Poli Cases1

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Page 1 of 49
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (1ST MEETING) Framers to make the proper adjustment when
there was a shift from unilateralism to
bicameralism was a plain oversight; 3] that
A. CHAVEZ VS JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL G.R. two representatives from Congress would not
202242 (can congress have 2 members in subvert the intention of the Framers to insulate
JBC)(POWER OF the JBC from political partisanship; and 4] that
AMENDMENT=”PEOPLE”/POWER OF the rationale of the Court in declaring a
PROPOSAL=”CONGRESS”) seven-member composition would provide a
solution should there be a stalemate is not
exactly correct.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
From the birth of the Philippines, the duty of
appointing members of the judiciary has been
the prerogative of the executive and legislative WON the first paragraph of Section 8, Article VIII
branch which started from the malolos of the 1987 Constitution allows more than one
constitution and 1935 constitution which vested (1) member of Congress to sit in the JBC; and
the power to appoint the members of the
Judiciary in the President, subject to
confirmation by the Commission on WON each House of Congress is entitled with
Appointments. one (1) vote each is sanctioned by the
Constitution.
Upon creation of the 1973 constitution the

power of appointment in the judiciary has HELD:
become exclusive to the executive branch which
only requires that all must have the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications. FIRST ISSUE: (NO! ONLY 1 IS ALLOWED!)
This resulted to the framers of the 1987 Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is
constitution to create the Judicial and Bar hereby created under the supervision of the
Council(JBC) in order to purge the judiciary of all Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as
evils of political pressure and partisan activities ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice,
and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the
The JBC only consist of 7 member, but was Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
subsequently altered in 1994 when An eighth Member of the Supreme Court, and a
member was added to the JBC as the two (2) representative of the private sector.(7
representatives from Congress began sitting MEMBERS)(PURPOSE: TO PREVENT A
simultaneously in the JBC, with each having STALEMATE IN VOTING, WHICH IS WHY 2
one-half (1/2) of a vote. PERSONS FROM CONGRESS CANNOT BE
ALLOWED TO BE MEMBERS OF JBC AND TO
NOT FURTHER INCREASE THE INFLUENCE OF
The respondents or congress justified its actions THE LEGISLATIVE BODY SINCE THEY WOULD
on the following grounds: that allowing only HAVE 2 REPRESANTIVES)
one representative from Congress in the JBC
would lead to absurdity considering its
bicameral nature; 2] that the failure of the
The Constitution evinces the direct action of the

Filipino people by which the fundamental
On March 14, 2007, then Associate Justice
powers of government are established, limited
Leonardo A. Quisumbing said that
and defined and by which those powers are
distributed among the several departments for
their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of
the body politic.The Framers reposed their Two things can be gleaned from the excerpts
wisdom and vision on one suprema lex to be and citations above: the creation of the JBC is
the ultimate expression of the principles and intended to curtail the influence of politics in
the framework upon which government and Congress in the appointment of judges, and the
society were to operate. Thus, in the understanding is that seven (7) persons will
interpretation of the constitutional provisions, compose the JBC. As such, the interpretation of
the Court firmly relies on the basic postulate two votes for Congress runs counter to the
that the Framers mean what they say. The intendment of the framers. Such interpretation
language used in the Constitution must be actually gives Congress more influence in the
taken to have been deliberately chosen for a appointment of judges. Also, two votes for
definite purpose. Every word employed in the Congress would increase the number of JBC
Constitution must be interpreted to exude its members to eight, which could lead to voting
deliberate intent which must be maintained deadlock by reason of even-numbered
inviolate against disobedience and defiance. membership, and a clear violation of 7
What the Constitution clearly says, according enumerated members in the Constitution.
to its text, compels acceptance and bars (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
modification even by the branch tasked to
interpret it.
xxx
For this reason, the Court cannot accede to the

argument of plain oversight in order to justify Congress, in relation to the executive and
constitutional construction. As stated in the July judicial branches of government, is
17, 2012 Decision, in opting to use the singular constitutionally treated as another co-equal
letter "a" to describe "representative of branch in the matter of its representative in
Congress," the Filipino people through the the JBC. On the other hand, the exercise of
Framers intended that Congress be entitled to legislative and constituent powers requires the
only one (1) seat in the JBC. Had the intention Senate and the House of Representatives to
been otherwise, the Constitution could have, in coordinate and act as distinct bodies in
no uncertain terms, so provided, as can be read furtherance of Congress’ role under our
in its other provisions. constitutional scheme. While the latter justifies
and, in fact, necessitates the separateness of the
two Houses of Congress as they relate inter se,
It is very clear that the Framers were not keen no such dichotomy need be made when
on adjusting the provision on congressional Congress interacts with the other two co-equal
representation in the JBC because it was not in branches of government.
the exercise of its primary function – to
legislate. JBC was created to support the
executive power to appoint, and Congress, as It is more in keeping with the co-equal nature
one whole body, was merely assigned a of the three governmental branches to assign
contributory non-legislative function. the same weight to considerations that any of
its representatives may have regarding
aspiring nominees to the judiciary. The
SECOND ISSUE: (NO! CONGRESS IS ONLY representatives of the Senate and the House of
ENTITLED TO 1 VOTE!) Representatives act as such for one branch and
should not have any more quantitative
influence as the other branches in the exercise so they can become delegates themselves to
of prerogatives evenly bestowed upon the the Convention.
three. Sound reason and principle of equality
among the three branches support this
conclusion. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which,
upon approval by the President, on June 17,
1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing
The argument that a senator cannot represent a that the amendments to the Constitution
member of the House of Representatives in the proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No.
JBC and vice-versa is, thus, misplaced. In the JBC, 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the
any member of Congress, whether from the people, at the general elections which shall be
Senate or the House of Representatives, is held on November 14, 1967.
constitutionally empowered to represent the
Two cases were filed against this act of
entire Congress.
Congress: One an is original action for
prohibition, with preliminary injunction by
Ramon A. Gonzales, in L-28196, a Filipino citizen,
From this score stems the conclusion that the
a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have
lone representative of Congress is entitled to
instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, for and in
one full vote. This pronouncement effectively
behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters
disallows the scheme of splitting the said vote
similarly situated. Another one is by
into half (1/2), between two representatives of
Philippine Constitution Association(PHILCONSA),
Congress. Not only can this unsanctioned
in L-28224, a corporation duly organized and
practice cause disorder in the voting process, it
existing under the laws of the Philippines, and a
is clearly against the essence of what the
civic, non-profit and non-partisan organization
Constitution authorized. After all, basic and
the objective of which is to uphold the rule of
reasonable is the rule that what cannot be
law in the Philippines and to defend its
legally done directly cannot be done indirectly.
Constitution against erosions or onslaughts
To permit or tolerate the splitting of one vote
from whatever source.
into two or more is clearly a constitutional
circumvention that cannot be countenanced by
the Court. Succinctly put, when the Constitution
ISSUE:
envisioned one member of Congress sitting in
the JBC, it is sensible to presume that this
representation carries with him one full vote.
Main issue: WON THE PROPOSED
AMMENDMENT OF CONGRES IS VALID
(DISMISSED!)
B. GONZALES VS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(1967)(PASSING OF RBH 1,2 AND 3 TO INCREASE
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES)
WON The Members of Congress, which
approved the proposed amendments are de
facto officers which renders the approval void.
FACTS:
WON the Approval of congress of the RBH 1,2

On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House
and 3 is void due to the avaiingl of both
of Representatives passed resolutions No. 1, 2
proposal of amendments and calling of
and 3 – i.e. to increase the seats of the Lower
convention.
House from 120 to 180; to convoke a
Constitutional Convention of 1971; and to
amend the Constitution (Section 16, Article VI)
WON The election, in which proposals for organized or constituted on December 30, 1961,
amendment to the Constitution shall be were de jure bodies, and that the Members
submitted for ratification, must be a special thereof were de jure officers. Pursuant to the
election, not a general election theory of petitioners herein, upon expiration of
said period of three years, or late in 1963,
Congress became illegal and its Members, or at
WON the failure to ratify by the people of the least, those of the House of Representatives,
proposed amendments would render it null and became illegal holder of their respective offices,
void. and were de facto officers.
WON the supreme court has jurisdiction to

annul the amendments passed by the congress.
Due to the de facto doctrine, even if we
assumed, that the present Members of
Congress are merely de facto officers, it would
HELD: not follow that the contested resolutions and
Republic Act No. 4913 are null and void.
1935 CONSTITUTION
In fact, the main reasons for the existence of
the de facto doctrine is that public interest
Pursuant to Section 1 of Article XV of the demands that acts of persons holding, under
Constitution, amendments to the Constitution color of title, an office created by a valid
may be proposed, either by Congress, or by a statute be, likewise, deemed valid insofar as
convention called by Congress for that purpose. the public — as distinguished from the officer
In either case, the vote of "three-fourths of all in question — is concerned. otherwise, those
the members of the Senate and of the House dealing with officers and employees of the
of Representatives voting separately" is Government would be entitled to demand from
necessary. And, "such amendments shall be them satisfactory proof of their title to the
valid as part of" the "Constitution when positions they hold, before dealing with them,
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an or before recognizing their authority or obeying
election at which the amendments are their commands, even if they should act within
submitted to the people for their ratification." the limits of the authority vested in their
respective offices, positions or employments.
One can imagine this great inconvenience,
In the cases at bar, it is conceded that the R. B. hardships and evils that would result in the
H. Nos. 1 and 3 have been approved by a vote absence of the de facto doctrine.
of three-fourths of all the members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives
voting separately. This, notwithstanding, it is As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer
ALLEGED that said resolutions are null and void cannot be assailed collaterally. It may not be
because: contested except directly, by quo warranto
proceedings. Neither may the validity of his acts
be questioned upon the ground that he is
FIRST ISSUE: (the approval is valid due to the merely a de facto officer.24 And the reasons are
de facto doctrine) obvious: (1) it would be an indirect inquiry into
the title to the office; and (2) the acts of a de
facto officer, if within the competence of his
office, are valid, insofar as the public is
There can be no question, therefore, that the
concerned.
Senate and the House of Representatives
Article XV of the Constitution provides:
SECOND ISSUE: (No! It is valid although both

are used each are not to be passed at the same
. . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by
time)
a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of
the Senate and of the House of Representatives
voting separately, may propose amendments to
the term "or" has, oftentimes, been held to
this Constitution or call a contention for that
mean "and," or vice-versa, when the spirit or
purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as
context of the law warrants it.
part of this Constitution when approved by a
majority of the votes cast at an election at
which the amendments are submitted to the
It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 people for their ratification.
propose amendments to the constitutional
provision on Congress, to be submitted to the
people for ratification on November 14, 1967,
There is nothing in this provision to indicate
whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a convention in
that the "election" therein referred to is a
1971, to consider proposals for amendment to
"special," not a general, election. The
the Constitution, in general. In other words,
circumstance that three previous amendments
the subject-matter of R. B. H. No. 2 is different
to the Constitution had been submitted to the
from that of R B. H. Nos. 1 and 3. Moreover,
people for ratification in special elections
the amendments proposed under R. B. H. Nos.
merely shows that Congress deemed it best to
1 and 3, will be submitted for ratification
do so under the circumstances then obtaining.
several years before those that may be
It does not negate its authority to submit
proposed by the constitutional convention
proposed amendments for ratification in
called in R. B. H. No. 2. Again, although the
general elections.
three (3) resolutions were passed on the same
date, they were taken up and put to a vote
separately, or one after the other. In other
FOURTH ISSUE: (NO! Section 2 of ra 4913 was
words, they were not passed at the same time.
not yet sufficiently complied which cannot
render the ammendment as void)
In any event, we do not find, either in the

Constitution, or in the history thereof anything
It should be noted that the contested
that would negate the authority of different
Resolutions were approved on March 16, 1967,
Congresses to approve the contested
so that, by November 14, 1967, our citizenry
Resolutions, or of the same Congress to pass
shall have had practically eight (8) months to be
the same in, different sessions or different days
informed on the amendments in question. Then
of the same congressional session. And, neither
again, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 4913
has any plausible reason been advanced to
provides:
justify the denial of authority to adopt said
resolutions on the same day.
(1) that "the amendments shall be published

in three consecutive issues of the Official
THIRD ISSUE: (NO! The term election does not
Gazette, at least twenty days prior to the
equate to only special election, in my opinion
election;"
the framers chose the word election to have
flexibility in determining when it would be best
to do so depending on the circumstances.)
(2) that "a printed copy of the proposed
amendments shall be posted in a conspicuous
place in every municipality, city and provincial
office building and in every polling place not believe it has been satisfactorily shown that
later than October 14, 1967," and that said copy Congress has exceeded the limits thereof in
"shall remain posted therein until after the enacting Republic Act No. 4913. Presumably, it
election;" could have done something better to enlighten
the people on the subject-matter thereof. But,
then, no law is perfect. No product of human
(3) that "at least five copies of said endeavor is beyond improvement. Otherwise,
amendment shall be kept in each polling place, no legislation would be constitutional and valid.
to be made available for examination by the Six (6) Members of this Court believe, however,
qualified electors during election day;" said Act and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 violate the
spirit of the Constitution.
(4) that "when practicable, copies in the

principal native languages, as may be Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes
determined by the Commission on Elections, in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. B.
shall be kept in each polling place;" H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the
petitions in these two (2) cases must be, as they
are hereby, dismiss and the writs therein
prayed for denied, without special
(5) that "the Commission on Elections shall
pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
make available copies of said amendments in
English, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in
the principal native languages, for free
distributing:" and FIFTH ISSUE:
(6) that the contested Resolutions "shall be This Court — speaking through one of the
printed in full" on the back of the ballots which leading members of the Constitutional
shall be used on November 14, 1967. Convention and a respected professor of
Constitutional Law, Dr. Jose P. Laurel —
declared that "the judicial department is the
only constitutional organ which can be called
We are not prepared to say that the foregoing
upon to determine the proper allocation of
measures are palpably inadequate to comply
powers between the several departments and
with the constitutional requirement that
among the integral or constituent units
proposals for amendment be "submitted to
thereof."
the people for their ratification," and that said
measures are manifestly insufficient, from a
constitutional viewpoint, to inform the people
of the amendment sought to be made. the power to AMEND the Constitution or to
propose amendments thereto is not included in
the general grant of legislative powers to
Congress.It is part of the inherent powers of
The system of checks and balances underlying
the people — as the repository of sovereignty
the judicial power to strike down acts of the
in a republican state, such as ours— to make,
Executive or of Congress transcending the
and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental
confines set forth in the fundamental laws is
Law. Congress may PROPOSE amendments to
not in derogation of the principle of separation
the Constitution merely because the same
of powers, pursuant to which each department
explicitly grants such power.12 Hence, when
is supreme within its own sphere. The
exercising the same, it is said that Senators and
determination of the conditions under which
Members of the House of Representatives act,
the proposed amendments shall be submitted
not as members of Congress, but as component
to the people is concededly a matter which
elements of a constituent assembly. When
falls within the legislative sphere. We do not
acting as such, the members of Congress derive SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION
their authority from the Constitution, unlike SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 18." On
the people, when performing the same September 30, 1971, the COMELEC "resolved"
function,13 for their authority does not to follow the mandate of the Convention, that it
emanate from the Constitution — they are the will hold the said plebiscite together with the
very source of all powers of government, senatorial elections on November 8, 1971 .
including the Constitution itself .
Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, filed a petition for

