courts of justice in the territory occupied, and forbidden to prevent the nationals thereof from asserting or enforcing therein their civil rights, by necessary implication, the military commander of the forces of liberation or the restored government is restrained from nullifying or setting aside the judgments rendered by said courts in their litigation during the period
without the enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take
of occupation. 3. The proceedings in cases then pending in said court may continue,
cognizance of proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic
without necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them
of the Philippines under the Japanese. Issues: 1. Whether the judicial proceedings and decisions during the
to continue said proceedings. The laws and courts of the Philippines
2.
Japanese Occupation were valid and remained valid. Whether the proclamation of General MacArthur declared that
required by the law of nations. Same courts may continue exercising the
same jurisdictions and
cases
pending
therein
before the
all laws, regulations and processes of any other Government
restoration of the commonwealth until abolished and replaced by the
other than that of the commonwealth are null and void,
said government. DECISION: WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS ISSUED to the judge of the Court Of
invalidated and all judgments and judicial acts proceeding 3.
did not become the laws and courts of Japan by being continued as
from the courts. Whether they were invalidated (reference to No. 2), the courts can continue hearing the cases pending before them
First Instance of Manila ordering him to take cognizance and continue to final judgment the proceedings in Case No. 3012. 3 Kinds of De Facto Government:
seniority ranking changes from number 11 to 26. g) Then, petitioner alleged that the change in seniority ranking was due to "inadvertence" of the President, otherwise, it would run counter to the provisions of Section 2 of E.O. No. 33. h) Petitioner Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote a letter to the Court seeking the correction of his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals. i) The Court en banc granted Justice Puno's request. j) A motion for reconsideration was later filed by Associate Justices Campos Jr. and Javellana who are affected by the ordered correction. k) They alleged that petitioner could not claim reappointment because the courts where he had previously been appointed ceased to exist at the date of his last appointment. Issue: Whether the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of the old Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court existing before the promulgation of E.O. No. 33. Held: The Court held that the Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to E.O. No. 33 phased out as part of the legal system abolished by the 1987 Revolution. The Court of Appeals that was established under E.O. No. 33 is considered as an entirely new court. The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from the courts existing before E.O. No. 33. It was created in the wake of the
massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of
revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to
Corazon Aquino in the aftermath of the people power in 1986. Revolution is defined as "the complete overthrow of the established
observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration, because it didn’t
government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it." or "as sudden. radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of violence." Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (407 SCRA 10 July 21, 2003) Nature of Action: Petition for review on certiorari Facts: The PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government) created an AFP Anti-Graft Board tasked to scrutinize the reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by any AFP personnel (active or retired). The AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged “illgotten” wealth of respondent Maj. Gen. Josephus Ramas. Along with this, the Constabulary raiding team served a search and seizure warrant on the premises of Ramas’ alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano. The Board then concluded that Ramas be prosecuted for violating the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)” and “Forfeiture of unlawfully Acquired Property (RA 1379)”. Thereafter, they filed a petition for forfeiture against him before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on several grounds one of which is that there was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated. Issues: 1. Whether the PCGG has the authority to investigate Ramas and Dimaano 2. Whether the properties and other belongings confiscated in Dimaano’s house
were
illegally
seized
which
will
consequently
make
it
inadmissible Held: The petition was dismissed. Even in the absence of a Constitution, the right against unlawful seizure can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, even during the interregnum, the Filipino people under the Covenant and Declaration continued to enjoy almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. As stated in Article 2(1) of the Convenant, the State is required “to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” Further, under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that “[n]o one else shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” The Declaration also provides in its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily
deprived
of his property.”
The Court has taken
into
consideration the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Hence, the
repudiated
either
the
Covenant
or
the
Declaration
during
the
interregnum. MMDA vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (G.R. Nos. 17194748 December 18, 2008) Facts: In 1999, the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (CROMB) filed an action for mandamus to compel the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and other government agencies to clean up the Manila
Oposa vs Factoran, JR. (224 SCRA 792 July 30, 1993) Keywords: taxpayers’ class suit; intergenerational responsibility; right to a balanced and healthful ecology; timber license agreements Quick Guide: Petitioner’s personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful environment is concerned. Facts: The controversy begun as Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before the RTC of Makati City Branch 66.
