People vs Perfecto o WON article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code

G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922 was abrogated with the change from Spanish to
American sovereignty
o WON Perfecto is guilty of libel
o "The important question is here squarely
presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish HELD:
Penal Code, punishing "Any person who, by . . .
writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister It is a general principle of the public law that on
of the Crown or other person in authority . . .," is acquisition of territory the previous political
still in force." relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated
o public law: It is a general principle of the -- "political" being used to denominate the laws
public law that on acquisition of territory the regulating the relations sustained by the
previous political relations of the ceded region are inhabitants to the sovereign.
totally abrogated -- "political" being used to
denominate the laws regulating the relations On American occupation of the Philippines, by
sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. instructions of the President to the Military
Commander, and by proclamation of the latter, the
FACTS: municipal laws of the conquered territory affecting
private rights of person and property and providing
 This is a case relating to the loss of for the punishment of crime (e.g. the Spanish Penal
some documents which constituted Code) were nominally continued in force in so far as
the records of testimony given by they were compatible with the new order of things.
witnesses in the Senate investigation
of oil companies. Article 256 was enacted by the Government of
 The newspaper La Nacion, edited by Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the
Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an representatives of the King. But with the change of
article about it to the effect that "the sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory
author or authors of the robbery of of government, was set up in the Philippines. No
the records from the iron safe of the longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person
Senate have, perhaps, but followed in authority of such exalted position that the citizen
the example of certain Senators who must speak of him only with bated breath.
secured their election through fraud
and robbery." Said article is contrary to the genius and
 Consequently, the Attorney-General, fundamental principles of the American character
through a resolution adopted by the and system of
Philippine Senate, filed an government.
information alleging that the
editorial constituted a violation of It was crowded out by implication as soon as the
article 256 of the Penal Code. United States established its authority in the
Philippine Islands.
The defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty
in the municipal court and again in the Court of "From an entirely different point of view, it must be
First Instance of Manila. noted that this article punishes contempts against
executive officials, although its terms are broad
ISSUEs: enough to cover the entire official class.
Punishment for contempt of non-judicial officers ISSUE: Whether or not Article 256 of the Spanish
has no place in a government based upon American Penal Code (SPC) is still in force and can be applied
principles. in the case at bar?

Our official class is not, as in monarchies, an agent HELD: No.

of some authority greater than the people but it is
an agent and servant of the people themselves. REASONING: The Court stated that during the
Spanish Government, Article 256 of the SPC was
These officials are only entitled to respect and enacted to protect Spanish officials as
obedience when they are acting within the scope of representatives of the King.
their authority and jurisdiction.
However, the Court explains that in the present
The American system of government is calculated case, we no longer have Kings nor its
to enforce respect and obedience where such representatives for the provision to protect.
respect and obedience is due, but never does it
place around the individual who happens to occupy Also, with the change of sovereignty over the
an official position by mandate of the people any Philippines from Spanish to American, it means
official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for that the invoked provision of the SPC had been
contemptuous remarks." automatically abrogated.

DECISION: The Court determined Article 256 of the SPC to be

To summarize, the result is, that all the members of ‘political’ in nature for it is about the relation of the
the court are of the opinion, although for different State to its inhabitants, thus, the Court emphasized
reasons, that the judgment should be reversed and that ‘it is a general principle of the public law that
the defendant and appellant acquitted, with costs on acquisition of territory, the previous political
de officio. So ordered. relations of the ceded region are totally
abrogated.’
***shorter version***
Hence, Article 256 of the SPC is considered no
People v. Perfecto, G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, longer in force and cannot be applied to the
1922 present case. Therefore, respondent was acquitted.