Since, when proposing, as a constituent prohibition, its main thrust being that Organic
assembly, amendments to the Constitution, Resolution No. 1 and the necessary
the members of Congress derive their implementing resolutions subsequently
authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows, approved have no force and effect as laws in so
necessarily, that they do not have the final say far as they provide for the holding of a
on whether or not their acts are within or plebiscite co-incident with the senatorial
beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, they elections, on the ground that the calling and
could brush aside and set the same at naught, holding of such a plebiscite is, by the
contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a Constitution, a power lodged exclusively in
government of laws, not of men, and to the Congress as a legislative body and may not be
rigid nature of our Constitution. Such rigidity is exercised by the Convention, and that, under
stressed by the fact that, the Constitution Article XV Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution,
expressly confers upon the Supreme Court,14 the proposed amendment in question cannot
the power to declare a treaty be presented to the people for ratification
unconstitutional,15 despite the eminently separately from each and all other
political character of treaty-making power. amendments to be drafted and proposed by
the Constitution.
ISSUE:
TOLENTINO VS COMMISION ON ELECTIONS

WON There is any limitation or condition in
(how many election and plebiscite needed to
Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution which
be held in order for a proposed amendment to
is violated by the act of the Convention of
be valid)
calling for a plebiscite on the sole amendment
contained in Organic Resolution No. 1
FACT:
HELD: (only number 1 is the applied ruling and
last paragraph of number 2/ Yes! the limit is
The 1971 Constitutional Convention came into there can only be 1 election and plebiscite, in
being by virtue of two resolutions of the order for the constitutional amendment to be
Congress approved in its capacity as a valid, this powers is only lodged to the
constituent assembly convened for the purpose congress and not to the constitutional
of calling a convention to propose amendments convention)
to the Constitution. After election of delegates
held on November 10, 1970, the Convention
held its inaugural session on June 1, 1971. In the
The Court holds that there is, and it is the
morning of September 28, 1970, the Convention
condition and limitation that all the
approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which is
amendments to be proposed by the same
entitled as, "A RESOLUTION AMENDING
Convention must be submitted to the people in
a single "election" or plebiscite. It being articulation of the rights, liberties, ideology,

indisputable that the amendment now social ideals, and national and nationalistic
proposed to be submitted to a plebiscite is only policies and aspirations of the people, on the
the first amendment the Convention propose other. lt is inconceivable how a constitution
We hold that the plebiscite being called for the worthy of any country or people can have any
purpose of submitting the same for ratification part which is out of tune with its other parts..
of the people on November 8, 1971 is not
authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the
Constitution, hence all acts of the Convention A constitution is the work of the people thru its
and the respondent Comelec in that direction drafters assembled by them for the purpose.
are null and void. Once the original constitution is approved, the
part that the people play in its amendment
becomes harder, for when a whole
We have arrived at this conclusion for the constitution is submitted to them, more or less
following reasons: they can assumed its harmony as an integrated
whole, and they can either accept or reject it in
its entirety. At the very least, they can examine
1. The language of the constitutional it before casting their vote and determine for
provision aforequoted is sufficiently clear. lt themselves from a study of the whole
says distinctly that either Congress sitting as a document the merits and demerits of all or any
constituent assembly or a convention called for of its parts and of the document as a whole.
the purpose "may propose amendments to this And so also, when an amendment is submitted
Constitution," thus placing no limit as to the to them that is to form part of the existing
number of amendments that Congress or the constitution, in like fashion they can study with
Convention may propose. The same provision deliberation the proposed amendment in
also as definitely provides that "such relation to the whole existing constitution and
amendments shall be valid as part of this or any of its parts and thereby arrive at an
Constitution when approved by a majority of intelligent judgment as to its acceptability.
the votes cast at an election at which the
amendments are submitted to the people for
their ratification," thus leaving no room for This cannot happen in the case of the
doubt as to how many "elections" or amendment in question. Since, the situation
plebiscites may be held to ratify any actually before Us is even worse. No one
amendment or amendments proposed by the knows what changes in the fundamental
same constituent assembly of Congress or principles of the constitution the Convention
convention, and the provision unequivocably will be minded to approve. To be more specific,
says "an election" which means only one. we do not have any means of foreseeing
whether the right to vote would be of any
significant value at all. Who can say whether or
(2) Very little reflection is needed for anyone not later on the Convention may decide to
to realize the wisdom and appropriateness of provide for varying types of voters for each level
this provision. As already stated, amending the of the political units it may divide the country
Constitution is as serious and important an into. The root of the difficulty in other words,
undertaking as constitution making itself. lies in that the Convention is precisely on the
Indeed, any amendment of the Constitution is verge of introducing substantial changes, if not
as important as the whole of it if only because radical ones, in almost every part and aspect of
the Constitution has to be an integrated and the existing social and political order enshrined
harmonious instrument, if it is to be viable as in the present Constitution. How can a voter in
the framework of the government it establishes, the proposed plebiscite intelligently determine
on the one hand, and adequately formidable the effect of the reduction of the voting age
and reliable as the succinct but comprehensive upon the different institutions which the
Convention may establish and of which (The Constitutional Convention of 1971 itself
presently he is not given any idea? was born, in a great measure, because of the
pressure brought to bear upon the Congress of
the Philippines by various elements of the
We are certain no one can deny that in order people, the youth in particular, in their incessant
that a plebiscite for the ratification of an search for a peaceful and orderly means of
amendment to the Constitution may be validly bringing about meaningful changes in the
held, it must provide the voter not only structure and bases of the existing social and
sufficient time but ample basis for an governmental institutions, including the
intelligent appraisal of the nature of the provisions of the fundamental law related to the
amendment per se as well as its relation to the well-being and economic security of the
other parts of the Constitution with which it underprivileged classes of our people as well as
has to form a harmonious whole. In the context those concerning the preservation and
of the present state of things, where the protection of our natural resources and the
Convention has hardly started considering the national patrimony, as an alternative to violent
merits of hundreds, if not thousands, of and chaotic ways of achieving such lofty ideals.
proposals to amend the existing Constitution, to In brief, the youth of the Philippines, in general,
present to the people any single proposal or a like the rest of the people, do not want
few of them cannot comply with this confusion and disorder, anarchy and violence;
requirement. We are of the opinion that the what they really want are law and order, peace
present Constitution does not contemplate in and orderliness, even in the pursuit of what they
Section 1 of Article XV a plebiscite or "election" strongly and urgently feel must be done to
wherein the people are in the dark as to frame change the present order of things in this
of reference they can base their judgment on. Republic of ours.)
We reject the rationalization that the present
Constitution is a possible frame of reference, for
the simple reason that intervenors themselves Defensor-Santiago v. Commission on Elections,
are stating that the sole purpose of the (GR 127325)(INITIATIVE FOR AMMENDMENT
proposed amendment is to enable the eighteen OF THE CONSTITUTION)
year olds to take part in the election for the
ratification of the Constitution to be drafted by
the Convention. In brief, under the proposed FACTS:
plebiscite, there can be, in the language of
Justice Sanchez, speaking for the six members
of the Court in Gonzales, supra, "no proper
In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin a member of the
submission".
Movement for People's Initiative, desing to
avail of the system intended to institutionalize
people power; that he and the members of the
the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the Movement and other volunteers intend to
implementing acts and resolutions of the exercise the power to directly propose
Convention, insofar as they provide for the amendments to the Constitution granted
holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution;
well as the resolution of the respondent filed with COMELEC a petition to amend
Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution Constitution, to lift term limits of elective
No. 695) are hereby declared null and void. officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin wanted
COMELEC to control and supervise said people’s
initiative the signature-gathering all over the
(the constitutional convention came into being country. The proposition is: “Do you approve of
by a call of a joint session of Congress pursuant lifting the term limits of all elective government
to Section I of Article XV of the Constitution) officials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 )
and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and
Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution
Philippine Constitution?” Said Petition for provides:
Initiative will first be submitted to the people,
and after it is signed by at least 12% total
number of registered voters in the country, it Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution
will be formally filed with the COMELEC. may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of
COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication registered voters, of which every legislative
of the petition. Petitioners Sen. Roco et al district must be represented by at least three
moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on per centum of the registered voters therein. No
the ground that it is not the initiatory petition amendment under this section shall be
properly cognizable by the COMELEC. authorized within five years following the
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than
a. Constitutional provision on people’s
once every five years thereafter.
initiative to amend the Constitution can only
be implemented by law to be passed by
Congress. No such law has been passed.b.
According to the book of Joaquin bernas a
Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3 systems
member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
on initiative but failed to provide any subtitle
stated:
on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the
other modes of initiative. This deliberate
omission indicates matter of people’s initiative
was left to some future law.c. COMELEC has no Without implementing legislation Section 2
power to provide rules and regulations for the cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of
exercise of people’s initiative. Only Congress is amending the Constitution is a mode of
authorized by the Constitution to pass the amendment which bypasses congressional
implementing law.d. People’s initiative is action, in the last analysis it still is dependent
limited to amendments to the Constitution, on congressional action.
not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of
term limits constitutes a revision.e. Congress
nor any government agency has not yet Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly
appropriated funds for people’s initiative. propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative would remain
entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution
ISSUE: until Congress provides for its implementation.
Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has
recognized or granted that right, the people
cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever
WON R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE
reason, does not provide for its
SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO
implementation.
THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS, UNFORTUNATELY,
INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM
This system of initiative was originally included

in Section 1 of the draft Article on Amendment
HELD: (YES, IT IS INADEQUATE FOR FAILURE TO
or Revision proposed by the Committee on
ENACT A LAW FOR THE RIGHT OF INITIATIVE IN
Amendments and Transitory Provisions of the
AMMENDING THE CONSTITUTION SINCE IT IS
1986 Constitutional Commission in its
NOT A SELF EXECUTORY PROVISION)
Committee Report No. 7 (Proposed Resolution
No. 332). 30 That section reads as follows:
Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, recognized and guaranteed. (Emphasis
this Constitution may be proposed: by the supplied).
National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths
of all its members; by a constitutional
convention; or directly by the people The inclusion of the word "Constitution"
themselves thru initiative. therein was a delayed afterthought. That word
is neither germane nor relevant to said section,
which exclusively relates to initiative and
A new formulation for the concept of initiative referendum on national laws and local laws,
was later on submitted which alleged that “The ordinances, and resolutions. That section is
people may, after five years from the date of silent as to amendments on the Constitution.
the last plebiscite held, directly propose As pointed out earlier, initiative on the
amendments to this Constitution thru initiative Constitution is confined only to proposals to
upon petition of at least ten percent of the AMEND. The people are not accorded the
registered voters.” power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or
reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution"
through the system of initiative. They can only
This completes the blanks appearing in the do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or
original Committee Report No. 7. resolutions."
The interpellations on Section 2 showed that Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of
the details for carrying out Section 2 are left to Terms) of the Act defines initiative on
the legislature. amendments to the Constitution and mentions
it as one of the three systems of initiative, and
that Section 5 (Requirements) restates the
constitutional requirements as to the
Now, is R.A. No. 6735 in full compliance with
percentage of the registered voters who must
the power and duty of Congress to "provide for
submit the proposal. But unlike in the case of
the implementation of the exercise of the
the other systems of initiative, the Act does not
right?"
provide for the contents of a petition for
initiative on the Constitution. Section 5,
paragraph (c) requires, among other things,
A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative statement of the proposed law sought to be
answer. enacted, approved or rejected, amended or
repealed, as the case may be. It does not
include, as among the contents of the petition,
First. Contrary to the assertion of public the provisions of the Constitution sought to be
respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does amended, in the case of initiative on the
not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution.The use of the clause "proposed
Constitution. The said section reads: laws sought to be enacted, approved or
rejected, amended or repealed" only
strengthens the conclusion that Section 2,
Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. — The power quoted earlier, excludes initiative on
of the people under a system of initiative and amendments to the Constitution.
referendum to directly propose, enact, approve
or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution,
laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any Third. While the Act provides subtitles for
legislative body upon compliance with the National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II)
requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, and for Local Initiative and Referendum
(Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for
initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading
silence as to the latter simply means that the of the more important or the paramount system
main thrust of the Act is initiative and of initiative. RA. No. 6735 thus delivered a
referendum on national and local laws. If humiliating blow to the system of initiative on
Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully amendments to the Constitution by merely
provide for the implementation of the initiative paying it a reluctant lip service.
on amendments to the Constitution, it could
have provided for a subtitle therefor,
considering that in the order of things, the The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that
primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or
right of the people to directly propose wanting in essential terms and conditions
amendments to the Constitution is far more insofar as initiative on amendments to the
important than the initiative on national and Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this
local laws. substantive matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by "empowering" the COMELEC "to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may
We cannot accept the argument that the be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the]
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is Act. 58
subsumed under the subtitle on National
Initiative and Referendum because it is national
in scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National The rule is that what has been delegated,
Initiative and Referendum) and Subtitle III cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin
(Local Initiative and Referendum) leaves no maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest.
room for doubt that the classification is not 59 The recognized exceptions to the rule are as
based on the scope of the initiative involved, follows:
but on its nature and character. It is "national
initiative," if what is proposed to be adopted
or enacted is a national law, or a law which
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the
only Congress can pass. It is "local initiative" if
President under Section 28(2) of Article VI of
what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a
the Constitution;
law, ordinance, or resolution which only the
legislative bodies of the governments of the
autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays can pass. (2) Delegation of emergency powers to the
President under Section 23(2) of Article VI of
the Constitution;
As to initiative on amendments to the

Constitution, R.A. No. 6735, in all of its
twenty-three sections, merely (a) mentions, (3) Delegation to the people at large;
the word "Constitution" in Section 2; (b)
defines "initiative on the Constitution" and
includes it in the enumeration of the three (4) Delegation to local governments; and
systems of initiative in Section 3; (c) speaks of
"plebiscite" as the process by which the
proposition in an initiative on the Constitution (5) Delegation to administrative bodies. 60
may be approved or rejected by the people; (d)
reiterates the constitutional requirements as
to the number of voters who should sign the Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative
petition; and (e) provides for the date of body exercising quasi-judicial functions, to
effectivity of the approved proposition. promulgate rules and regulations is a form of
delegation of legislative authority under no. 5
above. However, in every case of permissible centum (3%) of its registered voters. The
delegation, there must be a showing that the Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC
delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the election registrars had verified the signatures of
law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth the 6.3 million individuals.
therein the policy to be executed, carried out,
or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes
a standard — the limits of which are The Lambino Group's initiative petition
sufficiently determinate and determinable — changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying
to which the delegate must conform in the Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative
performance of his functions. 61 A sufficient Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII
standard is one which defines legislative policy, (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article
marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."6 These
specifies the public agency to apply it. It proposed changes will shift the present
indicates the circumstances under which the Bicameral-Presidential system to a
legislative command is to be effected. 62 Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
The Lambino Group prayed that after due
publication of their petition, the COMELEC
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to should submit the following proposition in a
the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 plebiscite for the voters' ratification:
miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in
subordinate legislation. The delegation of the
power to the COMELEC is then invalid. DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF
ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF
LAMBINO v. COMMISION ON ELECTIONS (rule GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT
in signatures in initiatives petition and BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A
limitation of initiative to proposal only of UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND
amendments and does not include revisions) PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY
PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM
ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
FACTS:
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an