Bay. CROMB argued that the environmental state of the Manila Bay is already dangerous to their health and the inaction of MMDA and the
a) The principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by
other concerned government agencies violates their rights to life, health,
their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the
and a balanced ecology guaranteed by the Constitution. CROMB also
Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and
averred under the Environmental Code, it is MMDA’s duty to clean up the
non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia,
Manila Bay. The trial court agreed with CROMB and ordered MMDA et al to clean up
engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
the Manila Bay. MMDA assailed the decision on the ground that MMDA’s duty under the Environmental Code is merely a discretionary duty hence
b) The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then
it cannot be compelled by mandamus. Further, MMDA argued that the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
RTC’s order was for a general clean up of the Manila Bay yet under the
(DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the
Environmental Code, MMDA was only tasked to attend to specific
Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper
incidents of pollution and not to undertake a massive clean-up such as
motion by the petitioners.
that ordered by the court. Issue: Whether or not MMDA may be compelled by mandamus to clean up Manila Bay. Held: Yes. It is true that in order for MMDA to implement laws like the
c) The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suitand alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines,
Environmental Code, the process of implementing usually involves the
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the
exercise of discretion i.e., where to set up landfills. But this does not
natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests."
mean that their function or mandate under the law is already discretionary. Looking closer, MMDA’s function to alleviate the problem
d) The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally
on solid and liquid waste disposal problems is a ministerial function. In
concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so
short, MMDA does not have the discretion to whether or not alleviate the
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court."
garbage disposal problem in Metro Manila, particularly in the Manila Bay area. While the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated tasks may
e) The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as
entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very
well as generations yet unborn."
act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Anent the issue on whether or not MMDA’s task under the Environmental Code involves a general clean up, the Supreme Court ruled that MMDA’s mandate under the Environmental Code is to perform cleaning in general and not just to attend to specific incidents of pollution. Hence, MMDA, together with the other government agencies, must act to clean up the Manila Bay as ordered by the RTC.
f) It is prayed for that judgment be rendered
o
ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) in the
m)
country;
In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain
o
Even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is
that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of
well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the
action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a
public interest so requires.
justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion.
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
q) Respondents: n) On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the
(3) granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable under
aforementioned motion to dismiss. In the said order, not only was the
the premises.
defendant's claim — that the complaint states no cause of action
legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief
against him and that it raises a political question — sustained, the
is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and
g) The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine
respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed
nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which
archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million
for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by
supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in
(30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant
the fundamental law of the land.
its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them,
o
o
do not reveal a valid cause of action.
rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found.
o) Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and asked the Court to rescind
h) These rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine
o
They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging
and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent
should be permitted in the country is a political question which
Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action.
should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative
cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time immemorial.
Aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific
branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' p) Petitioners:
resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.
i) Scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and
o
Contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause
healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the
of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right
basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-
to a sound environment, the right of the people to a balanced and
that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of
six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial
healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide and the
law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of
and other uses.
concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-
time — usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the
perpetuation.
same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has
o
Rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O.
terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations.
No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment.
Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the
k) Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable
l)
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit
been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the
j) The distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.
o
o
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's
requirements of due process.
demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial
alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License
notice.
Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is
Issue/s: Whether the petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the
available involves a judicial question.
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the
o
Non-impairment clause does not apply in this case because TLAs
continued rape of Mother Earth. (YES.)
are not contracts.
issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly
Ruling: the instant Petition is granted, and the challenged Order of
pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government.
respondent Judge is set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
Ratio: Locus standi: a) The said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the
a) The complaint focuses on the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
j) Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful
which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is
ecology and the right to health, then President Corazon C. Aquino
solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law (Section 16, Article II of
promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, Section 4 of which
the 1987 Constitution).
expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural
complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.
Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the
b) This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the
country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and
Section 15 of the same article. b) Consequently,
since
the
parties
are
so
numerous,
it,
becomes
impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. The SC likewise declares that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former. c) This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC finds no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." d) Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.
grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and c) While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under
watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill
licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided
of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the
for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived
civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.
there from for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos."
d) Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation the
k) This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of
advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments
the Administrative Code of 1987. It stresses "the necessity of
and constitutions.
maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the
e) As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however,
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject
humankind.
to law and higher authority.
f) If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is
l) Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the
because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights
objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and
to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as
have defined the powers and functions of the DENR.
state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
m)
On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second,
P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. As its goal,
the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for
it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and
the present generation, but also for those to come — generations
guardian of the environment for succeeding generations." The latter
which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.
sustaining life. n) Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a g) The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and advance
e) The minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. Right to a balanced and healthful ecology:
h) The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious
the said right.
management and conservation of the country's forests. o) A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative i) Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversibly disrupted.
duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.
b) The court declared that to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, Cause of action:
contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare.
processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements amount to impairment of contracts abhorred by the fundamental law.
j) In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.
a) A cause of action is defined as: c) The respondent Secretary did not even invoke in his motion to dismiss . . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or
the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA (GR No. 120865-71,
rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the
with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and
plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission
unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders
Dec. 7 1995) Facts: The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created
of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly
through Republic Act No. 4850. It was granted, inter alia, exclusive
respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions
jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any
regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and
project or activity in or affecting the said region including navigation,
welfare.
construction, and operation of fish-pens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and
b) The question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. c) Falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is
d) Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:
deemed hypothetically admitted. d) It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party defendants, the
mean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal
may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession,
waters. Issue: Who should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its
permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . .
environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishing privileges is f) Tan vs. Director of Forestry:. . .A timber license is an instrument by
concerned, the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising the
which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
region? Held: LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters because the charter of
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license a) The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a
is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is
political question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive
only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever
or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue.
dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case.
What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation.
municipalities in the Laguna Lake region interpreted its provisions to
e) . . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President
grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties. Political question:
the like. There came RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The
g) Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
the LLDA prevails over the Local Government Code of 1991. The said charter constitutes a special law, while the latter is a general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law, cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police power for the purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna Lake
b) It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial
h) Even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case
region, as opposed to the Local Government Code, which grants powers
power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and
does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the
legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review.
cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the
to municipalities to issue fishing permits for revenue purposes. Thus it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail
non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked.
over the Local Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de
i) Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corporation: The freedom of contract, under our
Bay.\ Garcia Vs Board of Investments (224 SCRA 792, 1990) Facts: The Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), a Taiwanese private
a) The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is
system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is
corporation, applied for registration with the Board of Investments (BOI)
the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution.
understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at
in February 1988 as a new domestic producer of petrochemicals in the
the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other
Philippines. It originally specified the province of Bataan as the site for
words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of
the proposed investment but later submitted an amended application to
Non-impairment of contracts:
change the site to Batangas. Unhappy with the change of the site,
Congressman Enrique Garcia of the Second District of Bataan requested
and/or not nominated by a political party or are not supported by
amorphous foundation from which innately unenforceable rights may be
a copy of BPC’s original and amended application documents. The BoI
registered political party with a national constituency. b) Pamatong filed a Petition for Writ of Certioari with the Supreme Court
sourced. The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be
claiming that the COMELEC violated his right to “equal access to
subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the
opportunities for public service” under Section 26, Article II of the
privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the
1987 constitution, by limiting the number of qualified candidates only
Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates.” As long as the
to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are
limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination, however,
nominated by political parties. The COMELEC supposedly erred in
the equal access clause is not violated. Equality is not sacrificed as long
disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the
as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne by
presidential candidates (he possesses all the constitutional and legal
anyone who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy. In the case at
qualifications for the office of the president, he is capable of waging a
bar, there is no showing that any person is exempt from the limitations
national campaign since he has numerous national organization under
or the burdens which they create. The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the
denied the request on the basis that the investors in BPC had declined to give their consent to the release of the documents requested, and that Article 81 of the Omnibus Investments Code protects the confidentiality of these documents absent consent to disclose. The BoI subsequently approved the amended application without holding a second hearing or publishing notice of the amended application. Garcia filed a petition before the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the BoI committed grave abuse of discretion in yielding to the wishes of the investor, national interest notwithstanding. Ruling: The Court ruled that the BoI violated Garcia’s Constitutional right to have access to information on matters of public concern under Article III, Section 7 of the Constitution. The Court found that the inhabitants of Bataan had an “interest in the establishment of the
his leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an international campaign since he has practiced law in the other countries, and he
disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to
petrochemical plant in their midst [that] is actual, real, and vital because
has a platform of government. Issue: Whether the petitioners interpretation of the Constitutional
it will affect not only their economic life, but even the air they breathe”
provision under Section 26, Article II gives him a constitutional right to
Towards
The Court also ruled that BPC’s amended application was in fact a
run or hold for public office? Ruling: No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the
considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the
second application that required a new public notice to be filed and a new hearing to be held. Although Article 81 of the Omnibus Investments Code provides that “all
Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an
applications and their supporting documents filed under this code shall
enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision,
be confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except with the
which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the
consent of the applicant,” the Court emphasized that Article 81 provides for disclosure “on the orders of a court of competent jurisdiction”. The Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to order disclosure of the application, amended application, and supporting documents filed with the BOI under Article 81, with certain exceptions. The Court went on to note that despite the right to access information,
Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable
“the Constitution does not open every door to any and all information”
constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or
because “the law may exempt certain types of information from public
executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any
scrutiny”. Thus it excluded “the trade secrets and confidential,
cause of action before the courts. Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact
commercial, and financial information of the applicant BPC, and matters affecting national security” from its order. The Court did not provide a test for what information is excluded from the Constitutional privilege to access public information, nor did it specify the kinds of information that BPC could withhold under its ruling. Pamatong vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004) Facts: a) Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign
positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible into public office. Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to be desired if it is to be regarded as the source of positive rights. It is difficult
ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. this
end,
the
State
takes
into
account
the
practical
number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. The organization of an election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process. This is not to mention the candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the electoral process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State. The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not before this Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is in order. The SC remanded to the COMELEC for the reception of further evidence, to determine the question on whether petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as
effective means and reach are not properly defined. Broadly written, the
contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code. Tañada, et al., v. Angara, et al., (G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997) Facts: Petitioners Senators Tañada, et al. questioned the
myriad of claims that can be subsumed under this rubric appear to be
constitutionality of the concurrence by the Philippine Senate of the
entirely open-ended. Words and phrases such as "equal access,"
President’s ratification of the international Agreement establishing the
"opportunities," and "public service" are susceptible to countless
World Trade Organization (WTO). They argued that the WTO Agreement
interpretations owing to their inherent impreciseness. Certainly, it was
violates the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant
not the intention of the framers to inflict on the people an operative but
and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . .
to interpret the clause as operative in the absence of legislation since its
(to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the
Independence refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the
to the national interest to strike down Senate Resolution No. 97. But that
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally
national economy, especially in such strategic industries as in the
is not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate
produced goods.” Further, they contended that the “national treatment”
development of natural resources and public utilities. The WTO reliance on “most favored nation,” “national treatment,” and
and to nullify its decision. To do so would constitute grave abuse in the
and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement “place nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products,”
in contravention of the “Filipino First” policy of our
Constitution, and render meaningless the phrase “effectively controlled by Filipinos.” Issue: Does
the
1987
Constitution
prohibit
our
country
from
“trade without discrimination” cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO members. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and reciprocity,” the fundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive
in
both
domestic
and
foreign
markets,”
thereby
participating in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization
demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade
and from integrating into a global economy that is liberalized,
environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust
deregulated and privatized? Ruling: [The Court DISMISSED the petition. It sustained the concurrence
industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. Indeed,
of the Philippine Senate of the President’s ratification of the Agreement establishing the WTO.] NO, the 1987 Constitution DOES NOT prohibit our country from participating in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global economy that is liberalized, deregulated and privatized. There are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. [W]hile the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage
the
unlimited
entry
of
foreign
goods,
services
and
investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. xxx xxx xxx [T]he constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,
Filipino managers and Filipino enterprises have shown capability and tenacity to compete internationally. And given a free trade environment, Filipino entrepreneurs and managers in Hongkong have demonstrated the Filipino capacity to grow and to prosper against the best offered under a policy of laissez faire. xxx xxx xxx It is true, as alleged by petitioners, that broad constitutional principles require the State to develop an independent national economy
Moreover, there are other equally fundamental constitutional principles relied upon by the Senate which mandate the pursuit of a “trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity” and the promotion of industries “which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,” thereby justifying its acceptance of said treaty. So too, the alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity
duty and power. We find no “patent and gross” arbitrariness or
Villegas,
sponsor
of
that is keenly aware of overdependence on external assistance for even its most basic needs. It does not mean autarky or economic seclusion; rather, it means avoiding mendicancy in the international community.
political desire of a member. AKBAYAN vs. Aquino (G.R. No. 170516 July 16, 2008) Facts: The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki in September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
and
Philippine President Gloria
Macapagal
Arroyo
as
a
“milestone in the continuing cooperation and collaboration, setting a new chapter of strategic partnership for mutual opportunity and growth
encompasses even our commitments to the WTO. The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the Senate
constitutional policy: Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a developing country
Bernardo
WTO Agreement allows withdrawal of membership, should this be the
removing barriers and restrictions on investments. It is a deal that
it “a part of the law of the land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign
Commissioner
our people should determine in electing their policy makers. After all, the
legislative guides — are not in themselves sources of causes of action.
this
Constitutional
explained
toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that
plan for opening up of markets in goods and services as well as
overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making
As
people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march
equally true that such principles — while serving as judicial and
by
community.”
review. That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the
labor, products, domestic materials and locally produced goods. But it is
“mendicancy
international
wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and
(for both countries).” JPEPA which has been referred to as a ‘mega treaty’ is a comprehensive
goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor the
did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was
effectively controlled by Filipinos; and to protect and/or prefer Filipino
with all nations. That the Senate,
in
exercise of our own judicial power and duty. Ineludibly, what the Senate
after
deliberation
and
voting,
voluntarily
and
despotism “by reason of passion or personal hostility” in such exercise. It is not impossible to surmise that this Court, or at least some of its members, may even agree with petitioners that it is more advantageous
hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and Commerce last November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar Roxas, heard differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the committee heard Government’s rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA and on the other hand the views of environmental and trade activists who raised their very serious concerns about the country being turned into Japan’s toxic waste basket. The discussion in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one that touches on broader national development concerns. Issues: 1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the Republic, as taxpayers, and as members of the Congress 2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of this case and take cognizance of the instant petition. 3. Are the documents and information being requested in relation to the JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and full public
disclosure such that the Philippine government is justified in denying
fully share. The Court, however, in its endeavour to guard against the
into a basic formula that contains the details that take these factors into
access thereto. Rulings: The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its ruling on
abuse of executive privilege, should be careful not to veer towards the
account.
opposite extreme, to the point that it would strike down as invalid even a
That the RTC-SAC must consider the factors mentioned by the law (and
legitimate exercise thereof.” Land bank of the Philippines vs. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises
consequently the DAR implementing formula) is not a novel concept. In
the case of “Akbayan Citizens Action Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et al” (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal dismissed the Petition for mandamus and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents
(G.R. No. 17255 January 15, 2014) FACTS: Respondent Yatco Agricultural Enterprises (Yatco) was the
Department of Trade Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al
registered of owner of a 27-hectare parcel of agricultural land (property)
to furnish petitioners the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic
in Calamba, Laguna. On April 30, 1999, the government placed the
Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and
property under the coverage if its Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all
Program (CARP). Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the property at P1,126,132.89.