FACTS: The issue started when the Secretary of the Macariola Vs. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77
Philippine Senate, Fernando Guerrero, discovered
that the documents regarding the testimony of the Facts:
witnesses in an investigation of oil companies had On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion
disappeared from his office. rendered a decision in Civil Case 3010 final for lack
of an appeal.
Then, the day following the convening of Senate,
the newspaper La Nacion – edited by herein On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was
respondent Gregorio Perfecto – published an article submitted to Judge Asuncion. The project of
against the Philippine Senate. partition of lots was not signed by the parties
themselves but only by the respective counsel of
Here, Mr. Perfecto was alleged to have violated plaintiffs and petitioner Bernardita R. Macariola.
Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code – provision The Judge approved it in his order dated October
that punishes those who insults the Ministers of 23,1963.
the Crown. Hence, the issue.
One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 8, 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two orders
1184, which was subdivided into 5 lots dated October and November, 1963. The said
denominated as Lot 1184 A – E. Dr. Arcadio property was no longer the subject of litigation.
Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31, 1964, who
was issued transfer of certificate of Title No, 2338 In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of Commerce
of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to
the respondent.
On March 6, 1965, Galapon sold a portion of the lot
to Judge Asuncion and his wife. Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and
to the Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of this
On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Code of Commerce, which sourced from the
Galapon conveyed their respective shares and Spanish Code of Commerce, appears to have been
interest inn Lot 1184-E to the Traders abrogated because whenever there is a change in
Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. the sovereignty, political laws of the former
sovereign are automatically abrogated, unless they
Judge Asuncion was the President and his wife are reenacted by Affirmative Act of the New
Victoria was the Secretary. The Asuncions and Sovereign.
Galapons were also the stockholder of the
corporation. Asuncion cannot also be held liable under the par.
H, Sec. 3 of RA 3019, citing that the public officers
Respondent Macariola charged Judge Asuncion cannot partake in any business in connection with
with "Acts unbecoming a Judge" for violating the this office, or intervened or take part in his official
following provisions: Article 1491, par. 5 of the New capacity.
Civil Code, Article 14, par. 1 & 5 of the Code of
Commerce, Sec. 3 par H of RA 3019 also known as The Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January
the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice Act., Sec. 12, Rule 31, 1967 from the corporation and sold their
XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the respective shares to 3rd parties, and it appears that
Canons of Judicial Ethics. the corporation did not benefit in any case filed by
or against it in court as there was no case filed in
On November 2, 1970 a certain Judge Jose D. the different branches of the Court of First Instance
Nepomuceno dismissed the complaints filed from the time of the drafting of the Articles of
against Asuncion. Incorporation of the corporation on March 12, 1966
up to its incorporation on January 9, 1967. The
Issue: Judge realized early that their interest in the
Whether or Not the respondent Judge violated the corporation contravenes against Canon 25.
mentioned provisions.
AMELITO R. MUTUC vs. COMELEC
Ruling:
No. Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentioned FACTS:
provisions constituting of "Acts unbecoming a  Petitioner Mutuc was a candidate for
Judge" but was reminded to be more discreet in his delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
private and business activities.  He filed a special civil action against the
respondent COMELEC when the latter
Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-E informed him through a telegram that his
directly on the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but certificate of candidacy was given due
from Dr. Galapon who earlier purchased the lot course but he was prohibited from using
from 3 of the plaintiffs. When the Asuncion bought jingles in his mobile units equipped with
the lot on March 6, 1965 from Dr. Galapon after the sound systems and loud speakers.
finality of the decision which he rendered on June
  The petitioner accorded the order to be ****shorter***
violative of his constitutional right to
freedom of speech. 36 SCRA 228 – Statutory Construction – Ejusdem
 COMELEC justified its prohibition on the Generis
premise that the Constitutional Convention Political Law – Bill of Rights – Freedom of
act provided that it is unlawful for the Expression
candidates
“to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample  Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for delegate
ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as to the Constitutional Convention (1970).
pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights,  His candidacy was given due course by the
athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, Commission on Elections (COMELEC) but he
shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, was prohibited from playing his campaign
whether of domestic or foreign origin.” jingle on his mobile units because that was
an apparent violation of COMELEC’s ban
 COMELEC contended that the jingle or the (via a COMELEC resolution)
recorded or taped voice of the singer used
by petitioner was a tangible propaganda “to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample
material and was, under the above statute, ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as
subject to confiscation. pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights,
athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas,
ISSUE: shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like,
WON the usage of the jingle by the petitioner form whether of domestic or foreign origin.” It was
part of the prohibition invoked by the COMELEC. COMELEC’s contention that the jingle proposed to
be used by Mutuc is a recorded or taped voice of a
HELD: singer and therefore a tangible propaganda
 The Court held that “the general words material (falling under and the like’scategory), and
following any enumeration being applicable under the above COMELEC rule, the same is subject
only to things of the same kind or class as to confiscation.
those specifically referred to”. ISSUE:
 The COMELEC’s contention that a
1. Whether or not COMELEC’s contention is correct.
candidate’s jingle form part of the
prohibition, categorized under the phrase 2. Whether or not the COMELEC ban is valid.
“and the like”, could not merit the court’s HELD:
approval by principle of Ejusdem Generis.
 It is quite apparent that what was  No. By virtue of Ejusdem Generis, general
contemplated in the Act was the words following any enumeration must be
distribution of gadgets of the kind referred of the same class as those specifically
to as a means of inducement to obtain a referred to. COMELEC contended that the
favorable vote for the candidate responsible ban makes unlawful the distribution of
for its distribution. electoral propaganda gadgets, mention
Furthermore, the COMELEC failed to observe being made of pens, lighters, fans,
construction of the statute which should be in flashlights, athletic goods or materials,
consonance to the express terms of the wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches,
constitution. and cigarettes, and concluding with the
words “and the like.”
The intent of the COMELEC for the prohibition may For COMELEC, the last three words sufficed to
be laudable but it should not be sought at the cost justify such an order. The Supreme Court did not
of the candidate’s constitutional rights agree. It is quite apparent that what was
contemplated in the said law violated by Prior to the declaration of Renong Berhard as the
Mutuc was the distribution of gadgets of the kind winning bidder, petitioner Manila Prince Hotel
referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a matched the bid price and sent a manager’s check
favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its as bid security, which GSIS refused to accept.
distribution. It does not include campaign jingles
Apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender
for they are not gadgets as contemplated by the
of the matching bid and that the sale may be
law.
consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner filed
 No. This is a curtailment of Freedom of a petition before the Court.
Expression. The Constitution prohibits the
abridgment of the freedom of speech.
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS Issues:
G.R. NO. 122156. February 3, 1997 1. Whether or not Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII,
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL petitioner, of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
vs. provision.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL 2. Whether or not the Manila Hotel forms part
CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents. of the national patrimony.
3. Whether or not the submission of matching
Facts: bid is premature
 The controversy arose when respondent 4. Whether or not there was grave abuse of
Government Service Insurance System discretion on the part of the respondents in
(GSIS), pursuant to the privatization refusing the matching bid of the petitioner.
program of the Philippine Government,
decided to sell through public bidding 30%
Rulings:
to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares
of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation In the resolution of the case, the Court held that:
(MHC).
1. It is a self-executing provision.
 The winning bidder, or the eventual 1. Since the Constitution is the
“strategic partner,” will provide fundamental, paramount and supreme law
management expertise or an international of the nation, it is deemed written in every
marketing/reservation system, and financial statute and contract. A provision which lays
support to strengthen the profitability and down a general principle, such as those
performance of the Manila Hotel. found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is
usually not self-executing. But a provision
In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only
which is complete in itself and becomes
two (2) bidders participated:
operative without the aid of supplementary
 petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, or enabling legislation, or that which
a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy supplies sufficient rule by means of which
51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares the right it grants may be enjoyed or
at P41.58 per share, and protected, is self-executing.
2. A constitutional provision is self-
 Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-
executing if the nature and extent of the
Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for
right conferred and the liability imposed are
the same number of shares at P44.00 per
fixed by the constitution itself, so that they
share, or P2.42 more than the bid of
can be determined by an examination and
petitioner.
construction of its terms, and there is no
language indicating that the subject is
 referred to the legislature for action. Unless a living testimonial of Philippine heritage.
it is expressly provided that a legislative act While it was restrictively an American hotel
is necessary to enforce a constitutional when it first opened in 1912, a concourse
mandate, the presumption now is that all for the elite, it has since then become the
provisions of the constitution are self- venue of various significant events which
executing. If the constitutional provisions have shaped Philippine history.
are treated as requiring legislation instead 3. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part
of self-executing, the legislature would have of our national economy and patrimony. For
the power to ignore and practically nullify sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes
the mandate of the fundamental law. within the purview of the constitutional
3. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 shelter for it comprises the majority and
Constitution is a mandatory, positive controlling stock, so that anyone who
command which is complete in itself and acquires or owns the 51% will have actual
which needs no further guidelines or control and management of the hotel. In
implementing laws or rules for its this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be
enforcement. From its very words the disassociated from the hotel and the land
provision does not require any legislation to on which the hotel edifice stands.
put it in operation. It is per sejudicially 3. It is not premature.
enforceable. When our Constitution 1. In the instant case, where a foreign
mandates that in the grant of rights, firm submits the highest bid in a public
privileges, and concessions covering bidding concerning the grant of rights,
national economy and patrimony, the State privileges and concessions covering the
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it national economy and patrimony, thereby
means just that – qualified Filipinos shall be exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no
preferred. And when our Constitution question that the Filipino will have to be
declares that a right exists in certain allowed to match the bid of the foreign
specified circumstances an action may be entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of
maintained to enforce such right a foreign firm the award should go to the
notwithstanding the absence of any Filipino. It must be so if the Court is to give
legislation on the subject; consequently, if life and meaning to the Filipino First Policy
there is no statute especially enacted to provision of the 1987 Constitution. For,