On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating
174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. modifications in the proposed Article XVIII
Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.
groups1 and individuals, commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition to change
the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the ISSUE:
Lambino Group filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and WON the Lambino Group's initiative petition
(c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the
the Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735"). Constitution on amendments to the
Constitution through a people's initiative;
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition

had the support of 6,327,952 individuals WON the initiative petition is an amendment or
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) revision;
of all registered voters, with each legislative
district represented by at least three per
HELD:(NO, there is failure to show the full text

of the proposed petition what was only shown
The essence of amendments "directly
to the people was signature sheets and even if
proposed by the people through initiative
there was full text only 100,000 out of 6.3m
upon a petition" is that the entire proposal on
knew of such text/ the initiative is in the
its face is a petition by the people. This means
nature of revision which the people does not
two essential elements must be present. First,
have power since, they can only propose
the people must author and thus sign the
amendments.)
entire proposal. No agent or representative
can sign on their behalf. Second, as an
initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply
embodied in a petition.
with the basic requirements of the
Constitution for conducting a people's
initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit
These essential elements are present only if
Santiago, as the present petition warrants
the full text of the proposed amendments is
dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's
first shown to the people who express their
glaring failure to comply with the basic
assent by signing such complete proposal in a
requirements of the Constitution.
petition. Thus, an amendment is "directly
proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition" only if the people sign on a
FIRST, The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply
petition that contains the full text of the
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
proposed amendments.
on Direct Proposal by the People
The full text of the proposed amendments may

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the
be either written on the face of the petition, or
governing constitutional provision that allows a
attached to it. If so attached, the petition must
people's initiative to propose amendments to
state the fact of such attachment. This is an
the Constitution. This section states:
assurance that every one of the several
millions of signatories to the petition had seen
the full text of the proposed amendments
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may before signing. Otherwise, it is physically
likewise be directly proposed by the people impossible, given the time constraint, to prove
through initiative upon a petition of at least that every one of the millions of signatories
twelve per centum of the total number of had seen the full text of the proposed
registered voters of which every legislative amendments before signing.
district must be represented by at least three
per centum of the registered voters therein.
The framers of the Constitution directly
borrowed the concept of people's initiative
the framers of the Constitution intended that from the United States where various State
the "draft of the proposed constitutional constitutions incorporate an initiative clause.
amendment" should be "ready and shown" to
the people "before" they sign such proposal.
The framers plainly stated that "before they
The rationale for this requirement has been
sign there is already a draft shown to them."
repeatedly explained in several decisions of
The framers also "envisioned" that the people
various courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v. State Ballot
should sign on the proposal itself because the
Commission, the Supreme Court of
proponents must "prepare that proposal and
Massachusetts, affirmed by the First Circuit
pass it around for signature."
Court of Appeals, declared:
that the framers intended that the people

must first see the full text of the proposed
[A] signature requirement would be
amendments before they sign, and that the
meaningless if the person supplying the
people must sign on a petition containing such
signature has not first seen what it is that he or
full text.
she is signing. Further, and more importantly,
loose interpretation of the subscription
requirement can pose a significant potential for
fraud. A person permitted to describe orally
the contents of an initiative petition to a Thus, there is no presumption that the
potential signer, without the signer having proponents observed the constitutional
actually examined the petition, could easily requirements in gathering the signatures. The
mislead the signer by, for example, omitting, proponents bear the burden of proving that
downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, they complied with the constitutional
portions of the petition that might not be to requirements in gathering the signatures - that
the signer's liking. the petition contained, or incorporated by
attachment, the full text of the proposed
amendments.
Likewise, in Kerr v. Bradbury,18 the Court of
Appeals of Oregon explained:
The Lambino Group did not attach to their
present petition with this Court a copy of the
The purposes of "full text" provisions that apply paper that the people signed as their initiative
to amendments by initiative commonly are petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this
described in similar terms. x x x (The purpose of Court a copy of a signature sheet2 after the oral
the full text requirement is to provide arguments of 26 September 2006 when they
sufficient information so that registered voters filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.
can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the The signature sheet with this Court during the
initiative petition."); x x x (publication of full oral arguments was the signature sheet
text of amended constitutional provision attached to the opposition in intervention
required because it is "essential for the elector filed on 7 September 2006 by intervenor Atty.
to have x x x the section which is proposed to Pete Quirino-Quadra.
be added to or subtracted from. If he is to vote
intelligently, he must have this knowledge.
The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's
opposition and the signature sheet attached to
Moreover, "an initiative signer must be the Lambino Group's Memorandum are the
informed at the time of signing of the nature same
and effect of that which is proposed" and
failure to do so is "deceptive and misleading"
which renders the initiative void. There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence
of text of the Lambino Group's proposed
changes in the signature sheet. Neither does
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does the signature sheet state that the text of the
not expressly state that the petition must set proposed changes is attached to it. Petitioner
forth the full text of the proposed amendments. Atty. Raul Lambino admitted this during the
However, the deliberations of the framers of oral arguments before this Court on 26
our Constitution clearly show that the framers September 2006.
intended to adopt the relevant American
jurisprudence on people's initiative. In
particular, the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission explicitly reveal
The signature sheet merely asks a question the proposed changes to the great majority of
whether the people approve a shift from the the people who signed the signature sheets.
Bicameral-Presidential to the
Unicameral-Parliamentary system of
government. The signature sheet does not Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only
show to the people the draft of the proposed 100,000 signatories could have received with
changes before they are asked to sign the certainty one copy each of the petition,
signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is assuming a 100 percent distribution with no
not the "petition" that the framers of the wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company
Constitution envisioned when they formulated attached one copy of the petition to each
the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII of signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets
the Constitution. could have circulated with the petition. Each
signature sheet contains space for ten
signatures. Assuming ten people signed each of
Now, The Lambino Group cites as authority these 100,000 signature sheets with the
Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that "a signer attached petition, the maximum number of
who did not read the measure attached to a people who saw the petition before they
referendum petition cannot question his signed the signature sheets would not exceed
signature on the ground that he did not 1,000,000.
understand the nature of the act."
With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition,

Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence it would be physically impossible for all or a
that the proposed amendment must be great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to
incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative have seen the petition before they signed the
petition signed by the people. In the present signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is
initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed that the Lambino Group failed to show to the
changes were not incorporated with, or 6.3 million signatories the full text of the
attached to, the signature sheets. The Lambino proposed changes. If ever, not more than one
Group's citation of Corpus Juris Secundum pulls million signatories saw the petition before they
the rug from under their feet. signed the signature sheets.
During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino An initiative that gathers signatures from the
expressly admitted that they printed only people without first showing to the people the
100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed full text of the proposed amendments is most
more than six months later with the COMELEC. likely a deception, and can operate as a
Atty. Lambino added that he also asked other gigantic fraud on the people. That is why the
supporters to print additional copies of the draft Constitution requires that an initiative must be
petition but he could not state with certainty "directly proposed by the people x x x in a
how many additional copies the other petition" - meaning that the people must sign
supporters printed. Atty. Lambino could only on a petition that contains the full text of the
assure this Court of the printing of 100,000 proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as
copies because he himself caused the printing amending the nation's fundamental law, the
of these 100,000 copies. writing of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hidden from the
people under a general or special power of
This admission binds the Lambino Group and attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected
establishes beyond any doubt that the individuals.
Lambino Group failed to show the full text of
The Constitution entrusts to the people the amendments to the Constitution. Where the
power to directly propose amendments to the intent and language of the Constitution clearly
Constitution. This Court trusts the wisdom of withhold from the people the power to
the people even if the members of this Court do propose revisions to the Constitution, the
not personally know the people who sign the people cannot propose revisions even as they
petition. However, this trust emanates from a are empowered to propose amendments.
fundamental assumption: the full text of the
proposed amendment is first shown to the
people before they sign the petition, not after This has been the consistent ruling of state
they have signed the petition. supreme courts in the United States. Thus, in
McFadden v. Jordan,32 the Supreme Court of
California ruled:
In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void
and unconstitutional because it dismally fails
to comply with the requirement of Section 2, The initiative power reserved by the people by
Article XVII of the Constitution that the amendment to the Constitution x x x applies
initiative must be "directly proposed by the only to the proposing and the adopting or
people through initiative upon a petition." rejecting of 'laws and amendments to the
Constitution' and does not purport to extend
to a constitutional revision. x x x x It is thus
SECOND, The Initiative Violates Section 2, clear that a revision of the Constitution may be
Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing accomplished only through ratification by the
Revision through Initiatives. people of a revised constitution proposed by a
convention called for that purpose as outlined
hereinabove.
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three
modes of amending the Constitution. The first
mode is through Congress upon three-fourths Similarly, in this jurisdiction there can be no
vote of all its Members. The second mode is dispute that a people's initiative can only
through a constitutional convention. The third propose amendments to the Constitution since
mode is through a people's initiative. the Constitution itself limits initiatives to
amendments. There can be no deviation from
the constitutionally prescribed modes of
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first revising the Constitution. A popular clamor,
and second modes, applies to "[A]ny even one backed by 6.3 million signatures,
amendment to, or revision of, this cannot justify a deviation from the specific
Constitution." In contrast, Section 2 of Article modes prescribed in the Constitution itself.
XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only
to "[A]mendments to this Constitution." Hence,
there is a deliberate distinction between the As the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in In
two re Initiative Petition No. 364:34
The framers of the Constitution intended, and It is a fundamental principle that a constitution
wrote, a clear distinction between can only be revised or amended in the manner
"amendment" and "revision" of the prescribed by the instrument itself, and that
Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, any attempt to revise a constitution in a
that only Congress or a constitutional manner other than the one provided in the
convention may propose revisions to the instrument is almost invariably treated as
Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, extra-constitutional and revolutionary. x x x x
that a people's initiative may propose only "While it is universally conceded that the people
are sovereign and that they have power to The qualitative test inquires into the
adopt a constitution and to change their own qualitative effects of the proposed change in
work at will, they must, in doing so, act in an the constitution. The main inquiry is whether
orderly manner and according to the settled the change will "accomplish such far reaching
principles of constitutional law. And where the changes in the nature of our basic
people, in adopting a constitution, have governmental plan as to amount to a
prescribed the method by which the people revision."37 Whether there is an alteration in
may alter or amend it, an attempt to change the the structure of government is a proper subject
fundamental law in violation of the of inquiry.
self-imposed restrictions, is unconstitutional." x
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Under both the quantitative and qualitative
tests, the Lambino Group's initiative is a
Courts have long recognized the distinction revision and not merely an amendment.
between an amendment and a revision of a Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed
constitution. One of the earliest cases that changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on
recognized the distinction described the the Legislature and Article VII on the Executive
fundamental difference in this manner: - affecting a total of 105 provisions in the
entire Constitution.40 Qualitatively, the
proposed changes alter substantially the basic
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a plan of government, from presidential to
basic principle in the constitution, like altering parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a
the principle of separation of powers or the unicameral legislature.
system of checks-and-balances. There is also
revision if the change alters the substantial
entirety of the constitution, as when the A change in the structure of government is a
change affects substantial provisions of the revision of the Constitution, as when the three
constitution. On the other hand, amendment great co-equal branches of government in the
broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, present Constitution are reduced into two. This
or deletes without altering the basic principle alters the separation of powers in the
involved. Revision generally affects several Constitution.
provisions of the constitution, while
amendment generally affects only the specific
provision being amended. This drives home the point that the people's
initiative is not meant for revisions of the
Constitution but only for amendments. A shift
In California where the initiative clause allows from the present Bicameral-Presidential to a
amendments but not revisions to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system requires
constitution just like in our Constitution, courts harmonizing several provisions in many articles
have developed a two-part test: the of the Constitution. Revision of the Constitution
quantitative test and the qualitative test. The through a people's initiative will only result in
quantitative test asks whether the proposed gross absurdities in the Constitution.
change is "so extensive in its provisions as to
change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the
constitution by the deletion or alteration of In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the
numerous existing provisions."36 The court Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not
examines only the number of provisions an amendment. Thus, the present initiative is
affected and does not consider the degree of void and unconstitutional because it violates
the change. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
limiting the scope of a people's initiative to
"[A]mendments to this Constitution."
raised by the plaintiffs is a political question

which properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of Government.
OPOSA VS FACTORAN(timber license