pertinent attachments and annexes thereto. In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has been
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, we said that the RTC-SAC must consider the factors enumerated under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, as translated into a basic formula by the DAR, in determining just compensation. In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation, we again affirmed the need to apply Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO5-98 in just compensation cases. There, we considered
Yatco did not find the valuation acceptable and thus elevated the matter
the CA and the RTC in grave error when they opted to come up with their
made accessible to the public since 11 September 2006, and thus the
to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Provincial Agrarian Reform
own basis for valuation and completely disregarded the DAR formula.
demand to be furnished with copy of the said document has become
Adjudicator (PARAD), which then conducted summary administrative
The need to apply the parameters required by the law cannot be
moot and academic. Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily
proceedings
compensation.
doubted; the DAR administrative issuances, on the other hand, partake
discussed the substatives issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners'
The PARAD valued the property at P16,543,800.00, using the property
of the nature of statutes and have in their favor a presumption of
demand for access to the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of
current market value. LBP did not move to reconsider the PARAD ruling.
legality. Unless administrative orders are declared invalid or unless the
the negotiations. The Court held: “Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it
Instead it filed with the RTC-SAC a petition for the judicial determination
cases before them involve situations these administrative issuances do
is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually
of just compensation. RTC-SAC fixed the just compensation for the property at P200 per square
not cover, the courts must apply them. The RTC-SAC adopted Branch 36 valuation without any qualification or
confidential – since there should be 'ample opportunity for discussion
meter based on the RTC branch 35 and 36. RTC-SAC did not give weight
condition. Yet, in disposing of the present case, the just compensation
before [a treaty] is approved' – the offers exchanged by the parties
to the LBP evidence in justifying its valuation, pointing out that the LBP
that it fixed for the property largely differed from the former. Note that
during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is
failed to prove that it complied with the prescribed procedure and failed
Branch 36 fixed a valuation of P20.00 per square meter; while the RTC-
published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japenese representatives
to consider the valuation in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
SAC, in the present case, valued the property at P200.00 per square
submitted
(CARL).
meter. Strangely, the RTC-SAC did not offer any explanation nor point to
The CA dismissed LBP appeal. Issue: Whether or not the RTC-SAC determination of just compensation
any evidence, fact or particular that justified the obvious discrepancy
their
offers
with
the
understanding
that
'historic
confidentiality' would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with
for
the
determination
of
just
between
these
amounts.
for the property was proper? HELD: The RTC-SAC determination of just compensation for the property
In ascertaining just compensation, the fair market value of the taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the
from frankly expressing their views during negotiations. The Highest
was not proper. Civil law: determination of just compensation under the DAR The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial
Tribunal recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve a process
function. Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 explicitly vests the RTC-SAC the
of quid pro quo, where negotiators would willingly grant concessions in
original and exclusive power to determine just compensation for lands
an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more favorable terms in
under CARP coverage. To guide the RTC-SAC in the exercise of its
Rules of Court. As a final note and clarificatory reminder, we agree that the LBP is
an area of greater national interest. In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent of Chief
function, Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the factors required to
primarily charged with determining land valuation and compensation for
be taken into account to correctly determine just compensation. The law
all private lands acquired for agrarian reform purposes. But this
(under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657) likewise empowers the DAR to issue
determination is only preliminary. The landowner may still take the
rules for its implementation. The DAR thus issued DAR AO 5-
matter of just compensation to the court for final adjudication. GRANTED.
other foreign governments in future negotiations.” It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine offers in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippine representatives
Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: “We are aware that behind the dissent of the Chief Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our people's right to information against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We
98incorporating the law listed factors in determining just compensation
expropriated property is determined as of the time of taking. The time of use and benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property or as of the filing of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the