enforce such constitutional right, such right while this may neither be expressly stated
enforces itself by its own inherent potency nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the
and puissance, and from which all constitutional fiat is omnipresent to be
legislations must take their bearings. Where simply disregarded. To ignore it would be to
there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law.
remedium. 2. The Court does not discount the
2. The Court agree. apprehension that this policy may
1. In its plain and ordinary meaning, discourage foreign investors. But the
the term patrimony pertains to heritage. Constitution and laws of the Philippines are
When the Constitution speaks of national understood to be always open to public
patrimony, it refers not only to the natural scrutiny. These are given factors which
resources of the Philippines, as the investors must consider when venturing
Constitution could have very well used the into business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any
term natural resources, but also to the person therefore desiring to do business in
cultural heritage of the Filipinos. the Philippines or with any of its agencies or
2. It also refers to Filipino’s intelligence instrumentalities is presumed to know his
in arts, sciences and letters. In the present rights and obligations under the
case, Manila Hotel has become a landmark, Constitution and the laws of the forum.
4. There was grave abuse of discretion. such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for
1. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel the purpose.
to foreigners when there is a Filipino group
***shorter***
willing to match the bid of the foreign
group is to insist that government be
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v GSIS
treated as any other ordinary market player,
and bound by its mistakes or gross errors of TOPIC: Non-Self Executing v Self Executing
judgement, regardless of the consequences Constitutional Provisions
to the Filipino people. The
miscomprehension of the Constitution is FACTS:
regrettable. Thus, the Court would rather
 The Government Service Insurance System
remedy the indiscretion while there is still
(GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding
an opportunity to do so than let the
30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding
government develop the habit of forgetting
shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).
that the Constitution lays down the basic
conditions and parameters for its actions.  In a close bidding, two bidders participated:
2. Since petitioner has already Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a
matched the bid price tendered by Renong Filipino corporation, which offered to buy
Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules, 51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share, and
respondent GSIS is left with no alternative Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-
but to award to petitioner the block of Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for
shares of MHC and to execute the the same number of shares at P44.00 per
necessary agreements and documents to share, or P2.42 more than the bid of
effect the sale in accordance not only with petitioner.
the bidding guidelines and procedures but
with the Constitution as well. The refusal of Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the
respondent GSIS to execute the winning bidder and the execution of the contracts,
corresponding documents with petitioner the MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS.
as provided in the bidding rules after the MPHC sent a manager’s check to the GSIS in a
latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to accept.
firm clearly constitutes grave abuse of
On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that
discretion.
GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching
bid, MPHC came to the Court on prohibition and
mandamus.
Hence, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of
CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila
and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation
COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from and has practically become a historical monument
selling 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage
Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT and culture.
the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE
HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par., Art.
of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement
at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the of principle and policy since it is not a self-
necessary agreements and documents to effect the executing provision and requires implementing
sale, to issue the necessary clearances and to do legislation(s).
ISSUE: violation of the Constitutional provision
stating that no public funds shall be
WON the provisions of the Constitution, appropriated or used in the benefit of any
particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-executing. church, system of religion, etc.
RULING:  This provision is a result of the principle of
the separation of church and state, for the
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein
self-executing provision. the state will use the church, or vice versa,
as a weapon to further their ends and aims.
 A provision which lays down a general
 Respondent contends that such issuance is
principle, such as those found in Article II of
in accordance to Act No. 4052, providing for
the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-
the appropriation funds to respondent for
executing.
the production and issuance of postage
 But a provision which is complete in itself stamps as would be advantageous to the
and becomes operative without the aid of government.
supplementary or enabling legislation, or Issue: WON there was a violation of the freedom to
that which supplies sufficient rule by means religion.
of which the right it grants may be enjoyed
or protected, is self-executing. Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is
religious freedom and not mere religious toleration.
 Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a  It is however not an inhibition of profound
legislative act is necessary to enforce a reverence for religion and is not a denial of
constitutional mandate, the presumption its influence in human affairs. Religion as a
now is that all provisions of the constitution profession of faith to an active power
are self-executing. If the constitutional that bindsand elevates man to his Creator is
provisions are treated as requiring recognized.
legislation instead of self-executing, the  And in so far as it instills into the minds the
legislature would have the power to ignore purest principles of morality, its influence is
and practically nullify the mandate of the deeply felt and highly appreciated.
fundamental law.  The phrase in Act No. 4052
“advantageousto the government” does
In fine, Section 10, second paragraph, Art. XII of the
not authorize violation of the Constitution.
1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive
 The issuance of the stamps was not inspired
command which is complete in itself and which
by any feeling to favor a particular church or
needs no further guidelines or implementing laws
religious denomination. They were not sold
or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the
for the benefit of the Roman Catholic
provision does not require any legislation to put it
Church.
in operation.
 The postage stamps, instead of showing a
Catholic chalice as originally planned,
AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ [64 PHIL 201; G.R. NO. 45459; 13
contains a map of the Philippines and the
MAR 1937]
location of Manila, with the words “Seat
XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress.”
Facts:
 The focus of the stamps was not the
 Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of
Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila,
prohibition against respondent Director of
being the seat of that congress. This was to
Posts from issuing and selling postage
“to advertise the Philippines and attract
stamps commemorative of the 33rd
more tourists,” the officials merely took
International Eucharistic Congress.
advantage of an event considered of
Petitioner contends that such act is a
international importance.
  Although such issuance and sale may be The elevating influence of religion in human society
inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic is recognized here as elsewhere. In fact, certain
Church, any benefit and propaganda general concessions are indiscriminately accorded
incidentally resulting from it was no the aim to religious sects and denominations.’
or purpose of the Government.
***ruling***
***shorter***
Issue: Whether or not the issuance of stamps was
Aglipay v. Ruiz, GR No. L-45459, March 13, 1937 in violation of the principle of separation of church
and state
Facts:
NO.
 Petitioner Aglipay, the head of Phil. 1. Religious freedom, as a constitutional mandate,
Independent Church, filed a writ of is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion
prohibition against respondent Ruiz, the and is not denial of its influence in human affairs.
Director of Post, enjoining the latter from Religion as a profession of faith to an active power
issuing and selling postage stamps that binds and elevates man to his Creator is
commemorative of the 33rd Intl Eucharistic recognized. In so far as it instils into the minds the
Congress organized by the Roman Catholic. purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply
felt and highly appreciated.
 The petitioner invokes that such issuance
and selling, as authorized by Act 4052 by 2. When the Filipino people, in the preamble of the
the Phil. Legislature, contemplates religious Constitution, implored "the aid of Divine
purpose – for the benefit of a particular sect Providence, in order to establish a government that
or church. Hence, this petition. shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop
the patrimony of the nation, promote the general
Issue: WONthe issuing and selling of welfare, and secure to themselves and their
commemorative stamps is constitutional? posterity the blessings of independence under a
regime of justice, liberty and democracy," they
Held/Reason: The Court said YES, the issuing and thereby manifested reliance upon Him who guides
selling of commemorative stamps by the the destinies of men and nations. The elevating
respondent does not contemplate any favor upon a influence of religion in human society is recognized
particular sect or church, but the purpose was only here as elsewhere. In fact, certain general
‘to advertise the Philippines and attract more concessions are indiscriminately accorded to
tourist’ and the government just took advantage of religious sects and denominations.
an event considered of international importance,
thus, not violating the Constitution on its provision 3. There has been no constitutional infraction in
on the separation of the Church and State. this case. Act No. 4052 granted the Director of
Posts, with the approval of the Sec. of Public Works
Moreover, the Court stressed that ‘Religious and Communications, discretion to issue postage
freedom, as a constitutional mandate is not stamps with new designs. Even if we were to
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is assume that these officials made use of a poor
not denial of its influence in human affairs’. judgment in issuing and selling the postage stamps
Emphasizing that, ‘when the Filipino people in question, still, the case of the petitioner would
‘implored the aid of Divine Providence’, they fail to take in weight. Between the exercise of a
thereby manifested reliance upon Him who guides poor judgment and the unconstitutionality of the
the destinies of men and nations. step taken, a gap exists which is yet to be filled to
justify the court in setting aside the official act
assailed as coming within a constitutional
inhibition. The court resolved to deny the petition to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of
for a writ of prohibition. P1 per page.
 But the Auditor General required the
ARTICLE II – Declaration of Principles & State
plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts by
Policies
virtue of a Department of Justice circular
which stated that NACOCO, being a
Administrative Code of 1987, Sec. 2 (1)
government entity, was exempt from the
payment of the fees in question.
"Government of the Republic of the Philippines"
refers to the corporate governmental entity  For reimbursement to take place, it was
through which the functions of government are further ordered that the amount of P25 per
exercised throughout the Philippines, including, payday be deducted from the salary of
save as the contrary appears from the context, the Bacani and P10 from the salary of Matoto.
various arms through which political authority is
made effective in the Philippines, whether  Petitioners filed an action in Court
pertaining to the autonomous regions, the countering that NACOCO is not a
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions government entity within the purview of
or other forms of local government. section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
 On the other hand, the defendants set up a
BACANI VS NACOCO defense that NACOCO is a government
G.R. No. L-9657 100 Phil 471 November 29, 1956 entity within the purview of section 2 of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1917 hence,
LEOPOLDO T. BACANI and MATEO A. MATOTO, Plaintiffs–Appellees,
it is exempted from paying the
NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, NATIONAL stenographers’ fees under Rule 130 of the
COCONUT CORPORATION and BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, Defendants–
Appellants. Rules of Court.
Issues:
Facts:
WON National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO),
 Plaintiffs Bacani and Matto are both court which performs certain functions of government,
stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the make them a part of the Government of the
Court of First Instance of Manila. Philippines.
 During the pendency of a civil case in the HELD:
said court, Francisco Sycip vs. National
Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate NACOCO is not considered a government entity and
Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for is not exempted from paying the stenographers’
Defendant, requested said stenographers fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
for copies of the transcript of the Sec. 2 of the Revised Administrative Code defines
stenographic notes taken by them during the scope of the term “Government of the Republic
the hearing. of the Philippines”.
 Plaintiffs complied with the request by The term “Government” may be defined as:
delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed
transcript containing 714 pages and  “that institution or aggregate of institutions
thereafter submitted to him their bills for by which an independent society makes
the payment of their fees. and carries out those rules of action which
are necessary to enable men to live in a
The National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) paid social state, or which are imposed upon the
the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 people forming that society by those who
 possess the power or authority of
prescribing them” (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil.,
332). FACTS:
 This institution, when referring to the Herein petitioners are stenographers in Branch VI
national government, has reference to of the CIF Manila.
what our Constitution has established
composed of three great departments, In a pending civil case where the public
the legislative, executive, and the respondents are involved, they requested for the
judicial, through which the powers and services of the stenographers and thereby paid
functions of government are exercised. them for the said transcript at the rate of P1 per
 These functions are twofold: constitute page, amounting to P714 in total.
and ministrant.
However, upon inspecting the books of the
 Constitute are those which constitute the corporation, the Auditor General disallowed the
very bonds of society and are compulsory payment of such fees and sought for the recovery
in nature; of the amounts paid. Consequently, the AG
required the petitioners to reimburse the amounts
 Ministrant are those that are undertaken
invoking that the National Coconut Corporation is a
only by way of advancing the general
government entity within the purview of section 2
interests of society, and are merely
of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 which
optional.
states that:
***option***
“‘The Government of the Philippine Islands’ is a
HELD: term which refers to the corporate governmental
No. NACOCO do not acquire that status for the entity through which the functions of government
simple reason that they do not come under the are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands,
classification of municipal or public corporation. including, save as the contrary appears from the
While NACOCO was organized for the purpose of context, the various arms through which political
“adjusting the coconut industry to a position authority is made effective in said Islands, whether
independent of trade preferences in the United pertaining to the central Government or to the
States” and of providing “Facilities for the better provincial or municipal branches or other form of
curing of copra products and the proper utilization local government.”, hence, exempted from the
of coconut by-products”, a function which our payment of the fees in question.
government has chosen to exercise to promote the
coconut industry. It was given a corporate power ISSUE: Whether the NCC is a government entity
separate and distinct from the government, as it and is exempted from the payments in question?
was made subject to the provisions of the
Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence RULING: The Court held No. Discussing, there are
and the powers that it may exercise are concerned two-fold functions of the government namely:
(sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It constituent and ministrant. The constituent
may sue and be sued in the same manner as any function refers to the bonds of society and are
other private corporations, and in this sense it is an compulsory in nature, while ministrant is more on
entity different from our government. public welfare like public works, education, charity,
health and safety. From such, we may infer that
***alternative*** there are functions which our government is
BACANI V NACOCO G.R. No. L-6957, November 29, required to exercise to promote its objectives as
1956 expressed in our Constitution and which are
exercised by it as an attribute of sovereignty, and
those which it may exercise to promote merely the a period of one year. Few months have
welfare, progress and prosperity of the people.The passed, however,The Unions, together with
NCC has that function because the corporation the CUGCO, filed a complaint against the
promotes certain aspects of the economic life of ACCFA for having allegedly committed acts
the people. In short, NCC belongs to what we call of unfair labor practices and non
the government-owned and controlled corporation implementation of said agreement.
which is governed by Corporation Law.  Court of Industrial Relations ordered ACCFA
to cease from committing further acts
Albeit the NCC performs governmental functions tending to discourage the Union members
for the people’s welfare, however, it was given a in the exercise of their right to self-
corporate power separate and distinct from our organizatoin, to comply with and implement
government, for it was made subject to the the provisions of the CBA, and to bargain
provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its with good faith with the complainants.
corporate existence and the powers that it may  ACCFA moved to reconsider but it was
exercise are concerned. turned down in a resolution. ACCFA
appealed by certiorari.
To recapitulate, we may mention that the term
“Government of the Republic of the Philippines” ISSUE: WON ACCFA exercised governmental
used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative functions.
Code refers only to that government entity through
which the functions of the government are HELD:
exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this  Yes. The implementation of the land reform
are included those arms through which political program of the government according to
authority is made effective whether they be Republic Act No. 3844 is most certainly a
provincial, municipal or other form of local governmental, not a proprietary, function;
government. and for that purpose Executive Order No. 75
has placed the ACA under the Land Reform
Therefore, NCC is not a government entity and is Project Administration.
not exempted from the payment of fees in
question; petitioners are not subject to  The law itself declares that the ACA is a
reimbursement. government office, with the formulation of
policies, plans and programs vested no
longer in a Board of Governors, as in the
ACCFA VS CUGCO
case of the ACCFA, but in the National Land
Reform Council, itself a government
FACTS:
instrumentality; and that its personnel are
subject to Civil Service laws and to rules of
 ACCFA was a government agency created
standardization with respect to positions
under RA No. 821, as amended.
and salaries, any vestige of doubt as to the
 Its administrative machinery was
governmental character of its functions
reorganized and its named changed to
disappears.
Agricultural Credit Administration under the
Land Reform Code or RA 3844.
***alternative: ***
 ACCFA Supervisors' Association and the
Facts:
ACCFA Workers' Association were referred
1. ACCFA, a government agency
to as Union in the ACCFA.
created under RA 821, as amended was
reorganized and its name changed to
The Unions and ACCFA entered into a
Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA)
collective bargaining agreement effective for
under the RA 3844 or Land Reform Code.
 While ACCFA Supervisors' Association (ASA) aside from the governmental objectives of the ACA,
and the ACCFA Workers' Association (AWA), geared as they are to the implementation of the
are labor organizations (the Unions) land reform program of the State, the law itself
composed of the supervisors and the rank- declares that the ACA is a government office, with
and-file employees in the ACCFA. the formulation of policies, plans and programs
2. A CBA was agreed upon by labor vested no longer in a Board of Governors, as in the
unions (ASA and AWA) and ACCFA. The said case of the ACCFA, but in the National Land Reform
CBA was supposed to be effective on 1 July Council, itself a government instrumentality; and
1962. Due to non-implementation of the that its personnel are subject to Civil Service laws
CBA the unions held a strike. And 5 days and to rules of standardization with respect to
later, the Unions, with its mother union, the positions and salaries, any vestige of doubt as to
Confederation of Unions in Government the governmental character of its functions
Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a disappears.
complaint against ACCFA before the CIR on
ground of alleged acts of unfair labor The growing complexities of modern society,
practices; violation of the collective however, have rendered this traditional
bargaining agreement in order to classification of the functions of government quite
discourage the members of the Unions in unrealistic, not to say obsolete.
the exercise of their right to self-
organization, discrimination against said The areas which used to be left to private
members in the matter of promotions and enterprise and initiative and which the government
refusal to bargain. was called upon to enter optionally, and only
"because it was better equipped to administer for
3. ACCFA moved for a reconsideration
the public welfare than is any private individual or
but while the appeal was pending, RA 3844
group of individuals, “continue to lose their well-
was passed which effectively turned ACCFA
defined boundaries and to be absorbed within
to ACA. Then, ASA and AWA petitioned that
activities that the government must undertake in
they obtain sole bargaining rights with ACA.
its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing
While this petition was not yet decided
social challenges of the times.
upon, EO 75 was also passed which placed
ACA under the Land Reform Project
Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is
Administration. Notwithstanding the latest
undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of
legislation passed, the trial court and the
economic forces. Here of course this development
appellate court ruled in favor of ASA and
was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national
AWA.
policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of
ISSUE: W/N ACA is a government entity principle concerning the promotion of social
justice.
YES.
The Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA. EO
It was in furtherance of such policy that the Land 75 placed ACA under the LRPA and by virtue of RA
Reform Code was enacted and the various 3844 the implementation of the Land Reform
agencies, the ACA among them, established to Program of the government is a governmental
carry out its purposes. There can be no dispute as function NOT a proprietary function. Being such,
to the fact that the land reform program ACA can no longer step down to deal privately with
contemplated in the said Code is beyond the said unions as it may have been doing when it was
capabilities of any private enterprise to translate still ACCFA.
into reality. It is a purely governmental function, no
less than, the establishment and maintenance of However, the growing complexities of modern
public schools and public hospitals. And when, society have rendered the classification of the
governmental functions as unrealistic, if not government has the right to take back the
obsolete. Ministerial and governmental functions money intended for the people.
continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and ***alternative***
are absorbed within the activities that the
government must undertake in its sovereign
Petitioner: Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by
capacity if it to meet the increasing social Executive Treasurer
challenges of the times and move towards a greater Respondent: El Monte de Piedad Y Caja de Ajorras de Manila
socialization of economic forces.
FACTS: On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake
Government v. Monte De Piedad in the Philippines took place. The Spanish
dominions provided $400,000 aid as received by
35 Phil. 728 – Political Law – Parens Patriae the National Treasury as relief of the victims of the
earthquake. The government used the money as
 In June 1863 a devastating earthquake such but $80,000 was left untouched and was thus
occurred in the Philippines. The Spanish invested to Monte de Piedad bank, which was in
Government then provided $400,000.00 as turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the same
aid for the victims and it was received by amount.
the Philippine Treasury.
 Out of the said amount, $80,000.00 was left In June 1983, the Department of Finance called
untouched; it was then invested in the upon the same bank to return the $80,000
Monte de Piedad Bank which in turn deposited from before. The Monte de Piedad
invested the amount in jewelries. But when declined to comply with this order on the ground
the Philippine government later tried to that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands
withdraw the said amount, the bank cannot and not the Department of Finance had the right to
provide for the amount. order the reimbursement because the Philippine
government is not the affected party. On account of
 The government then filed a complaint. The
various petitions of the persons, the Philippine
bank argued that the Philippine government
Islands brought a suit against Monte de Piedad for
is not an affected party hence has no right
a recovery of the $80,000 together with interest,
to institute a complaint.
for the benefit of those persons and their heirs.
 The bank argues that the government was Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence,
not the intended beneficiary of the said this appeal.
amount.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government
is competent to file a complaint against the is authorized to file a reimbursement of the money
respondent bank. of the people deposited in respondent bank.