On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an
agreement and the right to a balance and
order granting the aforementioned motion to
healthful ecology and right of non-impairment
dismiss. 7 In the said order, not only was the
of contract)
defendant's claim — that the complaint states
no cause of action against him and that it raises
a political question — sustained, the
FACTS: respondent Judge further ruled that the
granting of the relief prayed for would result in
the impairment of contracts which is prohibited
The principal plaintiffs therein, now the by the fundamental law of the land.
principal petitioners, are all minors duly
represented and joined by their respective
parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is ISSUE:
the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a
domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation
organized for the purpose of, inter alia,
WON the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
engaging in concerted action geared for the
protection of our environment and natural
resources. The original defendant was the
WON complaint raises political issue.
Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then
Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution
in this petition by the new Secretary, the WON there is an impairment of contracts
Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently
ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners.
The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' HELD:
class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are
all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines,
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use FIRST ISSUE:(Yes! The plaintiff has a cause of
and enjoyment of the natural resource action based on the legal right to a balance and
treasure that is the country's virgin tropical healthful ecology)
forests." The same was filed for themselves
and others who are equally concerned about
the preservation of said resource but are "so
A cause of action is defined as:
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them
all before the Court." The minors further
asseverate that they "represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. . . . an act or omission of one party in violation
Petitioners prayed that the TLA is canceled and of the legal right or rights of the other; and its
cease to issue new TLA essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff,
correlative obligation of the defendant, and act
or omission of the defendant in violation of said
legal right
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 We do not agree with the trial court's
cause of action against him and (2) the issue conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege
with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right that unless the rights to a balanced and
involved or a specific legal wrong committed, healthful ecology and to health are mandated
and that the complaint is replete with vague as state policies by the Constitution itself,
assumptions and conclusions based on thereby highlighting their continuing
unverified data. A reading of the complaint importance and imposing upon the state a
itself belies these conclusions. solemn obligation to preserve the first and
protect and advance the second, the day
would not be too far when all else would be
The complaint focuses on one specific lost not only for the present generation, but
fundamental legal right — the right to a also for those to come — generations which
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the stand to inherit nothing but parched earth
first time in our nation's constitutional history, incapable of sustaining life.
is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental
law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987
Constitution explicitly provides: The right to a balanced and healthful ecology
carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance
the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10
and harmony of nature. June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4 of which
expressly mandates that the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources "shall be
This right unites with the right to health which is the primary government agency responsible
provided for in the preceding section of the for the conservation, management,
same article: development and proper use of the country's
environment and natural resources, specifically
forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources,
including those in reservation and watershed
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote
areas, and lands of the public domain, as well
the right to health of the people and instill
as the licensing and regulation of all natural
health consciousness among them.
resources as may be provided for by law in
order to ensure equitable sharing of the
benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of
While the right to a balanced and healthful the present and future generations of
ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Filipinos."
Principles and State Policies and not under the
Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code
rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right
of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve
belongs to a different category of rights
as the bases for policy formulation, and have
altogether for it concerns nothing less than
defined the powers and functions of the DENR.
self-preservation and self-perpetuation —
aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners —
the advancement of which may even be said to
predate all governments and constitutions. As a It may, however, be recalled that even before
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific
be written in the Constitution for they are statutes already paid special attention to the
assumed to exist from the inception of "environmental right" of the present and future
humankind. If they are now explicitly generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No.
because of the well-founded fear of its framers 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were
issued. The former "declared a continuing inquiry or review. The second paragraph of
policy of the State (a) to create, develop, section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states
maintain and improve conditions under which that:
man and nature can thrive in productive and
enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to
fulfill the social, economic and other Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
requirements of present and future of justice to settle actual controversies
generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the involving rights which are legally demandable
attainment of an environmental quality that is and enforceable, and to determine whether or
conducive to a life of dignity and well-being." not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
16 As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
of each generation as trustee and guardian of the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
the environment for succeeding generations." Government.
17 The latter statute, on the other hand, gave
flesh to the said policy.
Commenting on this provision in his book,
Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A.
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court,
they represent) to a balanced and healthful says:
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
The first part of the authority represents the
Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and
traditional concept of judicial power, involving
advance the said right.
the settlement of conflicting rights as
conferred as law. The second part of the
authority represents a broadening of judicial
SECOND ISSUE: (YES! It is a political question, power to enable the courts of justice to review
however the court is not precluded from what was before forbidden territory, to wit,
reviewing such cases, due to the new provision the discretion of the political departments of
vests in the judiciary, and particularly the the government.
Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even
the wisdom of the decisions of the executive
and the legislature and to declare their acts
As worded, the new provision vests in the
invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because
judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court,
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. This
the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the
invokes an expanded jurisdiction which
decisions of the executive and the legislature
includes political questions)
and to declare their acts invalid for lack or
excess of jurisdiction because tainted with
grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course,
Civil Case No. 90-777 raises a political question. is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion,"
Policy formulation or determination by the which is a very elastic phrase that can expand
executive or legislative branches of or contract according to the disposition of the
Government is not squarely put in issue. What judiciary.
is principally involved is the enforcement of a
right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and
expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless,
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now
be emphasized that the political question
speaking for this Court, noted:
doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or
the impenetrable shield that protects
executive and legislative actions from judicial In the case now before us, the jurisdictional
objection becomes even less tenable and
decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to . . . Provided, That when the national interest
assume that the issue presented before us was so requires, the President may amend, modify,
political in nature, we would still not be replace or rescind any contract, concession,
precluded from revolving it under the permit, licenses or any other form of privilege
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that granted herein . . .
now covers, in proper cases, even the political
question. ARTICLE 8 SECTION 1 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: Needless to say, all licenses may thus be
revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is
not a contract, property or a property right
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in protested by the due process clause of the
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25
may be established by law. Judicial power this Court held:
includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, . . . A timber license is an instrument by which
and to determine whether or not there has the State regulates the utilization and
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to disposition of forest resources to the end that
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any public welfare is promoted. A timber license is
branch or instrumentality of the Government. not a contract within the purview of the due
process clause; it is only a license or privilege,
which can be validly withdrawn whenever
THIRD ISSUE:(NO! There is no impairment of dictated by public interest or public welfare as
contracts since the timber license agreement is in this case.
not a contract but a license which can be
revoked by the executive department if
necessary and the non impairment clause A license is merely a permit or privilege to do
cannot apply in this since the granting of a what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not
license is a privilege under the discretion of the a contract between the authority, federal,
state) state, or municipal, granting it and the person
to whom it is granted; neither is it property or
a property right, nor does it create a vested
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this
We are amazed, if not shocked, by such a Court held that the granting of license does not
sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the create irrevocable rights, neither is it property
respondent Secretary did not, for obvious or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G.
reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss 7576).
the non-impairment clause. If he had done so,
he would have acted with utmost infidelity to
the Government by providing undue and We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe
unwarranted benefits and advantages to the Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive
timber license holders because he would have Secretary: 26
forever bound the Government to strictly
respect the said licenses according to their
terms and conditions regardless of changes in
. . . Timber licenses, permits and license
policy and the demands of public interest and
agreements are the principal instruments by
welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed
which the State regulates the utilization and
out by the petitioners, into every timber license
disposition of forest resources to the end that
must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform
public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be
Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:
gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege
granted by the State to qualified entities, and
do not vest in the latter a permanent or the bid of the Malaysian Group, Messrs. Renong
irrevocable right to the particular concession Berhad which respondent GSIS refused to
area and the forest products therein. They may accept. with the apprehension that respondent
be validly amended, modified, replaced or GSIS has disregarded the tender of the
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the
interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and
contracts within the purview of the due process consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner
of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. came to this Court on prohibition and
Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v. mandamus. On 18 October 1995 the Court
Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302]. respondents from perfecting and
consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the

non-impairment clause, cannot be invoked. On 18 October 1995 the Court issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining
respondents from perfecting and consummating
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS GSIS the sale to the Malaysian firm.
FACTS: On 10 September 1996 the instant case was

accepted by the Court En Banc after it was
referred to it by the First Division. The case was
then set for oral arguments with former Chief
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin G.
pursuant to the privatization program of the
Bernas, S.J., as amici curiae.
Philippine Government, decided to sell through
public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of respondent MHC. The
winning bidder, or the eventual strategic In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second
partner, is to provide management expertise par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and
and/or an international marketing/reservation submits that the Manila Hotel has been
system, and financial support to strengthen the identified with the Filipino nation and has
profitability and performance of the Manila practically become a historical monument
Hotel. only two (2) bidders participated: which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine
petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an
Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in
of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per the nobility and sacredness of independence
share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, and its power and capacity to release the full
with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which potential of the Filipino people. To all intents
bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 and purposes, it has become a part of the
per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of national patrimony. 6 Petitioner also argues
petitioner. Pending the declaration of Renong that since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries
Berhard as the winning bidder/strategic with it the ownership of the business of the
partner and the execution of the necessary hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS, a
contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent government-owned and controlled corporation,
GSIS dated 28 September 1995 matched the the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a
bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a
Renong Berhad. In a subsequent letter dated 10 part of the national economy. Thus, any
October 1995 petitioner sent a managers check transaction involving 51% of the shares of stock
issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million of the MHC is clearly covered by the term
Pesos (P33,000,000.00) as Bid Security to match
national economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., HELD:

Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies. 7
FIRST ISSUE: (YES! IT IS A SELF EXECUTING
PROVISION, THE PROVISION IS A MANDATORY
POSITIVE COMMAND WHICH IS COMPLETE IN
It is also the thesis of petitioner that since
ITSELF(LAST PAR))
Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony
and its business also unquestionably part of the
national economy petitioner should be
In self-executing constitutional provisions, the
preferred after it has matched the bid offer of
legislature may still enact legislation to
the Malaysian firm. For the bidding rules
facilitate the exercise of powers directly
mandate that if for any reason, the Highest
granted by the constitution, further the
Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares,
operation of such a provision, prescribe a
GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified
practice to be used for its enforcement,
Bidders that have validly submitted bids
provide a convenient remedy for the
provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing
protection of the rights secured or the
to match the highest bid in terms of price per
determination thereof, or place reasonable
share. 8
safeguards around the exercise of the right.
Respondents except. They maintain that: First,

The mere fact that legislation may supplement
Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987
and add to or prescribe a penalty for the
Constitution is merely a statement of principle
violation of a self-executing constitutional
and policy since it is not a self-executing
provision does not render such a provision
provision and requires implementing
ineffective in the absence of such legislation.
legislation(s) . . . Thus, for the said provision to
The omission from a constitution of any express
Operate, there must be existing laws "to lay
provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or
down conditions under which business may be
liability is not necessarily an indication that it
done.
was not intended to be self-executing. The rule
is that a self-executing provision of the
constitution does not necessarily exhaust
ISSUE:
legislative power on the subject, but any
legislation must be in harmony with the
constitution, further the exercise of
WON sec 10 second par. Art XII of 1987 constitutional right and make it more available.
constitution is a self executing provision. 17 Subsequent legislation however does not
necessarily mean that the subject
constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully
WON manila hotel forms part of the national enforceable.
patrimony.
Respondents also argue that the

WON the submission of matching bid is non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, second
premature. par., of Art. XII is implied from the tenor of the
first and third paragraphs of the same section
which undoubtedly are not self-executing. 18
WON there was a grave abuse of discretion on The argument is flawed. If the first and third
the part of the respondent in refusing the paragraphs are not self-executing because
matching bid of the petitioner. Congress is still to enact measures to
encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises fully owned by Filipinos, as in the
first paragraph, and the State still needs
legislation to regulate and exercise authority there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi
over foreign investments within its national remedium.
jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a
fortiori, by the same logic, the second
paragraph can only be self-executing as it does SECOND ISSUE:(MANILA HOTEL IS PART OF THE
not by its language require any legislation in NATIONAL PATRIMONY HENCE FILIPINO FIRST
order to give preference to qualified Filipinos POLICY APPLIES)
in the grant of rights, privileges and
concessions covering the national economy
and patrimony. A constitutional provision may
As regards our national patrimony, a member of
be self-executing in one part and
the 1986 Constitutional Commission 34 explains
non-self-executing in another. 19
—
Even the cases cited by respondents holding

The patrimony of the Nation that should be
that certain constitutional provisions are
conserved and developed refers not only to
merely statements of principles and policies,
out rich natural resources but also to the
which are basically not self-executing and only
cultural heritage of out race. It also refers to
placed in the Constitution as moral incentives
our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters.
to legislation, not as judicially enforceable
Therefore, we should develop not only our
rights — are simply not in point. A reading of
lands, forests, mines and other natural
these provisions indeed clearly shows that they
resources but also the mental ability or faculty
are not judicially enforceable constitutional
of our people.
rights but merely guidelines for legislation. The
very terms of the provisions manifest that they
are only principles upon which the legislations
must be based. Res ipsa loquitur. We agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning,
the term patrimony pertains to heritage. 35
When the Constitution speaks of national
patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII
resources of the Philippines, as the
of the of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory,
Constitution could have very well used the
positive command which is complete in itself
term natural resources, but also to the cultural
and which needs no further guidelines or
heritage of the Filipinos.
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement.
From its very words the provision does not
require any legislation to put it in operation. It
is per se judicially enforceable When our Manila Hotel has become a landmark — a
Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While
rights, privileges, and concessions covering it was restrictively an American hotel when it
national economy and patrimony, the State first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it be truly Filipino, Formerly a concourse for the
means just that — qualified Filipinos shall be elite, it has since then become the venue of
preferred. And when our Constitution declares various significant events which have shaped
that a right exists in certain specified Philippine history. It was called the Cultural
circumstances an action may be maintained to Center of the 1930's. It was the site of the
enforce such right notwithstanding the festivities during the inauguration of the
absence of any legislation on the subject; Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the
consequently, if there is no statute especially Official Guest House of the Philippine
enacted to enforce such constitutional right, Government. it plays host to dignitaries and
such right enforces itself by its own inherent official visitors who are accorded the
potency and puissance, and from which all traditional Philippine hospitality.
legislations must take their bearings. Where
We cannot simply afford the government a

defense that arises out of the failure to enact
The history of the hotel has been chronicled in
further enabling, implementing or guiding
the book The Manila Hotel: The Heart and
legislation. In fine, the discourse of Fr. Joaquin G.
Memory of a City. During World War II the hotel
Bernas, S.J., on constitutional government is apt
was converted by the Japanese Military
—
Administration into a military headquarters.
When the American forces returned to
recapture Manila the hotel was selected by the
The executive department has a constitutional
Japanese together with Intramuros as the two
duty to implement laws, including the
(2) places fro their final stand. Thereafter, in the
Constitution, even before Congress acts —
1950's and 1960's, the hotel became the center
provided that there are discoverable legal
of political activities, playing host to almost
standards for executive action. When the
every political convention. In 1970 the hotel
executive acts, it must be guided by its own
reopened after a renovation and reaped
understanding of the constitutional command
numerous international recognitions, an
and of applicable laws. The responsibility for
acknowledgment of the Filipino talent and
reading and understanding the Constitution
ingenuity. In 1986 the hotel was the site of a
and the laws is not the sole prerogative of
failed coup d' etat where an aspirant for
Congress. If it were, the executive would have
vice-president was "proclaimed" President of
to ask Congress, or perhaps the Court, for an
the Philippine Republic.
interpretation every time the executive is
confronted by a constitutional command. That
is not how constitutional government operates.
For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel
45
has bore mute witness to the triumphs and
failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos;
its existence is impressed with public interest;
Respondents further argue that the
its own historicity associated with our struggle
constitutional provision is addressed to the
for sovereignty, independence and nationhood.
State, not to respondent GSIS which by itself
Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our
possesses a separate and distinct personality.
national economy and patrimony. For sure, 51%
This argument again is at best specious. It is
of the equity of the MHC comes within the
undisputed that the sale of 51% of the MHC
purview of the constitutional shelter for it
could only be carried out with the prior
comprises the majority and controlling stock,
approval of the State acting through
so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51%
respondent Committee on Privatization. As
will have actual control and management of
correctly pointed out by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas,
the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC
S.J., this fact alone makes the sale of the assets
cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the
of respondents GSIS and MHC a "state action."
land on which the hotel edifice stands.
In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of
Consequently, we cannot sustain respondents'
persons distinct from the government are
claim that the Filipino First Policy provision is
considered "state action" covered by the
not applicable since what is being sold is only
Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in
51% of the outstanding shares of the
is a "public function;" (2) when the
corporation, not the Hotel building nor the
government is so significantly involved with
land upon which the building stands.
the private actor as to make the government
responsible for his action; and, (3) when the
government has approved or authorized the
THIRD ISSUE:( GSIS SHOULD FOLLOW THE
action. It is evident that the act of respondent
FILIPINO FIRST POLICY DUE TO THE DOCTRINE
GSIS in selling 51% of its share in respondent
OF CONSTITUIONAL SUPREMACY)
MHC comes under the second and third
categories of "state action." Without doubt
therefore the transaction. although entered
into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a transaction law of the land. Those which violate the
of the State and therefore subject to the Constitution lose their reason for being.
constitutional command. 46
the constitutional mandate itself is reason