HELD: Yes. HELD:

 The Philippine government is competent to The Court held that the Philippine government is
institute action against Monte de Piedad, competent to file a complaint/reimbursement
this is in accordance with the doctrine against respondent bank in accordance to
of Parens Patriae. the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.
The government is the sole protector of the rights
 The government being the protector of the
of the people thus, it holds an inherent supreme
rights of the people has the inherent
power to enforce laws which promote public
supreme power to enforce such laws that
interest. The government has the right to "take
will promote the public interest. No other
back" the money intended fro people. The
party has been entrusted with such right
government has the right to enforce all charities of
hence as “parents” of the people the
public nature, by virtue of its general
superintending authority over the public interests, been filed should resolve that case according to the
where no other person is entrusted with it. best interest of that person.
The uncle here should not be the trustee, it should
Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was be the mother as she was the immediate relative of
thereby GRANTED. the minor child and it is assumed that the mother
shall show more care towards the child than the
The Court ordered that respondent bank return the uncle will.
amount to the rightful heirs with interest in gold or
coin in Philippine peso. The application of parens patriae here is in
consonance with this country’s tradition of favoring
conflicts in favor of the family hence preference to
Cabanas v Pilapil
58 SCRA 94, July 25, 1974 the parent (mother) is observed.
MELCHORA CABANAS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.FRANCISCO PILAPIL, defendant-appellant.
***ruling***
58 SCRA 94 – Political Law – Parens Patriae  The Constitution provides for the
– Strengthening the Family strengthening of the family as
the basic social unit, and that whenever
FACTS:
any member thereof such as in the case
 Florentino Pilapil insured himself and he at bar would be prejudiced and his interest
indicated in his insurance plan that his child be affected then the judiciary if a litigation
will be his beneficiary. has been filed should resolve according to
 He also indicated that if upon his death the the best interest of that person.
child is still a minor; the proceeds of his  The uncle here should not be the trustee, it
benefits shall be administered by his should be the mother as she was the
brother, Francisco Pilapil. immediate relative of the minor child and it
is assumed that the mother shows more
 The child was only ten years of age when care towards the child than an uncle.
Florentino died and so Francisco then took  It is buttressed by its adherence to the
charge of Florentino’s insurance proceeds concept that the judiciary, as an agency of
for the benefit of the child. the State acting as parens patriae, is called
upon whenever a pending suit of litigation
affects one who is a minor to accord priority
On the other hand, the mother of the child
to his best interest.
Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking the
 It may happen, family relations may press
delivery of the insurance proceeds in favor and for
their respective claims. It would be more in
her to be declared as the child’s trustee.
consonance not only with the natural order
Francisco asserted the terms of the insurance of things but the tradition of the country for
policy and that as a private contract its terms and a parent to be preferred.
obligations must be binding only to the parties and  It could have been different if the conflict
intended beneficiaries. were between father and mother. Such is
ISSUE: WON the state may interfere by virtue of not the case at all.
“parens patriae” to the terms of the insurance  It is a mother asserting priority. Certainly
policy. the judiciary as the instrumentality of the
State in its role of parens patriae, cannot
HELD: Yes. The Constitution provides for the remain insensible to the validity of her plea.
strengthening of the family as the basic social unit,
and that whenever any member thereof such as in Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh
the case at bar would be prejudiced and his interest
be affected then the judiciary if a litigation has
Facts: remain in force unless suspended or changed by
 Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, the conqueror.
initiated during the Japanese occupation,
with the Court of First Instance of Manila. Civil obedience is expected even during war, for
 After the Liberation of the Manila and the “the existence of a state of insurrection and war did
American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon not loosen the bonds of society, or do away with
refused to continue hearings on the case, civil government or the regular administration of
saying that a proclamation issued by the laws. And if they were not valid, then it would
General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated not have been necessary for MacArthur to come
and nullified all judicial proceedings and out with a proclamation abrogating them.
judgments of the courts of the Philippines
and, without an enabling law, lower courts The second question, the court said, hinges on the
have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of interpretation of the phrase “processes of any
and continue judicial proceedings pending other government” and whether or not he
in the courts of the defunct Republic of the intended it to annul all other judgments and
Philippines (the Philippine government judicial proceedings of courts during the Japanese
under the Japanese). military occupation.

The court resolved three issues: IF, according to international law, non-political
judgments and judicial proceedings of de facto
1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and governments are valid and remain valid even after
decisions made during the Japanese occupation the occupied territory has been liberated, then it
were valid and remained valid even after the could not have been MacArthur’s intention to refer
American occupation; to judicial processes, which would be in violation of
international law.
2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944
proclamation MacArthur issued in which he A well-known rule of statutory construction is: “A
declared that “all laws, regulations and processes of statute ought never to be construed to violate the
any other government in the Philippines than that law of nations if any other possible construction
of the said Commonwealth are null and void and remains.”
without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free
of enemy occupation and control” invalidated all Another is that “where great inconvenience will
judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the result from a particular construction, or great
courts; mischief done, such construction is to be avoided,
or the court ought to presume that such
3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated construction was not intended by the makers of the
by MacArthur’s proclamation, those courts could law, unless required by clear and unequivocal
continue hearing the cases pending before them. words.”
Ratio: Political and international law recognizes that
all acts and proceedings of a de facto government Annulling judgments of courts made during the
are good and valid. Japanese occupation would clog the dockets and
violate international law, therefore what MacArthur
The Philippine Executive Commission and the said should not be construed to mean that judicial
Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese proceedings are included in the phrase “processes
occupation may be considered de facto of any other governments.”
governments, supported by the military force and
deriving their authority from the laws of war. In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if
Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually such laws and institutions are continued in use by
the occupant, they become his and derive their continue hearing the case pending before it.
force from him.
***3 kinds of de facto government:
The laws and courts of the Philippines did not  one established through rebellion (govt gets
become, by being continued as required by the law possession and control through force or the
of nations, laws and courts of Japan. voice of the majority and maintains itself
against the will of the rightful government)
It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political  through occupation (established and
nature, “law once established continues until maintained by military forces who invade
changed by some competent legislative power. and occupy a territory of the enemy in the
course of war; denoted as a government of
IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF paramount force)
SOVEREIGNTY.”  through insurrection (established as an
independent government by the inhabitants
Until, of course, the new sovereign by legislative act of a country who rise in insurrection against
creates a change. the parent state)

Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally

acquired sovereignty over the Philippines, and the WILLIAM F. PERALTA, petitioner,
laws and courts of the Philippines had become vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws creating
and conferring jurisdiction upon them have William F. Peralta in his own behalf.
Office of the Solicitor General Tañada for respondent.
continued in force until now, it follows that the City Fiscal Mabanag as amicus curiae.
same courts may continue exercising the same
jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the FERIA, J.:
restoration of the Commonwealth Government,
until abolished or the laws creating and conferring FACTS:
jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said  William Peralta was prosecuted for the
government. crime of robbery and was sentenced to life
imprisonment as defined and penalized by
DECISION: Act No. 65 of the National Assembly of the
Republic of the Philippines.
Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court  The petition for habeas corpus is based on
of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to take the contention that the Court of Special and
cognizance of and continue to final judgment the Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created by
proceedings in civil case no. 3012. Ordinance No. 7 was a political
instrumentality of the military forces of
Summary of ratio: Japan and which is repugnant to the aims of
1. International law says the acts of a de facto the Commonwealth of the Philippines for it
government are valid and civil laws continue even does not afford fair trial and impairs the
during occupation unless repealed. constitutional rights of the accused.

2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other ISSUE/HELD:

governments, but this cannot be applied on judicial - WON the creation of court by Ordinance
proceedings because such a construction would No. 7 valid?
violate the law of nations.
a.) YES. There is no room for doubt to the
validity of Ordinance No. 7 since the
3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must
criminal jurisdiction established by the
 invader is drawn entirely from the law Appeals of Northern Luzon in Baguio City modified
martial as defined in the usages of nations. his sentence to an indeterminate sentence ranging
It is merely a governmental agency. from 4 mos. and 21 days of arresto mayor to 3
years, 9 mos. and 3 days of prision correctional.
- WON the sentence of life imprisonment
valid? Issues – W/N the Court of Appeals of Northern
Luzon had jurisdiction over the case of Alcantara,
a.) YES. The sentence rendered, likewise, is on the ground that it was a validly-created court
good and valid since it was within the power (Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon was created
and competence of the belligerent occupant during the Japanese occupation) and that it has
to promulgate Act No. 65. authority to hold sessions in Baguio City, in relation
to Commonwealth Act No. 3?
- WoN the punitive sentence ceased to be
valid from the time of the restoration of Verdict – Petition for writ of habeas corpus by
Commonwealth, by virtue of the principle Alcantara was DENIED.
of posliminium?
Held – The Court held that the sentence served by
a.) YES. All judgments of political Alcantara (illegal discharge of firearms with less
complexion of the courts during Japanese serious physical injuries) is an criminal act that has
regime ceased to be valid upon no political complexion.
reoccupation of the Islands, as such, the
sentence which convicted the petitioner of A punitive or penal sentence becomes that of a
a crime of a political complexion must be political complexion when it penalizes either a new
considered as having ceased to be valid. act not defined in the municipal laws or acts
already penalized by the latter as a crime against
the legitimate government, but taken out of the
Aniceto Alcantara vs. Director of Prisons territorial law and penalized as new offense
committed against the belligerent occupant.
Justice Feria
It cited the case of Co Kim Cham vs Valdez, where
Doctrine – A punitive or penal sentence becomes the Japanese Republic (of the Philippines) and the
that of a political complexion when it penalizes Phil. Executive Commission were governments de
either a new act not defined in the municipal laws facto and the judicial acts of the courts thereof
or acts already penalized by the latter as a crime were good and valid and remained as such even
against the legitimate government, but taken out of after the Commonwealth Government was
the territorial law and penalized as new offense restored, except those crimes with political
committed against the belligerent occupant. complexion (political crimes)
Type of Action/Appeal: Petition for writ of habeas Also, there was no substantial change in the
corpus by Alcantara on the ground that he was jurisdiction and structure of the Court of Appeals
unduly deprived of liberty due to rendition of the when the Japanese-initiated Republic abolished the
judgment against him for felony of illegal discharge pre-World War II Court of Appeals, and reorganized
of firearms with less serious physical injuries by CFI it into several courts.
Ilocos Sur, which was affirmed with modification by
Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon.

Facts – Aniceto Alcantara was convicted in the CFI TANADA VS ANGARA

Ilocos Sur in Criminal Case 23 for the felony of
illegal discharge of firearms with less serious 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997
physical injuries. Upon his appeal, the Court of
Facts: This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative
Philippine ratification of the World Trade power.
Organization (WTO) Agreement.

That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was

Petitioners question the concurrence of herein taken for granted as it gives foreign trading
respondents acting in their capacities as Senators intervention.
via signing the said agreement.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
 They contended that WTO agreement jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its
violates the mandate of the 1987 concurrence of the said WTO agreement.
Constitution to :

Held:
 “develop a self-reliant and independent In its Declaration of Principles and state policies,
national economy effectively controlled by the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted
Filipinos x x x (to) give preference to principles of international law as part of the law of
qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity ,
materials and locally produced goods” as with all nations.

(1) the WTO requires the Philippines “to place By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is
nationals and products of member-countries on the bound by generally accepted principles of
same footing as Filipinos and local products” and international law, which are considered
automatically part of our own laws.
(2) that the WTO “intrudes, limits and/or impairs”
the constitutional powers of both Congress and the Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements
Supreme Court. must be performed in good faith. A treaty is not a
mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding
The WTO opens access to foreign markets, obligation on the parties.
especially its major trading partners, through the Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in
reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly fact and reality be considered as absolute because
agricultural and industrial products. it is a regulation of commercial relations among
nations.

Thus, provides new opportunities for the service

sector cost and uncertainty associated with Such as when Philippines joined the United Nations
exporting and more investment in the country. (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right
under the “concept of sovereignty as
autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid
These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the exercise of authority.
agreement and as viewed by the signatory
Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.
As to determine whether such exercise is wise,
beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial
Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO inquiry and review.
agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair
The act of signing the said agreement is not a  These are the predicted benefits as
legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of reflected in the agreement and as viewed by
membership should this be the political desire of a the signatory Senators, a “free market”
member. espoused by WTO.

Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of  Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict
economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only with the provisions of our constitution,
viable structure for multilateral trading and the since the said Agreement is an assault on
veritable forum for the development of the sovereign powers of the Philippines
international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, because it meant that Congress could not
stagnation if not economic self-destruction. pass legislation that would be good for
national interest and general welfare if such
legislation would not conform to the WTO
Thus, the people be allowed, through their duly Agreement.
elected officers, make their free choice.
Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Issues:

***alternative***
1. Whether or not the petition present a
justiciable controversy.
Wigberto E. Tanada et al, in representation of various taxpayers and
as non-governmental organizations, petitioners, vs.EDGARDO 2. Whether or not the provisions of the
ANGARA, et al, respondents. ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization and the Agreements and
Associated Legal Instruments included in
Facts: This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto
Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that
Tanada, together with other lawmakers, taxpayers,
agreement’ cited by petitioners directly
and various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine
contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and
ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10
Agreement.
and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
3. Whether or not certain provisions of the
 Petitioners believe that this will be Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the
detrimental to the growth of our National exercise of legislative power by Congress.
Economy and against to the “Filipino First” 4. Whether or not certain provisions of the
policy. Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power
by this Honorable Court in promulgating the
rules of evidence.
 The WTO opens access to foreign markets, 5. Whether or not the concurrence of the
especially its major trading partners, Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of
through the reduction of tariffs on its the Philippines of the Agreement establishing
exports, particularly agricultural and the World Trade Organization’ implied rejection
industrial products. of the treaty embodied in the Final Act.

 Thus, provides new opportunities for the

service sector cost and uncertainty Discussions:
associated with exporting and more
investment in the country.  1987 Constitution states that Judicial power
includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights
 which are legally demandable and enforceable, undertaken. Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the
and to determine whether or not there has General Provisions and Basic Principles of the
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may
branch or instrumentality of the government. intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to
 Although the Constitution mandates to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice
develop a self-reliant and independent national and procedures. With regard to Infringement of
economy controlled by Filipinos, does not a design patent, WTO members shall be free to
necessarily rule out the entry of foreign determine the appropriate method of
investments, goods and services. It implementing the provisions of TRIPS within
contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor their own internal systems and processes.
“mendicancy in the international community.”  The alleged impairment of sovereignty in
The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is
protect weak and developing economies, which balanced by the adoption of the generally
comprise the vast majority of its members. accepted principles of international law as part
Unlike in the UN where major states have of the law of the land and the adherence of the
permanent seats and veto powers in the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and
Security Council, in the WTO, decisions are amity with all nations. The Senate, after
made on the basis of sovereign equality, with deliberation and voting, voluntarily and
each member’s vote equal in weight to that of overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO
any other. Hence, poor countries can protect Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law
their common interests more effectively of the land” is a legitimate exercise of its
through the WTO than through one-on-one sovereign duty and power.
negotiations with developed countries. Within
the WTO, developing countries can form Rulings:
powerful blocs to push their economic agenda
more decisively than outside the Organization. 1. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine
Which is not merely a matter of practical Senate on the ground that it contravenes the
alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a
law. Thus, the basic principles underlying the justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
WTO Agreement recognize the need of legislative branch is seriously alleged to have
developing countries like the Philippines to infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only
“share in the growth in international trade the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to
commensurate with the needs of their settle the dispute. As explained by former Chief
economic development.” Justice Roberto Concepcion, “the judiciary is
 In its Declaration of Principles and State the final arbiter on the question of whether or
Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally not a branch of government or any of its
accepted principles of international law as part officials has acted without jurisdiction or in
of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to
of peace, equality, justice, freedom, constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to
cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial
doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound power but a duty to pass judgment on matters
by generally accepted principles of of this nature.”
international law, which are considered to be 2. While the Constitution indeed mandates a
automatically part of our own laws. A state bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor
which has contracted valid international and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes
obligations is bound to make in its legislations the need for business exchange with the rest of
such modifications as may be necessary to the world on the bases of equality and
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino
 enterprises only against foreign competition
and trade practices that are unfair. In other 30 SCRA 968 – Political Law – Sovereignty
words, the Constitution did not intend to
 William Reagan is a US citizen assigned at
pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out
Clark Air Base to help provide technical
foreign investments, goods and services in the
assistance to the US Air Force (USAF). In
development of the Philippine economy. While
April 1960 Reagan imported a 1960 Cadillac
the Constitution does not encourage the
car valued at $6,443.83.
unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and
investments into the country, it does not  Two months later, he got permission to sell
prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an the same car provided that he would sell
exchange on the basis of equality and the car to a US citizen or a member of the
reciprocity, frowning only on foreign USAF.
competition that is unfair.  He sold it to Willie Johnson, Jr. for $6,600.00
3. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit as shown by a Bill of Sale. The sale took
or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By place within Clark Air Base.
their voluntary act, nations may surrender
some aspects of their state power in exchange  As a result of this transaction, the
for greater benefits granted by or derived from Commissioner of Internal Revenue
a convention or pact. After all, states, like calculated the net taxable income of Reagan
individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of to be at 17,912.34 and that his income tax
mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, would be 2,797.00.
they also commonly agree to limit the exercise  Reagan paid the assessed tax but at the
of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown by same time he sought for a refund because
the foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a he claims that he is exempt. Reagan claims
portion of sovereignty may be waived without that the sale took place in “foreign soil”
violating the Constitution, based on the since Clark Air Base, in legal contemplation
rationale that the Philippines “adopts the is a base outside the Philippines.
generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land and adheres  Reagan also cited that under the Military
to the policy of cooperation and amity with all Bases Agreement, he, by nature of his
nations.” employment, is exempt from Philippine
4. The provision in Article 34 of WTO taxation.
agreement does not contain an unreasonable ISSUE: Is the sale considered done in a foreign soil
burden, consistent as it is with due process and not subject to Philippine income tax?
the concept of adversarial dispute settlement
HELD: No. The Philippines is independent and
inherent in our judicial system.
sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its
5. The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97
entire domain.
expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final
Act required from its signatories, namely,  There is no portion thereof that is beyond
concurrence of the Senate in the WTO its power. Within its limits, its decrees are
Agreement. Moreover, the Senate was well- supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws
aware of what it was concurring in as shown by govern therein, and everyone to whom it
the members’ deliberation on August 25, 1994. applies must submit to its terms.
After reading the letter of President Ramos  That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both
dated August 11, 1994, the senators of the territorial and personal. On the other hand,
Republic minutely dissected what the Senate there is nothing in the Military Bases
was concurring in. Agreement that lends support to Reagan’s
assertion.
REAGAN VS. CIR
  The Base has not become foreign soil or respondents from proceeding with the case
territory. of petitioner.
 This country’s jurisdictional rights therein, In support of his case, petitioner tenders the
certainly not excluding the power to tax, following principal arguments:
have been preserved, the Philippines merely  First. “That Executive Order No. 68 is illegal
consents that the US exercise jurisdiction in on the ground that it violates not only the
certain cases – this is just a matter of provisions of our constitutional law but also
comity, courtesy and expediency. our local laws, to say nothing of the fact
 It is likewise noted that he indeed is (that) the Philippines is not a signatory nor
employed by the USAF and his income is an adherent to the Hague Convention on
derived from US source but the income Rules and Regulations covering Land
derived from the sale is not of US source Warfare and, therefore, petitioner is
hence taxable. charged of `crimes’ not based on law,
national and international.”
Hence, petitioner argues — “That in view of the
SHIGENORI KURODA vs. Major General RAFAEL
fact that this commission has been empanelled by
JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE,
virtue of an unconstitutional law and an illegal
Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO
order, this commission is without jurisdiction to try
BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major
herein petitioner.”
FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and
ROBERT PORT, respondents.  Second. That the participation in the
Pedro Serran, Jose G. Lukban, and Liberato B. Cinco for petitioner. prosecution of the case against petitioner
Fred Ruiz Castro Federico Arenas Mariano Yengco, Jr., Ricardo A. before the Commission in behalf of the
Arcilla and S. Melville Hussey for respondents. United States of America, of attorneys
 Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant- Melville Hussey and Robert Port, who are
General of the Japanese Imperial Army and not attorneys authorized by the Supreme
Commanding General of the Japanese Court to practice law in the Philippines, is a
Imperial Forces in the Philippines during a diminution of our personality as an
period covering 1943 and 1944, who is now independent state, and their appointments
charged before a Military Commission as prosecutors are a violation of our
convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Constitution for the reason that they are
Forces of the Philippines, with having not qualified to practice law in the
unlawfully disregarded and failed Philippines.
“to discharge his duties as such commander to  Third. That Attorneys Hussey and Port have
control the operations of members of his no personality as prosecutors, the United
command, permitting them to commit brutal States not being a party in interest in the
atrocities and other high crimes against case.
noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War
Imperial Japanese Forces, in violation of the laws Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations
and customs of war” — comes before this Court governing the trial of accused war criminals, was
seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order issued by the President of the Philippines on the
No. 68 of the President of the Philippines; 29th day of July, 1947.
 to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville HELD:
S. Hussey and Robert Port from
participating in the prosecution of This Court holds that this order is valid and
petitioner’s case before the Military constitutional. Article 2 of our Constitution
Commission; and to permanently prohibit provides in its section 3, that.
“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of This includes the period of an armistice, or military
national policy, and adopts the generally accepted occupation, up to the effective date of a treaty of
principles of international law as part of the law of peace, and may extend beyond, by treaty
the nation.” agreement.’ (Cowls, Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals,
American Bar Association Journal, June, 1944.)”
In accordance with the generally accepted
principles of international law of the present day, Consequently, the President as Commander in
including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Chief is fully empowered to consummate this
Convention and significant precedents of unfinished aspect of war, namely, the trial and
international jurisprudence established by the punishment of war criminals, through the issuance
United Nations, all those persons, military or and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.
civilian, who have been guilty of planning, Petitioner argues that respondent Military
preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for
commission of crimes and offenses consequential acts committed in violation of the Hague
and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and Convention and the Geneva Convention because
customs of war, of humanity and civilization, are the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and
held accountable therefor. signed the second only in 1947.
Consequently, in the promulgation and It cannot be denied that the rules and regulations
enforcement of Executive Order No. 68, the of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of
President of the Philippines has acted in conformity and are wholly based on the generally accepted
with the generally accepted principles and policies principles of international law.
of international law which are part of our
In fact, these rules and principles were accepted by
Constitution.
the two belligerent nations, the United States and
The promulgation of said executive order is an Japan, who were signatories to the two
exercise by the President of his powers as Conventions. Such rules and principles, therefore,
Commander in Chief of all our armed forces, as form part of the law of our nation even if the
upheld by this Court in the case of Yamashita vs. Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions
Styer L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 654) when we said. embodying them, for our Constitution has been
“War is not ended simply because hostilities have deliberately general and extensive in its scope and
ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities, is not confined to the recognition of rules and
incidents of war may remain pending which should principles of international law as contained in
be disposed of as in time of war. treaties to which our government may have been
or shall be a signatory.
`An important incident to a conduct of war is the
adoption of measures by the military command not Furthermore, when the crimes charged against
only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize petitioner were allegedly committed, the
and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United
who in their attempt to thwart or impede our States, and thus we were equally bound together
military effort have violated the law of war.’ (Ex with the United States and with Japan, to the rights
parte Quirin, 317 U. S., 1; 63 Sup. Ct., 2.) and obligations contained in the treaties between
the belligerent countries. These rights and
Indeed, the power to create a military commission obligations were not erased by our assumption of
for the trial and punishment of war criminals is an full sovereignty.
aspect of waging war.
If at all, our emergence as a free state entitles us to
And, in the language of a writer, a military enforce the right, on our own, of trying and
commission `has jurisdiction so long as a technical punishing those who committed crimes against our
state of war continues. people. In this connection, it is well to remember
what we have said in the case of Laurel vs. Misa (76 If there has been any relinquishment of
Phil., 372): sovereignty, it has not been by our government but
by the United States Government which has yielded
“. . . The change of our form of government from
to us the trial and punishment of her enemies.
Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of The least that we could do in the spirit of comity is
treason committed during the Commonwealth, to allow them representation in said trials.
because it is an offense against the same Alleging that the United States is not a party in
government and the same sovereign people . . . “ interest in the case, petitioner challenges the
By the same token, war crimes committed against personality of attorneys Hussey and Port as
our people and our government while we were a prosecutors.
Commonwealth, are triable and punishable by our It is of common knowledge that the United States
present Republic. and its people have been equally, if not more
Petitioner challenges the participation of two greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which
American attorneys, namely, Melville S. Hussey and petitioner stands charged before the Military
Robert Port, in the prosecution of his case, on the Commission.
ground that said attorneys are not qualified to It can be considered a privilege for our Republic
practice law in the Philippines in accordance with that a leader nation should submit the vindication
our Rules of Court and the appointment of said of the honor of its citizens and its government to a
attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national military tribunal of our country.
sovereignty.
The Military Commission having been convened by
In the first place, respondent Military Commission virtue of a valid law, with jurisdiction over the
is a special military tribunal governed by a special crimes charged which fall under the provisions of
law and not by the Rules of Court which govern Executive Order No. 68, and having jurisdiction over
ordinary civil courts. It has already been shown that the person of the petitioner by having said
Executive Order No. 68 which provides for the petitioner in its custody, this Court will not interfere
organization of such military commissions is a valid with the due processes of such Military
and constitutional law. Commission.
There is nothing in said executive order which
requires that counsel appearing before said
commissions must be attorneys qualified to ***alternative***
practice law in the Philippines in accordance with Kuroda vs Jalandoni
the Rules of Court.  Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-
In fact, it is common in military tribunals that General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
counsel for the parties are usually military Commanding General of the Japanese
personnel who are neither attorneys nor even Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a
possessed of legal training. period covering 19433 and 19444 who is
now charged before a military Commission
Secondly, the appointment of the two American
convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed
attorneys is not violative of our national
forces of the Philippines with having
sovereignty.
unlawfully disregarded and failed
It is only fair and proper that the United States,
which has submitted the vindication of crimes "to discharge his duties as such command,
against her government and her people to a permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and
tribunal of our nation, should be allowed other high crimes against noncombatant civilians
representation in the trial of those very crimes. and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in
violation of the laws and customs of war" —
comes before this Court seeking to establish the scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule
illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President and principle of international law as continued inn
of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit treaties to which our government may have been
respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port or shall be a signatory
from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's
case before the Military Commission and to 3) Military Commission is a special military tribunal
permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding governed by a special law and not by the Rules of
with the case of petitioners. court which govern ordinary civil court. The
appointment of the two American attorneys is not
violative of our nation sovereignty.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not E.O. 68 is Constitutional It is only fair and proper that United States, which
2) Whether or not the Military Commission has no has submitted the vindication of crimes against her
Jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in government and her people to a tribunal of our
violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva nation should be allowed representation in the trial
Convention because the Philippines is not a of those very crimes.
signatory to the first and signed the second only in
1947 It is of common knowledge that the United State
3) Whether or not Attorneys Hussey and Port have and its people have been equally if not more
no personality as prosecution United State not greatly aggrieved by the crimes with which
being a party in interest in the case. petitioner stands charged before the Military
Commission.
Held:
It can be considered a privilege for our Republic
1) The promulgation of said executive order is an that a leader nation should submit the vindication
exercise by the President of his power as of the honor of its citizens and its government to a
Commander in chief of all our armed forces. military tribunal of our country.