When the Constitution addresses the State it enough not to award the block of shares
refers not only to the people but also to the immediately to the foreign bidder
government as elements of the State. After all, notwithstanding its submission of a higher, or
government is composed of three (3) divisions even the highest, bid. In fact, we cannot
of power — legislative, executive and judicial. conceive of a stronger reason than the
Accordingly, a constitutional mandate directed constitutional injunction itself.
to the State is correspondingly directed to the
three(3) branches of government. It is
undeniable that in this case the subject In the instant case, where a foreign firm
constitutional injunction is addressed among submits the highest bid in a public bidding
others to the Executive Department and concerning the grant of rights, privileges and
respondent GSIS, a government concessions covering the national economy
instrumentality deriving its authority from the and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a
State. Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino
will have to be allowed to match the bid of the
foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the
It should be stressed that while the Malaysian bid of a foreign firm the award should go to
firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life
winning bidder. The bidding rules expressly and meaning to the Filipino First Policy
provide that the highest bidder shall only be provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, while
declared the winning bidder after it has this may neither be expressly stated nor
negotiated and executed the necessary contemplated in the bidding rules, the
contracts, and secured the requisite approvals. constitutional fiat is, omnipresent to be simply
Since the "Filipino First Policy provision of the disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction
Constitution bestows preference on qualified a perilous skirting of the basic law.
Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is
not an assurance that the highest bidder will be
declared the winning bidder. Resultantly, This Court does not discount the apprehension
respondents are not bound to make the award that this policy may discourage foreign
yet, nor are they under obligation to enter into investors. But the Constitution and laws of the
one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the Philippines are understood to be always open
awardee respondents are mandated to abide by to public scrutiny. These are given factors which
the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the investors must consider when venturing into
provisions of which are presumed to be known business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any person
to all the bidders and other interested parties. therefore desiring to do business in the
Philippines or with any of its agencies or
instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights
Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional and obligations under the Constitution and the
supremacy, the subject constitutional laws of the forum.
provision is, as it should be, impliedly written
in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS,
lest the bidding rules be nullified for being FOURTH ISSUE: (THE REFUSAL OF GSIS TO SELL
violative of the Constitution. It is a basic THE SHARES TO MHC IS CONSIDERED AS
principle in constitutional law that all laws and GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION)
contracts must conform with the fundamental
Since petitioner has already matched the bid any constitutional provision must adhere to
price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to such basic concept. Protection of foreign
the bidding rules, respondent GSIS is left with investments, while laudible, is merely a policy.
no alternative but to award to petitioner the It cannot override the demands of nationalism.
block of shares of MHC and to execute the 50
necessary agreements and documents to effect
the sale in accordance not only with the bidding
guidelines and procedures but with the The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the
Constitution as well. The refusal of respondent MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to
GSIS to execute the corresponding documents the highest bidder solely for the sake of
with petitioner as provided in the bidding rules privatization. We are not talking about an
after the latter has matched the bid of the ordinary piece of property in a commercial
Malaysian firm clearly constitutes grave abuse district. We are talking about a historic relic that
of discretion. has hosted many of the most important events
in the short history of the Philippines as a nation.
We are talking about a hotel where heads of
The Filipino First Policy is a product of states would prefer to be housed as a strong
Philippine nationalism. It is embodied in the manifestation of their desire to cloak the dignity
1987 Constitution not merely to be used as a of the highest state function to their official
guideline for future legislation but primarily to visits to the Philippines. Thus the Manila Hotel
be enforced; so must it be enforced. This Court has played and continues to play a significant
as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution role as an authentic repository of twentieth
will never shun, under any reasonable century Philippine history and culture. In this
circumstance, the duty of upholding the sense, it has become truly a reflection of the
majesty of the Constitution which it is tasked Filipino soul — a place with a history of
to defend. It is worth emphasizing that it is not grandeur; a most historical setting that has
the intention of this Court to impede and played a part in the shaping of a country.
diminish, much less undermine, the influx of
foreign investments. Far from it, the Court
encourages and welcomes more business (The FiIipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987
opportunities but avowedly sanctions the Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights,
preference for Filipinos whenever such privileges, and concessions covering the
preference is ordained by the Constitution. national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos)
the Court will always defer to the

Constitution in the proper governance of a free MAGALONA VS SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA
society; after all, there is nothing so sacrosanct
in any economic policy as to draw itself beyond
judicial review when the Constitution is
FACTS:
involved. 49
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046

Nationalism is inherent, in the very concept of
(RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime baselines
the Philippines being a democratic and
of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3 This
republican state, with sovereignty residing in
law followed the framing of the Convention on
the Filipino people and from whom all
the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in
government authority emanates. In
1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the
nationalism, the happiness and welfare of the
sovereign right of States parties over their
people must be the goal. The nation-state can
territorial sea, the breadth of which, however,
have no higher purpose. Any interpretation of
was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void
during the second round of negotiations in In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s
Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, treatment of the KIG as regime of islands not
domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for only results in the loss of a large maritime area
nearly five decades, save for legislation passed but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence
in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446]) fishermen.14 To buttress their argument of
correcting typographical errors and reserving territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack
the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North RA 9522 for what it excluded and included its
Borneo. failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or
Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs framework of
regime of islands to determine the maritime
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.
enacting RA 9522, the statute now under
scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need
to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of Commenting on the petition, respondent
the United Nations Convention on the Law of officials raised threshold issues questioning (1)
the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines the petitions compliance with the case or
ratified on 27 February 1984.6 Among others, controversy requirement for judicial review
UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, grounded on petitioners alleged lack of locus
length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic standi and (2) the propriety of the writs of
States like the Philippines7 and sets the certiorari and prohibition to assail the
deadline for the filing of application for the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits,
extended continental shelf.8 Complying with respondents defended RA 9522 as the countrys
these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III,
baseline, optimized the location of some preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or
basepoints around the Philippine archipelago Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA
and classified adjacent territories, namely, the 9522 does not undermine the countrys security,
Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the environment and economic interests or
Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of islands whose relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah.
islands generate their own applicable maritime
zones.
Respondents also question the normative force,
under international law, of petitioners assertion
Petitioners, professors of law, law students and that what Spain ceded to the United States
a legislator, in their respective capacities as under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and
citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators,9 as the all the waters found within the boundaries of
case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of
9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA Paris.
9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and
logically, the reach of the Philippine states
sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the ISSUE:
1987 Constitution,10 embodying the terms of
the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12
and (2) RA 9522 opens the countrys waters
WON Petitioner possess locus standi.
landward of the baselines to maritime passage
by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining
Philippine sovereignty and national security,
contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional
and damaging marine resources, in violation of
relevant constitutional provisions.13
HELD:
FIRST ISSUE: (THEY HAVE LOCUS STANDI) 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours
could not be any clearer:
we recognize petitioners locus standi as citizens

with constitutionally sufficient interest in the Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the
resolution of the merits of the case which territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the
undoubtedly raises issues of national exclusive economic zone and the continental
significance necessitating urgent resolution. shelf. The breadth of the territorial sea, the
Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone
it is understandably difficult to find other and the continental shelf shall be measured
litigants possessing a more direct and specific from archipelagic baselines drawn in
interest to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of accordance with article 47.
the requirements for granting citizenship
standing.
Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory
mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to
SECOND ISSUE: (RA 9522 IS CONSTITUTIONAL delimit with precision the extent of their
THERE ARE FOUR REASONS) maritime zones and continental shelves. In
turn, this gives notice to the rest of the
international community of the scope of the
Petitioners theory fails to persuade us. maritime space and submarine areas within
which States parties exercise treaty-based
rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over
territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to
UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the
enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and
acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a
sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article
multilateral treaty regulating, among others,
33), and the right to exploit the living and
sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the
non-living resources in the exclusive economic
territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the
zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article
baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles
77).
from the baselines], exclusive economic zone
[200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.
Even under petitioners theory that the
Philippine territory embraces the islands and all
the waters within the rectangular area
UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long
delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of
negotiations among United Nations members to
the Philippines would still have to be drawn in
codify norms regulating the conduct of States in
accordance with RA 9522 because this is the
the worlds oceans and submarine areas,
only way to draw the baselines in conformity
recognizing coastal and archipelagic States
with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be
graduated authority over a limited span of
drawn from the boundaries or other portions
waters and submarine lands along their coasts.
of the rectangular area delineated in the
Treaty of Paris, but from the outermost islands
and drying reefs of the archipelago.24
On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA
9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties
to mark-out specific basepoints along their
UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play
coasts from which baselines are drawn, either
no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as
straight or contoured, to serve as geographic
petitioners claim, diminution of territory.
starting points to measure the breadth of the
Under traditional international law typology,
maritime zones and continental shelf. Article
States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory
through occupation, accretion, cession and

prescription,25 not by executing multilateral
treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or
enacting statutes to comply with the treatys Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and
terms to delimit maritime zones and continental the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine
shelves. Territorial claims to land features are archipelago, adverse legal effects would have
outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by ensued. The Philippines would have committed
the rules on general international law. a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First,
Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that [t]he
drawing of such baselines shall not depart to
Second, the classification of KGI and any appreciable extent from the general
Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands is configuration of the archipelago. Second, Article
consistent with the Philippines’ sovereignty. 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that the length of
Had RA 9522 enclosed the islands as part of the the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical
archipelago, the country will be violating miles, save for three per cent (3%) of the total
UNCLOS III since it categorically stated that the number of baselines which can reach up to 125
length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles.31
nautical miles. So what the legislators did is to
carefully analyze the situation: the country, for
decades, had been claiming sovereignty over Although the Philippines has consistently
KGI and Scarborough Shoal on one hand and claimed sovereignty over the KIG32 and the
on the other hand they had to consider that Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these
these are located at non-appreciable distance outlying areas are located at an appreciable
from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine distance from the nearest shoreline of the
archipelago. So, the classification is in Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight
accordance with the Philippines sovereignty baseline loped around them from the nearest
and State’s responsible observance of its pacta basepoint will inevitably depart to an
sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. appreciable extent from the general
configuration of the archipelago.
petitioners argument that the KIG now lies

outside Philippine territory because the The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate,
baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, took pains
the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 to emphasize the foregoing during the Senate
of the law commits to text the Philippines deliberations:
continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction
over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal:
What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or
what the rest of the world call[] the Spratlys
SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our
over which the Philippines likewise exercises archipelagic baseline because if we put them
sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be inside our baselines we might be accused of
determined as Regime of Islands under the violating the provision of international law
Republic of the Philippines consistent with which states: The drawing of such baseline
Article 121 of the United Nations Convention shall not depart to any appreciable extent from
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): the general configuration of the archipelago.
So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalapit
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted
ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang
under Presidential Decree No. 1596 and
Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as malapit sila sa atin although we are still
Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied)
allowed by international law to claim them as innocent and sea lanes passages, exposing the
our own. Philippine internal waters to nuclear and
maritime pollution hazards. The Court
emphasized that the Philippines exercises
This is called contested islands outside our sovereignty over the body of water lying
configuration. We see that our archipelago is landward of the baselines, including the air
defined by the orange line which [we] call[] space over it and the submarine areas
archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo underneath, regardless whether internal or
ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is archipelagic waters. However, sovereignty will
Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa not bar the Philippines to comply with its
ibaba, that is Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys. obligation in maintaining freedom of
Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung navigation and the generally accepted
ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines principles of international law. It can be either
para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, passed by legislator as a municipal law or in
hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi na the absence thereof, it is deemed incorporated
tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the in the Philippines law since the right of
rule that it should follow the natural innocent passage is a customary international
configuration of the archipelago. law, thus automatically incorporated thereto.
Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines This does not mean that the states are placed
claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, in a lesser footing; it just signifies concession of
Congress decision to classify the KIG and the archipelagic states in exchange for their right
Scarborough Shoal as Regime[s] of Islands to claim all waters inside the baseline. In fact,
under the Republic of the Philippines the demarcation of the baselines enables the
consistent with Article 12136 of UNCLOS III Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic
manifests the Philippine States responsible zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the
observance of its pacta sunt servanda exploitation of all living and non-living
obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 resources within such zone. Such a maritime
of UNCLOS III, any naturally formed area of delineation binds the international community
land, surrounded by water, which is above since the delineation is in strict observance of
water at high tide, such as portions of the KIG, UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is
qualifies under the category of regime of contrary to UNCLOS III, the international
islands, whose islands generate their own community will of course reject it and will
applicable maritime zones refuse to be bound by it.
THIRD, the new base line introduced by RA The Court expressed that it is within the
9522 is without prejudice with delineation of Congress who has the prerogative to
the baselines of the territorial sea around the determine the passing of a law and not the
territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, Court. Moreover, such enactment was
over which the Republic of the Philippines has necessary in order to comply with the UNCLOS
acquired dominion and sovereignty. III; otherwise, it shall backfire on the
Philippines for its territory shall be open to
seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit
the resources in the waters and submarine
LASTLY, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not
areas around our archipelago and it will
incompatible with the Constitution’s delineation
weaken the country’s case in any international
of internal waters. Petitioners contend that RA
dispute over Philippine maritime space.
9522 transformed the internal waters of the
Philippines to archipelagic waters hence
subjecting these waters to the right of
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant On January 2, 1942, the Imperial Japanese
baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and Forces occupied the City of Manila, and on the
adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows next day their Commander in Chief proclaimed
an internationally-recognized delimitation of "the Military Administration under law over the
the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones districts occupied by the Army." In said
and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a proclamation, it was also provided that "so far
most vital step on the part of the Philippines in as the Military Administration permits, all the
safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well
with the Constitution and our national interest. as executive and judicial institutions, shall
continue to be effective for the time being as in
the past," and "all public officials shall remain in
CO KIM CHAM VS EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH their present posts and carry on faithfully their
AND ARSENIO P. DIZON duties as before."
FACTS: A civil government or central administration

organization under the name of "Philippine
Executive Commission was organized by Order
No. 1 issued on January 23, 1942, by the
This petition for mandamus in which petitioner
Commander in Chief of the Japanese Forces in
prays that the respondent judge of the lower
the Philippines, and Jorge B. Vargas, who was
court be ordered to continue the proceedings in
appointed Chairman thereof, was instructed to
civil case No. 3012 of said court, which were
proceed to the immediate coordination of the
initiated under the regime of the so-called
existing central administrative organs and
Republic of the Philippines established during
judicial courts, based upon what had existed
the Japanese military occupation of these
therefore, with approval of the said
Islands.
Commander in Chief, who was to exercise
jurisdiction over judicial courts.
The respondent judge refused to take

cognizance of and continue the proceedings in
The Chairman of the Executive Commission, as
said case on the ground that the proclamation
head of the central administrative organization,
issued on October 23, 1944, by General Douglas
issued Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 4, dated
MacArthur had the effect of invalidating and
January 30 and February 5, 1942, respectively,
nullifying all judicial proceedings and
in which the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
judgements of the court of the Philippines
Courts of First Instance, and the justices of the
under the Philippine Executive Commission and
peace and municipal courts under the
the Republic of the Philippines established
Commonwealth were continued with the same
during the Japanese military occupation, and
jurisdiction, in conformity with the instructions
that, furthermore, the lower courts have no
given to the said Chairman of the Executive
jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue
Commission by the Commander in Chief of
judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the
Japanese Forces in the Philippines in the latter's
defunct Republic of the Philippines in the
Order No. 3 of February 20, 1942, concerning
absence of an enabling law granting such
basic principles to be observed by the Philippine
authority. And the same respondent, in his
Executive Commission in exercising legislative,
answer and memorandum filed in this Court,
executive and judicial powers. Section 1 of said
contends that the government established in
Order provided that "activities of the
the Philippines during the Japanese occupation
administration organs and judicial courts in the
were no de facto governments.
Philippines shall be based upon the existing
statutes, orders, ordinances and customs. . . ."
On October 14, 1943, the so-called Republic of courts at the time the Philippines were
the Philippines was inaugurated, but no reoccupied and liberated by the United States
substantial change was effected thereby in the and Filipino forces, and the Commonwealth of
organization and jurisdiction of the different the Philippines were reestablished in the
courts that functioned during the Philippine Islands.
Executive Commission, and in the laws they
administered and enforced.
HELD:
On February 3, 1945, the City of Manila was

partially liberated and on February 27, 1945, FIRST ISSUE:
General MacArthur, on behalf of the
Government of the United States, solemnly
declared "the full powers and responsibilities
AFFIRMATIVE. [A]ll acts and proceedings of the
under the Constitution restored to the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments
Commonwealth whose seat is here established
of a de facto government are good and valid. If
as provided by law."
[the governments established in these Islands
under the names of the Philippine Executive
Commission and Republic of the Philippines
ISSUE: during the Japanese military occupation or
regime were de facto governments], the
judicial acts and proceedings of those
WON the judicial acts and proceedings of the governments remain good and valid even after
court existing in the Philippines under the the liberation or reoccupation of the
Philippine Executive Commission and the Philippines by the American and Filipino
Republic of the Philippines were good and valid forces.
and remained so even after the liberation or
reoccupation of the Philippines by the United
States and Filipino forces; The governments by the Philippine Executive
Commission and the Republic of the
Philippines during the Japanese military
WON the proclamation issued on October 23, occupation being de facto governments, it
1944, by General Douglas MacArthur, necessarily follows that the judicial acts and
Commander in Chief of the United States Army, proceedings of the courts of justice of those
in which he declared "that all laws, regulations governments, which are not of a political
and processes of any of the government in the complexion, were good and valid, and, by
Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth virtue of the well-known principle of
are null and void and without legal effect in postliminy in international law, remained good
areas of the Philippines free of enemy and valid after the liberation or reoccupation
occupation and control," has invalidated all of the Philippines by the American and Filipino
judgements and judicial acts and proceedings of forces under the leadership of General Douglas
the said courts; MacArthur.
WON the said judicial acts and proceedings It is a legal truism in political and international
have not been invalidated by said proclamation, law that all acts and proceedings of the
whether the present courts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments
Commonwealth, which were the same court of a de facto government are good and valid.
existing prior to, and continued during, the The question to be determined is whether or
Japanese military occupation of the Philippines, not the governments established in these
may continue those proceedings pending in said Islands under the names of the Philippine
Executive Commission and Republic of the supported more or less directly by military
Philippines during the Japanese military force.
occupation or regime were de facto
governments. If they were, the judicial acts and
proceedings of those governments remain good The powers and duties of de facto governments
and valid even after the liberation or of this description are regulated in Section III of
reoccupation of the Philippines by the American the Hague Conventions of 1907, which is a
and Filipino forces. revision of the provisions of the Hague
Conventions of 1899 on the same subject of
said Section III provides "the authority of the
There are several kinds of de facto governments. legislative power having actually passed into the
The first, or government de facto in a proper hands of the occupant, the latter shall take
legal sense, is that government that gets steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as
possession and control of, or usurps, by force or far as possible, public order and safety, while
by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the
governments and maintains itself against the laws in force in the country."
will of the latter The second is that which is
established and maintained by military forces
who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy The doctrine upon this subject is thus summed
in the course of war, and which is denominated up by Halleck, in his work on International Law
a government of paramount force And the third (Vol. 2, p. 444): "The right of one belligerent to
is that established as an independent occupy and govern the territory of the enemy
government by the inhabitants of a country who while in its military possession, is one of the
rise in insurrection against the parent state of incidents of war, and flows directly from the
such as the government of the Southern right to conquer. We, therefore, do not look to
Confederacy in revolt not concerned in the the Constitution or political institutions of the
present case with the first kind, but only with conqueror, for authority to establish a
the second and third kinds of de facto government for the territory of the enemy in his
governments. possession, during its military occupation, nor
for the rules by which the powers of such
government are regulated and limited. Such
the Supreme Court of the United States, in the authority and such rules are derived directly
case of Thorington vs. Smith (8 Wall., 1), said: from the laws war, as established by the usage
"But there is another description of government, of the of the world, and confirmed by the
called also by publicists a government de facto, writings of publicists and decisions of courts —
but which might, perhaps, be more aptly in fine, from the law of nations. . . . The
denominated a government of paramount force. municipal laws of a conquered territory, or the
Its distinguishing characteristics are (1), that its laws which regulate private rights, continue in
existence is maintained by active military power force during military occupation, excepts so far
with the territories, and against the rightful as they are suspended or changed by the acts of
authority of an established and lawful conqueror. . . . He, nevertheless, has all the
government; and (2), that while it exists it powers of a de facto government, and can at his
necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private pleasure either change the existing laws or
citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in make new ones."
submission to such force, do not become
responsible, or wrongdoers, for those acts,
though not warranted by the laws of the rightful And applying the principles for the exercise of
government. Actual governments of this sort military authority in an occupied territory,
are established over districts differing greatly in which were later embodied in the said Hague
extent and conditions. They are usually Conventions, President McKinley, in his
administered directly by military authority, but executive order to the Secretary of War of May
they may be administered, also, civil authority,
19,1898, relating to the occupation of the Philippine Executive Commission was a civil
Philippines by United States forces, said in part: and not a military government and was run by
"Though the powers of the military occupant Filipinos and not by Japanese nationals, is of
are absolute and supreme, and immediately no consequence.
operate upon the political condition of the
inhabitants, the municipal laws of the
conquered territory, such as affect private rights SECOND ISSUE:
of person and property and provide for the
punishment of crime, are considered as
continuing in force, so far as they are
NEGATIVE. The phrase “processes of any other
compatible with the new order of things, until
government” is broad and may refer not only
they are suspended or superseded by the
to the judicial processes, but also to
occupying belligerent; and in practice they are
administrative or legislative, as well as
not usually abrogated, but are allowed to
constitutional, processes of the Republic of the
remain in force and to be administered by the
Philippines or other governmental agencies
ordinary tribunals, substantially as they were
established in the Islands during the Japanese
before the occupation. This enlightened
occupation.
practice is, so far as possible, to be adhered to
on the present occasion. The judges and the
other officials connected with the
administration of justice may, if they accept the [I]t should be presumed that it was not, and
authority of the United States, continue to could not have been, the intention of General
administer the ordinary law of the land as Douglas MacArthur, in using the phrase
between man and man under the supervision of “processes of any other government” in said
the American Commander in Chief." proclamation, to refer to judicial processes, in
violation of said principles of international law.,
it should be presumed that it was not, and
could not have been, the intention of General
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the
Douglas MacArthur, in using the phrase
Philippine Executive Commission, which was
"processes of any other government" in said
organized by Order No. 1, issued on January 23,
proclamation, to refer to judicial processes, in
1942, by the Commander of the Japanese
violation of said principles of international law.
forces, was a civil government established by
The only reasonable construction of the said
the military forces of occupation and therefore
phrase is that it refers to governmental
a de facto government of the second kind. It
processes other than judicial processes of court
was not different from the government
proceedings, for according to a well-known
established by the British in Castine, Maine, or
rule of statutory construction, set forth in 25 R.
by the United States in Tampico, Mexico. As
C. L., p. 1028, "a statute ought never to be
Halleck says, "The government established
construed to violate the law of nations if any
over an enemy's territory during the military
other possible construction remains."
occupation may exercise all the powers given
by the laws of war to the conqueror over the
conquered, and is subject to all restrictions
which that code imposes. It is of little [T]he legislative power of a commander in
consequence whether such government be chief of military forces who liberates or
called a military or civil government. Its reoccupies his own territory which has been
character is the same and the source of its occupied by an enemy, during the military and
authority the same. In either case it is a before the restoration of the civil regime, is as
government imposed by the laws of war, and broad as that of the commander in chief of the
so far it concerns the inhabitants of such military forces of invasion and occupation, it is
territory or the rest of the world, those laws to be presumed that General Douglas
alone determine the legality or illegality of its MacArthur, who was acting as an agent or a
acts." (Vol. 2, p. 466.) The fact that the representative of the Government and the
President of the United States, constitutional of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Said
commander in chief of the United States Army, Executive order abolished the Court of Appeals,
did not intend to act against the principles of and provided "that all case which have
the law of nations asserted by the Supreme heretofore been duly appealed to the Court of
Court of the United States from the early Appeals shall be transmitted to the Supreme
period of its existence, applied by the Court final decision." This provision impliedly
Presidents of the United States, and later recognizes that the judgments and proceedings
embodied in the Hague Conventions of 1907. of the courts during the Japanese military
as above indicated. It is not to be presumed that occupation have not been invalidated by the
General Douglas MacArthur, who enjoined in proclamation of General MacArthur of October
the same proclamation of October 23, 1944, 23, because the said Order does not say or
"upon the loyal citizens of the Philippines full refer to cases which have been duly appealed
respect and obedience to the Constitution of to said court prior to the Japanese occupation,
the Commonwealth of the Philippines," should but to cases which had therefore, that is, up to
not only reverse the international policy and March 10, 1945, been duly appealed to the
practice of his own government, but also Court of Appeals; and it is to be presumed that
disregard in the same breath the provisions of almost all, if not all, appealed cases pending in
section 3, Article II, of our Constitution, which the Court of Appeals prior to the Japanese
provides that "The Philippines renounces war as military occupation of Manila on January 2,
an instrument of national policy, and adopts the 1942, had been disposed of by the latter
generally accepted principles of international before the restoration of the Commonwealth
law as part of the law of the Nation." Government in 1945; while almost all, if not all,
appealed cases pending on March 10, 1945, in
the Court of Appeals were from judgments
The mere conception or thought of possibility rendered by the Court of First Instance during
that the titular sovereign or his representatives the Japanese regime.
who reoccupies a territory occupied by an
enemy, may set aside or annul all the judicial
acts or proceedings of the tribunals which the The respondent judge quotes a portion of
belligerent occupant had the right and duty to Wheaton's International Law which say:
establish in order to insure public order and "Moreover when it is said that an occupier's
safety during military occupation, would be acts are valid and under international law
sufficient to paralyze the social life of the should not be abrogated by the subsequent
country or occupied territory, for it would have conqueror, it must be remembered that no
to be expected that litigants would not crucial instances exist to show that if his acts
willingly submit their litigation to courts whose should be reversed, any international wrong
judgements or decisions may afterwards be would be committed. What does happen is
annulled, and criminals would not be deterred that most matters are allowed to stand by the
from committing crimes or offenses in the restored government, but the matter can
expectancy that they may escaped the penalty hardly be put further than this." (Wheaton,
if judgments rendered against them may be International Law, War, 7th English edition of
afterwards set aside. 1944, p. 245.) And from this quotion the
respondent judge "draws the conclusion that
whether the acts of the occupant should be
That the proclamation has not invalidated all considered valid or not, is a question that is up
the judgements and proceedings of the courts to the restored government to decide; that
of justice during the Japanese regime, is there is no rule of international law that denies
impliedly confirmed by Executive Order No. 37, to the restored government to decide; that
which has the force of law, issued by the there is no rule of international law that denies
President of the Philippines on March 10, 1945, to the restored government the right of
by virtue of the emergency legislative power exercise its discretion on the matter, imposing
vested in him by the Constitution and the laws upon it in its stead the obligation of
recognizing and enforcing the acts of the same. Although the question whether the
overthrown government." President or commanding officer of the United
States Army has violated restraints imposed by
the constitution and laws of his country is
There is doubt that the subsequent conqueror obviously of a domestic nature, yet, in
has the right to abrogate most of the acts of the construing and applying limitations imposed on
occupier, such as the laws, regulations and the executive authority, the Supreme Court of
processes other than judicial of the government the United States, in the case of Ochoa, vs.
established by the belligerent occupant. But in Hernandez (230 U.S., 139), has declared that
view of the fact that the proclamation uses the they "arise from general rules of international
words "processes of any other government" law and from fundamental principles known
and not "judicial processes" prisely, it is not wherever the American flag flies."
necessary to determine whether or not
General Douglas MacArthur had power to
annul and set aside all judgments and It is, therefore, evident that the proclamation
proceedings of the courts during the Japanese of General MacArthur of October 23, 1944,
occupation. The question to be determined is which declared that "all laws, regulations and
whether or not it was his intention, as processes of any other government in the
representative of the President of the United Philippines than that of the said
States, to avoid or nullify them. If the Commonwealth are null and void without legal
proclamation had, expressly or by necessary effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy
implication, declared null and void the judicial occupation and control," has not invalidated
processes of any other government, it would be the judicial acts and proceedings, which are
necessary for this court to decide in the present not a political complexion, of the courts of
case whether or not General Douglas justice in the Philippines that were continued
MacArthur had authority to declare them null by the Philippine Executive Commission and
and void. But the proclamation did not so the Republic of the Philippines during the
provide, undoubtedly because the author Japanese military occupation, and that said
thereof was fully aware of the limitations of his judicial acts and proceedings were good and
powers as Commander in Chief of Military valid before and now good and valid after the
Forces of liberation or subsequent conqueror. reoccupation of liberation of the Philippines by
the American and Filipino forces.
If a belligerent occupant is required to