An importance incident to a conduct of war is the ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ

adoption of measure by the military command not G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957
only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien
and subject to disciplinary measure those enemies residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected. by
who in their attempt to thwart or impede our Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner,
vs.
military effort have violated the law of war. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO
SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila, respondents.
The President as Commander in Chief is fully
empowered to consummate this unfinished aspect Facts:
of war namely the trial and punishment of war Driven by aspirations for economic independence
criminal through the issuance and enforcement of and national security, the Congress enacted Act No.
Executive Order No. 68 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail
Business.” The main provisions of the Act, among
2) It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation others, are:
of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of
and are wholly based on the generally accepted (1) Prohibition against persons, not citizens of the
principals of international law. Philippines, and against associations, among
others, from engaging directly or indirectly in the
Even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the retail trade; and
conventions embodying them for our Constitution
has been deliberately general and extensive in its (2) Prohibition against the establishment or
opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail
business of additional stores or branches of retail persons falling within a specified class, if it applies
business. alike to all persons within such class, and
reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction
Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and on behalf of
between those who fall within such class and those
other alien residents, corporations and
who do not.”
partnerships adversely affected by the said Act,
brought an action to obtain a judicial declaration, Topic: Section 21 Art. VII – Foreign Relations:
and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance, Jaime Senate Concurrence in International Agreements
Hernandez, and all other persons acting under him,
particularly city and municipal treasurers, from
RAMON A. GONZALES vs RUFINO G. HECHANOVA,
enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacked the as Executive Secretary, MACARIO PERALTA, JR., as Secretary of
constitutionality of the Act, contending that: Defense, PEDRO GIMENEZ, as Auditor General, CORNELIO
BALMACEDA, as Secretary of Commerce and Industry, and SALVADOR
 It denies to alien residents the equal MARINO, Secretary of Justice (Respondents).
protection of the laws and deprives of their
liberty and property without due process of FACTS:
law.
 The subject of the Act is not expressed or Executive Secretary authorized the importation of
comprehended in the title thereof. foreign rice to be purchased from private sources.
 The Act violates international and treaty (There was a Procurement Committee created.)
obligations of the Republic of the Philippines.
Gonzales, a rice planter, filed a petition question
Issue/s: the validity of the attempt to import foreign rice.
WON a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or He contends it is against RA 3452 which prohibits
generally accepted principles. importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn
Admin or any other government agency.
Discussions:
A generally accepted principle of international law, RA 3452 – AN ACT TO ADOPT A PROGRAM TO
should be observed by us in good faith. If a treaty STABILIZE THE PRIZE OF PALAY, RICE AND CORN, TO
would be in conflict with a statute then the statute PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR PRODUCTION, AND TO
must be upheld because it represented an exercise CREATE A RICE AND CORN ADMINISTRATION TO
of the police power which, being inherent could not IMPLEMENT THE SAME, AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS
be bargained away or surrendered through the THEREFOR.
medium of a treaty.
Hechanova countered that the importation is
Ruling/s: authorized by the President for military stock pile
purposes. (that the president is duty-bound to –
Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally
prepare for the challenge of threats of war or
accepted principle.
emergency without waiting for special authority)
In this case, the Supreme Court saw no conflict
between the raised generally accepted principle Hechanova further contends that there is no
and with RA 1180. prohibition on importation made by the
“Government itself”.
The equal protection of the law clause “does not
demand absolute equality amongst residents; it Hechanova also argued that the Government has
merely requires that all persons shall be treated already entered into 2 contracts with Vietnam and
alike, under like circumstances and conditions both Burma.
as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”;
and, that the equal protection clause “is not
infringed by legislation which applies only to those
That these contracts constitute valid executive contrary to its provisions; and that, for lack of the
agreements under international law; that such requisite majority, the injunction prayed for must
agreements became binding and effective upon be and is, accordingly denied. It is so ordered.
signing thereof by the representatives of both
parties. Reyes vs Bagatsing
It is argued that when there is a conflict between a 125 SCRA 553 – Political Law – Freedom of Speech
“treaty” and a “statute” (the statute prohibiting – Primacy of the Constitution over International
importation), then the conflict must be resolved in Law
favor of the one which is latest in point of time (in  Retired Justice JBL Reyes in behalf of the
this case, the treaty). members of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought
a permit to rally from Luneta Park until the
ISSUE: What is the nature of the government front gate of the US embassy which is less
contracts with Vietnam and Burma? Which should than two blocks apart.
prevail, the contracts or RA 3452?
 The permit has been denied by then Manila
HELD: mayor Ramon Bagatsing.
The parties to said contracts do not appear to have  The mayor claimed that there have been
regarded the same as executive agreements. Even intelligence reports that indicated that the
assuming that said contracts are executive rally would be infiltrated by lawless
agreements, they are null and void, because they elements. He also issued City Ordinance
are inconsistent with RA 3452. No. 7295 to prohibit the staging of rallies
within the 500 feet radius of the US
Although the President may enter into executive embassy.
agreements without previous legislative authority,
 Bagatsing pointed out that it was his
he may not, by executive agreement, enter into a
intention to provide protection to the US
transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted
embassy from such lawless elements in
prior thereto.
pursuant to Art. 22 of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Under the Constitution, the main function of the
Executive is to enforce the laws enacted by  And that under our constitution we “adhere
Congress. to generally accepted principles of
He may not defeat legislative enactments by international law”.
indirectly repealing the same through an executive
ISSUE:
agreement providing for the performance of the
very act prohibited by said laws. Whether or not a treaty may supersede provisions
of the Constitution.
**Also, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Whether or not the rallyists should be granted the
case. The Constitution authorizes the nullification permit.
of a treaty not only when it conflicts with the
fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to HELD:
the act of Congress. No. Indeed, the receiving state is tasked for the
protection of foreign diplomats from any lawless
DECISION: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby element.
rendered declaring that respondent Executive
And indeed the Vienna Convention is a restatement
Secretary had and has no power to authorize the
of the generally accepted principles of international
importation in question; that he exceeded his
law.
jurisdiction in granting said authority; said
importation is not sanctioned by law and is
But the same cannot be invoked as defense to the Ramos approved the VFA, which was
primacy of the Philippine Constitution which respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and
upholds and guarantees the rights to free speech United States Ambassador Thomas
and peacable assembly. Hubbard.
 On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E.
At the same time, the City Ordinance issued by
Estrada, through respondent Secretary of
respondent mayor cannot be invoked if the
Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA.
application thereof would collide with a
 On October 6, 1998, the President, acting
constitutionally guaranteed rights.
through respondent Executive Secretary
Yes. The denial of their rally does not pass the clear Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to
and present danger test. The mere assertion that the Senate of the Philippines, the
subversives may infiltrate the ranks of the Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the
demonstrators does not suffice. President and the VFA, for concurrence
In this case, no less than the police chief assured pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the
that they have taken all the necessary steps to 1987 Constitution.
ensure a peaceful rally.  Petitions for certiorari and prohibition,
petitioners – as legislators, non-
Further, the ordinance cannot be applied yet governmental organizations, citizens and
because there was no showing that indeed the taxpayers – assail the constitutionality of
rallyists are within the 500 feet radius (besides, the VFA and impute to herein respondents
there’s also the question of whether or not the grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the
mayor can prohibit such rally – but, as noted by the agreement.
SC, that has not been raised an an issue in this  Petitioner contends, under they provision
case). cited, the “foreign military bases, troops, or
BAYAN vs. ZAMORA facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines
Facts: unless the following conditions are
sufficiently met: a) it must be a treaty,b) it
 The Philippines and the United States must be duly concurred in by the senate,
entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
August 30, 1951, To further strengthen their national referendum held for that purpose if
defense and security relationship. so required by congress, and c) recognized
 Under the treaty, the parties agreed to as such by the other contracting state.
respond to any external armed attack on Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section
their territory, armed forces, public vessels, 21 Article VII is applicable so that, what is requires
andaircraft. for such treaty to be valid and effective is the
 On September 16, 1991, the Philippine concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all the
Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty members of the senate.
of Friendship, Cooperation and Security
which, in effect, would have extended the
presence of US military bases in the
Philippines. Issue: Is the VFA governed by the provisions of
On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of
notes and discussed, among other things, the Constitution?
the possible elements of the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA). Ruling:
 This resulted to a series of conferences and Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals
negotiations which culminated on January with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops
12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel or facilities should apply in the instant case.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two This resulted to a series of conferences and
provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate negotiations which culminated on January 12 and
on treaties or international agreements. 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos
approved the VFA, which was respectively signed
Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador
Thomas Hubbard.
“No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of
all the Members of the Senate. Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5,
1998 and on May 27, 1999, the senate approved it
Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : by (2/3) votes.

“After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement Cause of Action:

between the RP and the US concerning Military
Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities
shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under Petitioners, among others, assert that Sec. 25, Art
a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable and not
so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by Section 21, Article VII.
the people in a national referendum held for that
purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senate
Following the argument of the petitioner, under
by the other contracting state”.
they provision cited, the “foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities” may be allowed in the
The first cited provision applies to any form of
Philippines unless the following conditions are
treaties and international agreements in general
sufficiently met:
with a wide variety of subject matter.

All treaties and international agreements entered a) it must be a treaty,

into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate,
coverage or particular designation requires the ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national
concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective. referendum held for that purpose if so required by
congress, and
In contrast, the second cited provision applies to c) recognized as such by the other contracting
treaties which involve presence of foreign military state.
bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both
constitutional provisions share some common
ground. Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section
21 Article VII is applicable so that, what is requires
The fact that the President referred the VFA to the for such treaty to be valid and effective is the
Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all the
extended its concurrence under the same provision members of the senate.
is immaterial.
ISSUE: Is the VFA governed by the provisions of
Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of
***alternative***
the Constitution?
Facts:
The United States panel met with the Philippine
HELD:
panel to discussed, among others, the possible
Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals
elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops go against this constitutional provision but is, on
or facilities should apply in the instant case. the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith.
“The defense of the State is a prime duty of
To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all
the provisions of section 21, Article VII will find citizens may be required by law to render personal
applicability with regard to the issue and for the military or civil service.”
sole purpose of determining the number of votes People vs Manayao
required to obtain the valid concurrence of the
senate.
78 Phil. 721 – Political Law – Citizenship – Defense
of State – Treason
The Constitution, makes no distinction between
“transient” and “permanent.” We find nothing in
section 25, Article XVIII that requires foreign troops  Pedro Manayao was a member of the
or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently Makapili (a group of Filipino traitors aiding
in the Philippines. the Japanese cause).
 Manayao conspired together with his
It is inconsequential whether the United States Japanese comrade soldiers to inflict terror
treats the VFA only as an executive agreement upon the barrio of Banaban in Bulacan
because, under international law, an executive where they killed 60 to 70 residents.
agreement is as binding as a treaty.  The residents they killed were alleged to be
supporters, wives and relatives of guerillas
People vs Lagman fighting the Japanese forces.
 Manayao was positively identified by
credible witnesses and he was later
66 Phil. 13 – Political Law – Defense of State
convicted with the high crime of treason
In 1936, Tranquilino Lagman reached the age of 20. with multiple murder.
He is being compelled by Section 60 of
 He was sentenced to death and to pay the
Commonwealth Act 1 (National Defense Law) to
damages. Manayao’s counsel argued that
join the military service. Lagman refused to do so
his client cannot be tried with treason
because he has a father to support, has no military
because Manayao has already lost his
leanings and he does not wish to kill or be killed.
Filipino citizenship due to his swearing of
Lagman further assailed the constitutionality of the
allegiance to support the Japanese cause.
said law.
 Hence, Manayao cannot be tried under
ISSUE: Whether or not the National Defense Law is
Philippine courts for any war crimes for only
constitutional.
Japanese courts can do so.
HELD: Yes. The duty of the Government to defend
ISSUE: Whether or not Manayao is guilty of
the State cannot be performed except through an
treason.
army.
To leave the organization of an army to the will of
the citizens would be to make this duty of the HELD: No.
Government excusable should there be no
sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.
 Manayao’s swearing of allegiance to Japan
Hence, the National Defense Law, in so far as it was not proven as a fact nor is it proven
establishes compulsory military service, does not that he joined the Japanese Naval, Army or
 Air Corps. What he joined is the Makapili, a
group of Filipino traitors pure and simple.
 The Supreme Court also emphasized that in
times of war when the state invokes the
Constitutional provision which state
**the defense of the state is a prime duty of the
government, in the fulfillment of this duty aall
citizens may be required to render personal,
military or civil service…
no one can effectively cast off his duty to defend
the state by merely swearing allegiance to an
enemy country, leaving and joining the opposite
force, or by deserting the Philippine Armed Forces.
Or even if Manayao did lose his citizenship it is also
indicated that no such person shall take up arms
against his native country; he shall be held guilty of
a felony and treason, if he does not strictly observe
this duty.