establish courts of justice in the territory THIRD ISSUE:
occupied, and forbidden to prevent the
nationals thereof from asserting or enforcing
therein their civil rights, by necessary AFFIRMATIVE. Although in theory the authority
implication, the military commander of the the authority of the local civil and judicial
forces of liberation or the restored government administration is suspended as a matter of
is restrained from nullifying or setting aside the course as soon as military occupation takes
judgments rendered by said courts in their place, in practice the invader does not usually
litigation during the period of occupation. take the administration of justice into his own
Otherwise, the purpose of these precepts of hands, but continues the ordinary courts or
the Hague Conventions would be thwarted, for tribunals to administer the laws of the country
to declare them null and void would be which he is enjoined, unless absolutely
tantamount to suspending in said courts the prevented, to respect.
right and action of the nationals of the
territory during the military occupation thereof
by the enemy. It goes without saying that a law
[I]n the Executive Order of President McKinley
that enjoins a person to do something will not
to the Secretary of War, “in practice, they (the
at the same time empower another to undo the
municipal laws) are not usually abrogated but vigore" unless and until repealed by legislative
are allowed to remain in force and to be acts. A proclamation that said laws and courts
administered by the ordinary tribunals are expressly continued is not necessary in
substantially as they were before the order that they may continue in force. Such
occupation. This enlightened practice is, so far proclamation, if made, is but a declaration of
as possible, to be adhered to on the present the intention of respecting and not repealing
occasion.” those laws. Therefore, even assuming that
Japan had legally acquired sovereignty over
these Islands, which she had afterwards
From a theoretical point of view it may be said transferred to the so-called Republic of the
that the conqueror is armed with the right to Philippines, and that the laws and the courts of
substitute his arbitrary will for all preexisting these Islands had become the courts of Japan,
forms of government, legislative, executive as the said courts of the laws creating and
and judicial. From the stand-point of actual conferring jurisdiction upon them have
practice such arbitrary will is restrained by the continued in force until now, it necessarily
provision of the law of nations which compels follows that the same courts may continue
the conqueror to continue local laws and exercising the same jurisdiction over cases
institution so far as military necessity will pending therein before the restoration of the
permit. Commonwealth Government, unless and until
they are abolished or the laws creating and
conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed
by the said government. As a consequence,
it is a legal maxim, that excepting that of a
enabling laws or acts providing that proceedings
political nature, "Law once established
pending in one court be continued by or
continues until changed by the some
transferred to another court, are not required
competent legislative power. It is not change
by the mere change of government or
merely by change of sovereignty." (Joseph H.
sovereignty. They are necessary only in case the
Beale, Cases on Conflict of Laws, III, Summary
former courts are abolished or their jurisdiction
Section 9, citing Commonwealth vs. Chapman,
so change that they can no longer continue
13 Met., 68.) As the same author says, in his
taking cognizance of the cases and proceedings
Treatise on the Conflict on Laws (Cambridge,
commenced therein, in order that the new
1916, Section 131): "There can no break or
courts or the courts having jurisdiction over said
interregnum in law. From the time the law
cases may continue the proceedings.
comes into existence with the first-felt
corporateness of a primitive people it must last
until the final disappearance of human society.
Once created, it persists until a change take In RE Garcia Bosque:(Nationality Issue in order
place, and when changed it continues in such to practice law)
changed condition until the next change, and so
forever. Conquest or colonization is impotent to
bring law to an end; in spite of change of FACTS:
constitution, the law continues unchanged until
the new sovereign by legislative acts creates a
change." The cession of the Philippine Archipelago having
been agreed upon by the parties to the treaty of
Paris of December 10, 1898, the compulsory
As courts are creatures of statutes and their subjection of the subjects of the ceding power
existence defends upon that of the laws which to the new sovereign followed as a logical
create and confer upon them their jurisdiction, consequence. The status of these subjects was
it is evident that such laws, not being a political not uniform, as in addition to the natives there
nature, are not abrogated by a change of were others who were merely residents but
sovereignty, and continue in force "ex proprio who, equally with the natives, had interests and
rights inherent in the nationality of the territory. raised as to whether Spanish subjects resident
With respect to these the special agreement therein constitute an intermediate class
contained in article 9 was established, by virtue between other foreign residents and the native
of which it was agreed to accord them the right of the country in whose behalf some specially
of electing to leave the country, thus freeing favorable conditions have been stipulated.
themselves of subjection to the new sovereign, Upon this point no proposition was made, even
or to continue to reside in the territory, in which incidentally, nor was any reference made to it in
case the expiration of the term of eighteen the discussions which preceded the treaty of
months without their making an express Paris. The American Commissioners, referring
declaration of intention to retain their Spanish to Spanish subjects, natives of Spain, simply
nationality resulted in the loss of the latter, such said: "Such persons have the fullest right to
persons thereby becoming subjects of the new dispose of their property and remove from the
sovereign in the same manner as the natives of territory or remain therein to continue to be
these Islands. The period of eighteen months Spanish subjects or elect the nationality of the
began to run from the date of the exchange of new territory." (Memorandum annexed to
the ratifications of the treaty — that is to say, Protocol No. 22.) "They shall also have the
from April 11, 1899, and expired on the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and
corresponding day of October, 1900. The profession, being subject in respect thereof to
petitioner absented himself from these Islands such laws as are applicable to other
on May 30, 1899, and remained absent foreigners." (Art. 9 of the treaty of Paris.) The
therefrom during the whole period. It was in laws applicable to other foreigners were, prior
January, 1901, that he returned to these Islands. to that treaty, the Law of Foreigners for the
Ultramarine Provinces of July 4, 1870, and
article 27 of the Civil Code. The first of these
ISSUE: laws in its thirty-ninth article authorized all
foreigners to engage in any kind of industry in
the Spanish ultramarine provinces subject to
the laws prevailing therein, and to practice any
WON Petitioner lost his spanish nationality by
profession for which the laws did not require a
reason of his residence in the territory after the
diploma of proficiency granted by the Spanish
11th of October, 1900, and his failure to make
authorities. No one can doubt that the legal
declaration of his intention to preserve it within
profession is one of those for the practice of
the period agreed upon by the high contracting
which the law required a diploma of
parties to the treaty of Paris, and to have
proficiency granted by the Spanish authorities.
adopted the nationality of the native subjects
The second law cited provides that foreigners in
under the presumption arising from the
Spain shall enjoy the rights which the civil laws
conditions expressed.
accord to Spaniards, subject to the provisions of
article 2 of the constitution of the State. Article
2 of the constitution of 1876 establishes the
HELD:(NO! He did not lost his Spanish same restriction or limitation as the law of
nationality) foreigners. Hence if other foreigners could not
then engage in the practice of law, and by the
express prohibition of the Code of Civil
He can only acquire it through voluntary Procedure in force can not do so at the present
renunciation of his present nationality by time, neither can Spanish subjects do so, they
seeking to become naturalized in these being in every respect upon the same footing
Islands; . as other foreigners.
The status of the petitioner with respect to the If, then, the petitioner upon his departure from
new sovereignty of the territory having been these Islands on May 30, 1899, did not take
defined, it remains to determine the question with him the nationality or the native
inhabitants impressed by the treaty of Paris, Our opinion finds corroboration in the rule
which had been in force from the 11th of April indicated in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23
of the same year; if he departed as a Spaniard Phil., 315, 324, 325), which is now a legal
and continued to be a Spaniard, by taking the provision embodied in paragraph 7, article 1, of
first course left open by the right of option Commonwealth Act No. 63, to the effect that a
stipulated in the treaty of Paris, without being Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship by
affected by the presumptive nationality of the marrying a foreigner belonging to a nation the
territory arising from the fact of residence and laws of which do not allow her to acquire the
the lapse of the time fixed; if he had not husband's nationality. Were it not for this rule,
elected to adopt this nationality of the if a Filipino woman loses her nationality simply
territory by express declaration within the by marrying a foreigner, even without acquiring
same period; if after the expiration of that the foreigner's citizenship, then she would
period it is expressly provided that the right of become destitute of nationality. And evidently
option shall no longer be available, and that the purpose of the said rule is to prevent such
the only course is naturalization, as to which condition of statelessness in a Filipino woman
subject upon equal footing with other foreign married to an alien, a policy that is perfectly
residents he can not practice the legal applicable in the present case.
profession under the law either prior or
subsequent to the treaty of Paris, it is evident
that this court can not regard the petitioner as We hold, therefore, that appellant Gloria
possessed of the qualifications alleged. Baldello , is a Filipino citizen, and accordingly
her petition for Philippine citizenship is
unnecessary.
The new petition presented by him for
admission to the bar of these Islands must
therefore be denied, and it is so ordered. ISSUE:
WON Petitioner Lost her nationality and

therefore required to apply for naturalization
HELD:(no! She retains her filipino nationality

and does not need to apply for naturalization)
IN RE GLORIA BALDELLO (PETITION FOR
NATURALIZATION)
We believe, and so hold, that there being no
new citizenship imposed upon her by marriage,
FACTS: nothing could have divested her of her original
citizenship, and, therefore, her Philippine
citizenship remained unchanged. The general
We believe, and so hold, that there being no rule that a married woman follows the
new citizenship imposed upon her by marriage, nationality of her husband presupposes a
nothing could have divested her of her original nationality in the husband. Where no such
citizenship, and, therefore, her Philippine nationality exists, the rule does not apply.
citizenship remained unchanged. The general
rule that a married woman follows the
nationality of her husband presupposes a Our opinion finds corroboration in the rule
nationality in the husband. Where no such indicated in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23
nationality exists, the rule does not apply. Phil., 315, 324, 325), which is now a legal
provision embodied in paragraph 7, article 1, of
Commonwealth Act No. 63, to the effect that a
Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship by On 21 October 1941, a motion for
marrying a foreigner belonging to a nation the reconsideration was filed in both cases by the
laws of which do not allow her to acquire the Solicitor General. The latter contends that even
husband's nationality. Were it not for this rule, if the petitioner in the first case and the
if a Filipino woman loses her nationality simply applicant in the second were born in the
by marrying a foreigner, even without acquiring Philippines, of a Chines father and a Filipino
the foreigner's citizenship, then she would mother, lawfully married, still they are not
become destitute of nationality. And evidently citizens of the Philippines under and pursuant to
the purpose of the said rule is to prevent such the laws in force at the time of their birth, and
condition of statelessness in a Filipino woman prays that both decisions be set aside and the
married to an alien, a policy that is perfectly judgments appealed from be reversed. This
applicable in the present case. motion for reconsideration was pending in this
Court when the Pacific was broke out. During
the battle for liberation, the records of both
We hold, therefore, that appellant Gloria cases were destroyed. Upon petition of the
Baldello , is a Filipino citizen, and accordingly Assistant Solicitor General, Mr. Roberto A.
her petition for Philippine citizenship is Gianzon, therecords were reconstituted in
unnecessary. accordance with the provisionsof Act. No. 3110.
The record of the first case, G.R. No. 47616,was
declared reconstituted on 5 June, and of the
second case, G.R. No. 47623, on 28 June 1946.
TAN CHONG VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
Upon these reconstituted records, we now
proceed to dispose of the motion for
reconsideration.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
On 15 October 1941, a decision was
promulgated in thecase of Tan Chong vs.
Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 47616,whereby this
WON the doctrine of jus soli applies in this case
Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, which hAd granted the
writ of habeas corpus applied for by tan Chong,
on the ground that he, being a native of the HELD:(NO! THE PRINCIPLE OF JUS SOLI DOES
Philippines, of a Chinese father and a Filipino NOT APPLY)
mother, is a citizen of the Philippines.
this Court has held that the principle of jus soli

On the same date, in the case of Lam Swee Sang applies in this jurisdiction. It is embodied in the
vs. Commonwealth of the Philippines (G.R. No. Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
47623), this Court rendered a decision the United States which provides that "All
dismissing the petition of the applicant for persons born or naturalized in the United
naturalization filed in the Court of First Instance States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
of Zamboanga, on the ground that the applicant, are citizens of the United States and of the
having been born in Sulu, Philippines, of a state wherein they reside."
Chinese father and Filipino mother, is a citizen
of the Philippines. The dismissal of the petition
implies and means that there was no need of . While birth is an important element of
naturalization for the applicant who is aFilipino citizenship, it alone does not make a person a
citizen. citizen of the country of his birth. Youth spent in
the country; intimate and endearing association
with the citizens among whom he lives;
knowledge and pride of the country's past; date of hearing, he had been residing in the
belief in the greatness and security of its Philippines. He is married to a Filipino woman
institutions, in the loftiness of its ideals, and in and has three children by her. He speaks the
the ability of the country's government to local dialect and the Spanish and English
protect him, his children, and his earthly languages.
possessions against perils from within and from
without; and his readiness to defend the
country against such perils, are some of the Considering that the common law principle or
important elements that would make a person rule of jus soli obtaining in England and in the
living in a country its citizen. Citizenship is a United States, as embodied in the Fourteenth
political status. The citizen must be proud of his Amendment to the Constitution of the United
citizenship. He should treasure and cherish it. In States, has never been entended to this
the language of Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, "the jurisdiction (section 1, Act of 1 July 1902; sec. 5,
question of citizenship in a nation is of the most Actof 29 August 1916); considering that the law
vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as in force and applicable to the petitioner and the
well as an inestimable acquisition." (U.S. vs. applicant in the two cases at the time of their
Wong Kim Ark, supra.) Citizenship, the main birth is sec. 4 of the Philippine Bill (Act of 1 July
integrate element of which is allegiance, must 1902), as amended by Act of 23 March 1912,
not be taken lightly. Dual allegiance must be which provides that only those "inhabitants of
discouraged and prevented. But the application the Philippine Islands continuing to reside
of the principle of jus soli to persons born in this therein who were Spanish subjects on the 11th
country of alien parentage would encourage day of April, 1899, and then resided in said
dual allegiance which in the long run would be Islands, and their children born subsequent
detrimental to both countries of which such thereto, shall be deemed and held to be
persons might claim to be citizens. citizens of the Philippine Islands," we are of
the opinion and so hold that the petitioner in
the first case and the applicant in the second
The pinciple of stare decisis does not mean case, who were born of alien parentage, were
blind adherence to precedents. The doctrines or not and are not, under saidsection, citizens of
rule laid down, which has been followed for the Philippine Islands.
years, no matter how sound it may be, if found
to be contrary to law, must be abandoned. The
principleof stare decisis does not and should not Needless to say, this decision is not intended
apply when there is conflict between the or designed to deprive, as it cannot divest, of
precedent and the law. The duty of this Court is their Filipino citizenship, those who had been
to forsake and abandon any doctrine or rule declared to be Filipino citizens, or upon whom
found to be in violation of the law in force. such citizenship had been conferred, by the
courts because of the doctrine or principle of
res adjudicata.
It appears that the petitioner in the first case
was born in San Pablo, Laguna, in July 1915, of
a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, lawfully Accordingly, the decision of this Court in the
married, left for China in 1925, and returned to first case confirming the lower court's judgment
the Philippines on 25 January1940. The is set aside;
applicant in the second case was born in Jolo,
Sulu, on 8 May 1900, of a Chinese father and a
Filipino mother. It does not appear whether
TECSON VS COMELEC
they were legally married, so in the absence of
proof to the contrary they are presumed to be COMMENT ON CITIZENSHIP
lawfully married. From the date of his birth up
to 16 November 1938, the date of filing of his
application for naturalization, and up to the
Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on petitioner assailed the decision of the

those whom the state believes are deserving of COMELEC before this Court conformably with
the privilege. It is a precious heritage, as well Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Revised
as an inestimable acquisition,[1] that cannot Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition, docketed
be taken lightly by anyone - either by those G. R. No. 161824, likewise prayed for a
who enjoy it or by those who dispute it. temporary restraining order, a writ of
preliminary injunction or any other resolution
that would stay the finality and/or execution of
Before the Court are three consolidated cases, the COMELEC resolutions.
all of which raise a single question of profound
importance to the nation. The issue of
citizenship is brought up to challenge the The other petitions, later consolidated with G. R.
qualifications of a presidential candidate to hold No. 161824, would include G. R. No. 161434,
the highest office of the land. Our people are entitled "Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, and Felix B.
waiting for the judgment of the Court with Desiderio, Jr., vs. The Commission on Elections,
bated breath. Is Fernando Poe, Jr., the hero of Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fernando Poe,
silver screen, and now one of the main Jr.), and Victorino X. Fornier," and the other,
contenders for the presidency, a natural-born docketed G. R. No. 161634, entitled "Zoilo
Filipino or is he not? Antonio G. Velez, vs. Ronald Allan Kelley Poe,
a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.," both challenging the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that,
FACTS: under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the
1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court had
original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve
the basic issue on the case.
Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known
as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of
candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the
position of President of the Republic of the ISSUE:
Philippines in the forthcoming national
elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ,
representing himself to be a natural-born citizen WON FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the
of the Philippines, stated his name to be Philippines.
"Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date
of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of
birth to be Manila. HELD:
Petitioner victorino Fornier filed before the the earliest understanding of citizenship was
COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and that given by Aristotle, who, sometime in 384
cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming to 322 B.C., described the "citizen" to refer to a
that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, man who shared in the administration of
his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie justice and in the holding of an office.[6]
Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Aristotle saw its significance if only to
Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the determine the constituency of the "State,"
son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. which he described as being composed of such
persons who would be adequate in number to
achieve a self-sufficient existence.[7] The
The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of concept grew to include one who would both
merit. govern and be governed, for which
qualifications like autonomy, judgment and
loyalty could be expected. Citizenship was seen
to deal with rights and entitlements, on the one regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through its
hand, and with concomitant obligations, on the history, four modes of acquiring citizenship -
other.[8] In its ideal setting, a citizen was active naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus
in public life and fundamentally willing to sanguinis[28] had been in vogue. Only two, i.e.,
submit his private interests to the general jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a
interest of society. person to being a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of
Customs[29] (1912), did not last long. With the
The concept of citizenship had undergone adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the
changes over the centuries. In the 18th century, reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of
the concept was limited, by and large, to civil Labor[30] (1947), jus sanguinis or blood
citizenship, which established the rights relationship would now become the primary
necessary for individual freedom, such as rights basis of citizenship by birth.
to property, personal liberty and justice.[9] Its
meaning expanded during the 19th century to
include political citizenship, which encompassed Documentary evidence adduced by petitioner
the right to participate in the exercise of would tend to indicate that the earliest
political power.[10] The 20th century saw the established direct ascendant of FPJ was his
next stage of the development of social paternal grandfather Lorenzo Pou, married to
citizenship, which laid emphasis on the right of Marta Reyes, the father of Allan F. Poe. While
the citizen to economic well-being and social the record of birth of Lorenzo Pou had not
security.[11] The idea of citizenship has gained been presented in evidence, his death
expression in the modern welfare state as it so certificate, however, identified him to be a
developed in Western Europe. An ongoing and Filipino, a resident of San Carlos, Pangasinan,
final stage of development, in keeping with the and 84 years old at the time of his death on 11
rapidly shrinking global village, might well be September 1954. The certificate of birth of the
the internationalization of citizenship father of FPJ, Allan F. Poe, showed that he was
born on 17 May 1915 to an Espaol father,
Lorenzo Pou, and a mestiza Espaol mother,
Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution Marta Reyes. Introduced by petitioner was an
expresses: uncertified copy of a supposed certificate of
the alleged marriage of Allan F. Poe and Paulita
Gomez on 05 July 1936. The marriage
certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley
"No person may be elected President unless he
reflected the date of their marriage to be on 16
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
September 1940. In the same certificate, Allan
registered voter, able to read and write, at
F. Poe was stated to be twenty-five years old,
least forty years of age on the day of the
unmarried, and a Filipino citizen, and Bessie
election, and a resident of the Philippines for
Kelley to be twenty-two years old, unmarried,
at least ten years immediately preceding such
and an American citizen. The birth certificate
election."
of FPJ, would disclose that he was born on 20
August 1939 to Allan F. Poe, a Filipino,
twenty-four years old, married to Bessie Kelly,
The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to an American citizen, twenty-one years old and
include "those who are citizens of the married.
Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship."[27]
The death certificate of Lorenzo Pou would
indicate that he died on 11 September 1954, at
the age of 84 years, in San Carlos, Pangasinan. It
The date, month and year of birth of FPJ could thus be assumed that Lorenzo Pou was
appeared to be 20 August 1939 during the born sometime in the year 1870 when the
Philippines was still a colony of Spain. Petitioner citizen of the Philippines regardless of whether
would argue that Lorenzo Pou was not in the or not he is legitimate or illegitimate.
Philippines during the crucial period of from
1898 to 1902 considering that there was no
existing record about such fact in the Records BENGSON VS HRET AND CRUZ
Management and Archives Office. Petitioner,
however, likewise failed to show that Lorenzo
Pou was at any other place during the same
FACTS:
period. In his death certificate, the residence of
Lorenzo Pou was stated to be San Carlos,
Pangasinan. In the absence of any evidence to
the contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in
at least to presume, that the place of residence this case, in view of the constitutional
of a person at the time of his death was also his requirement that “no person shall be a
residence before death. It would be extremely Member of the House of Representatives
doubtful if the Records Management and unless he is a natural-born citizen.”
Archives Office would have had complete
records of all residents of the Philippines from
1898 to 1902. Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. He was born in Tarlac in 1960 of
Filipino parents. In 1985, however, Cruz enlisted
***Natural-born citizens are those who are in the US Marine Corps and without the
citizens of the Philippines from birth without consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a
their Philippine citizenship. Based on the Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for
evidence presented which the Supreme under CA No. 63 [(An Act Providing for the
consider as viable is the fact that the death Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be
certificate of Lorenzo Poe, father of Allan Poe, Lost or Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a
who in turn was the father of private Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by,
respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he among other, “rendering service to or accepting
died on September 11, 1954 at the age of 84 commission in the armed forces of a foreign
years, in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Evidently, in country.”
such death certificate, the residence of Lorenzo
Poe was stated to be San Carlos, Pangansinan.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Whatever doubt that remained regarding his
it should be sound to conclude, or at least to loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by his
presume, that the place of residence of a naturalization as a U.S. citizen in 1990, in
person at the time of his death was also his connection with his service in the U.S. Marine
residence before death. Considering that the Corps.
allegations of petitioners are not substantiated
with proof and since Lorenzo Poe may have
been benefited from the “en masse In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine
Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had citizenship through repatriation under RA 2630
effected in 1902, there is no doubt that Allan [(An Act Providing for Reacquisition of
Poe father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost
Jr. was a Filipino citizen. And, since the latter Such Citizenship by Rendering Service To, or
was born on August 20, 1939, governed under Accepting Commission In, the Armed Forces of
1935 Constitution, which constitution the United States (1960)]. He ran for and was
considers as citizens of the Philippines those elected as the Representative of the 2nd District
whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He won
Fernando Poe, Jr. was in fact a natural-born over petitioner Bengson who was then running
for reelection.
1. desertion of the armed forces;
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo 2. services in the armed forces of the allied
Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent HRET forces in World War II;
claiming that Cruz was not qualified to become
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United
a member of the HOR since he is not a
States at any other time,
natural-born citizen as required under Article
VI, section 6 of the Constitution. 4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the 5. political economic necessity
petition for quo warranto and declaring Cruz
the duly elected Representative in the said
election.
Repatriation results in the recovery of the
original nationality This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will
ISSUE: be restored to his prior status as a naturalized
Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was
originally a natural-born citizen before he lost
WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to
an American citizen, can still be considered a his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship.
R.A. No. 2630 provides:
Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine

HELD:
citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission in, the Armed Forces of the United
States, or after separation from the Armed
petition dismissed
Forces of the United States, acquired United
States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to
YES the Republic of the Philippines and registering
the same with Local Civil Registry in the place
where he resides or last resided in the
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall
may however reacquire the same in the manner contain a renunciation of any other citizenship.
provided by law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3
modes by which Philippine citizenship may be
reacquired by a former citizen: Having thus taken the required oath of
allegiance to the Republic and having
registered the same in the Civil Registry of
1. by naturalization, Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with
the aforecited provision, Cruz is deemed to
2. by repatriation, and have recovered his original status as a
3. by direct act of Congress. natural-born citizen, a status which he
acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father.
** It bears stressing that the act of repatriation
allows him to recover, or return to, his original
status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.
Repatriation may be had under various statutes
by those who lost their citizenship due to:
REPUBLIC VS SAGUN
FACTS: For sure, this Court has consistently ruled that

there is no proceeding established by law, or
the Rules for the judicial declaration of the
Respondent Nora fe Sagun is the legitimate citizenship of an individual.[13] There is no
child of father, Albert Chan a Chinese national, specific legislation authorizing the institution of
and mother Marta Borromeo, a Filipino citizen. a judicial proceeding to declare that a given
She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio She person is part of our citizenry.[14] This was our
did not elect for Philippine citizenship upon ruling in Yung Uan Chu v. Republic[15] citing the
reaching the age of majority. At the age of 33, early case of Tan v. Republic of the
she executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines,[16] where we clearly stated:
Republic of the Philippines. The document was
Under our laws, there can be no action or
notarized but was not recorded and registered
proceeding for the judicial declaration of the
with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City. In
citizenship of an individual. Courts of justice
2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but
exist for settlement of justiciable controversies,
was denied due to the citizenship of her father
which imply a given right, legally demandable
and there being no annotation on her birth
and enforceable, an act or omission violative of
certificate that she has elected Philippine
said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned
citizenship. Consequently, she sought a
by law, for said breach of right. As an incident
judicial declaration of her election of Philippine
only of the adjudication of the rights of the
citizenship and prayed that the Local Civil
parties to a controversy, the court may pass
Registrar of Baguio City be ordered to annotate
upon, and make a pronouncement relative to
the same on her birth certificate.
their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement
is beyond judicial power. x x x
ISSUE: Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to

make a specific declaration of respondents
Filipino citizenship as such pronouncement was
not within the courts competence.
WON respondent’s petition for declaration of
election of Philippine citizenship is authorized
by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence; and
2.) No. Based on the foregoing
circumstances, respondent clearly failed to
comply with the procedural requirements for a
WON the respondent has effectively elected
valid and effective election of Philippine
Philippine citizenship in accordance with the
citizenship. Respondent cannot assert that the
procedure prescribed by law
exercise of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitutes a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship since the law
HELD: specifically lays down the requirements for
acquisition of citizenship by election.All that is
required of the elector is to execute an
1.) Yes. But it should be stressed that there affidavit of election of Philippinecitizenship
is no specific statutory or procedural rule which and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest
authorizes the direct filing of a petition for civil registry. Having failed to comply with
declaration of election of Philippine citizenship the foregoing requirements, respondent’s
before the courts. Respondent cannot now be petition before the trial court must be denied.
allowed to seek the intervention of the court to
confer upon her Philippine citizenship when
clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine Based on the foregoing, the statutory
citizenship. formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are:
(1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an allegiance suffices, its execution was not within
oath of allegiance to the Constitution and a reasonable time after respondent attained
Government of the Philippines; and (3) the age of majority and was not registered
registration of the statement of election and of with the nearest civil registry as required under
the oath with the nearest civil registry.[23] Section 1 of C.A. No. 625. The phrase
reasonable time has been interpreted to mean
Furthermore, no election of Philippine
that the election should be made generally
citizenship shall be accepted for registration
within three (3) years from reaching the age of
under C.A. No. 625 unless the party exercising
majority.[27] Moreover, there was no
the right of election has complied with the
satisfactory explanation proffered by
requirements of the Alien Registration Act of
respondent for the delay and the failure to
1950. In other words, he should first be
register with the nearest local civil registry.
required to register as an alien.[24] Pertinently,
the person electing Philippine citizenship is Based on the foregoing circumstances,
required to file a petition with the Commission respondent clearly failed to comply with the
of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau procedural requirements for a valid and
of Immigration) for the cancellation of his alien effective election of Philippine citizenship.
certificate of registration based on his Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of
aforesaid election of Philippine citizenship and suffrage and the participation in election
said Office will initially decide, based on the exercises constitutes a positive act of election
evidence presented the validity or invalidity of of Philippine citizenship since the law
said election.[25] Afterwards, the same is specifically lays down the requirements for
elevated to the Ministry (now Department) of acquisition of citizenship by election. The mere
Justice for final determination and review.[26] exercise of suffrage, continuous and
uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and
It should be stressed that there is no specific
other similar acts showing exercise of
statutory or procedural rule which authorizes
Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of
the direct filing of a petition for declaration of
election of Philippine citizenship. Hence,
election of Philippine citizenship before the
respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the
courts. The special proceeding provided under
intervention of the court to confer upon her
Section 2, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on
Philippine citizenship when clearly she has
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. As
Registry, merely allows any interested party to
we held in Ching,[28] the prescribed procedure
file an action for cancellation or correction of
in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not
entry in the civil registry, i.e., election, loss and
a tedious and painstaking process. All that is
recovery of citizenship, which is not the relief
required of the elector is to execute an
prayed for by the respondent.
affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship
Be that as it may, even if we set aside this and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest
procedural infirmity, still the trial courts civil registry. Having failed to comply with the
conclusion that respondent duly elected foregoing requirements, respondents petition
Philippine citizenship is erroneous since the before the trial court must be denied.
records undisputably show that respondent
failed to comply with the legal requirements
for a valid election. Specifically, respondent had
not executed a sworn statement of her election
of Philippine citizenship. The only documentary
evidence submitted by respondent in support
of her claim of alleged election was her oath of
allegiance, executed 12 years after she reached
the age of majority, which was unregistered.
As aptly pointed out by the petitioner, even
assuming arguendo that respondents oath of

Poli Cases1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poli Cases1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Poli Cases1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Page 1 of 49

Upon creation of the 1973 constitution the

The Constitution evinces the direct action of the

For this reason, the Court cannot accede to the

WON the Approval of congress of the RBH 1,2

WON the supreme court has jurisdiction to

Article XV of the Constitution provides:

SECOND ISSUE: (No! It is valid although both

In any event, we do not find, either in the

(1) that "the amendments shall be published

(4) that "when practicable, copies in the

Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, filed a petition for

TOLENTINO VS COMMISION ON ELECTIONS

a single "election" or plebiscite. It being articulation of the rights, liberties, ideology,

This system of initiative was originally included

As to initiative on amendments to the

On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an

The Lambino Group alleged that their petition

HELD:(NO, there is failure to show the full text

The full text of the proposed amendments may

that the framers intended that the people

With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition,

raised by the plaintiffs is a political question

OPOSA VS FACTORAN(timber license

Since timber licenses are not contracts, the

FACTS: On 10 September 1996 the instant case was

national economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., HELD:

Respondents except. They maintain that: First,

Respondents also argue that the

Even the cases cited by respondents holding

We cannot simply afford the government a

the constitutional mandate itself is reason

the Court will always defer to the

In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046

we recognize petitioners locus standi as citizens

through occupation, accretion, cession and

petitioners argument that the KIG now lies

FACTS: A civil government or central administration

The respondent judge refused to take

On February 3, 1945, the City of Manila was

If a belligerent occupant is required to

WON Petitioner Lost her nationality and

HELD:(no! She retains her filipino nationality

this Court has held that the principle of jus soli

Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on petitioner assailed the decision of the

1. desertion of the armed forces;

Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine

FACTS: For sure, this Court has consistently ruled that

ISSUE: Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to

You might also like