Abang Lingkod V Comelec

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: I & II Case Digests | Wednesday Class @ 4:30-9:30PM
Political Law Review initiative on the Constitution, on statutes,

and on local legislation. However, it failed
I. The Philippine Constitution to provide any subtitle on initiative on the
Constitution, unlike in the other modes of
E. General Provisions initiative, which are specifically provided
1. Manila Prince vs GSIS for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This
deliberate omission indicates that the
2. Santiago vs COMELEC matter of people’s initiative to amend the
Constitution was left to some future law.
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. COMMISSION ON Former Senator Arturo Tolentino stressed
ELECTIONS this deficiency in the law in his privilege
G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997 speech delivered before the Senate in
1994: There is not a single word in that law
FACTS: which can be considered as implementing
On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with the [the provision on constitutional initiative].
COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution and to lift Such implementing provisions have been
term limits of elective officials through a People's Initiative. He obviously left to a separate law.
alleged that he is a founding member of the Movement of
People's Initiative (a group of citizens desirous to avail the (3) Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the
system intended to institutionalize people power); that he and effectivity of the law after publication in
the members of the Movement and other volunteers intend to print media. This indicates that the Act
exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the covers only laws and not constitutional
Constitution granted under Section 2, Article XVII of the amendments because the latter take effect
Constitution; that the exercise of that power shall be only upon ratification and not after
conducted in proceedings under the control and supervision publication.
of the COMELEC.
(4) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300,
The Petition further alleged that the provisions sought to be adopted on 16 January 1991 to govern the
amended are Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4of Article conduct of initiative on the Constitution
VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution. and initiative and referendum on national
and local laws, is ultra vires insofar as
According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will first be initiative on amendments to the
submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least 12% Constitution is concerned, since the
of the total number of registered voters in the country, it will COMELEC has no power to provide rules
formally be filed with the COMELEC. and regulations for the exercise of the right
of initiative to amend the Constitution.
Upon the filing of the “Delfin Petition”, the COMELEC, through Only Congress is authorized by the
its Chairman, issued an Order(a) directing Delfin to cause the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
publication of the petition, together with the attached Petition
for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution (including the proposal, (5)The peoples initiative is limited to
proposed constitutional amendment, and the signature form), amendments to the Constitution, not to
and the notice of hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of revision thereof. Extending or lifting of
general circulation at his own expense not later than 9 term limits constitutes a revision and is,
December 1996; and (b) setting the case for hearing on 12 therefore, outside the power of the
December 1996 at 10:00 a.m. people’s initiative.
After the hearing, Delfin and the oppositors were directed by (6) Finally, Congress has not yet
the COMELEC to file their respective memoranda and/or appropriated funds for people’s initiative;
oppositions/memoranda within 5 days. neither the COMELEC nor any other
government department, agency, or office
On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago has realigned funds for the purpose.
and the rest of the petitioners filed a special civil action for
prohibition raising the following arguments: To justify the filing of the special civil action for prohibition, the
petitioners allege that in the event COMELEC grants the
(1) The constitutional provision on "Delfin Petition", the people's initiative spearheaded by
people’s initiative to amend the PIRMA would entail expenses to the national treasury for
Constitution can only be implemented by general re-registration of voters amounting to at least P180
law to be passed by Congress. No such million, not to mention the millions of additional pesos in
law has been passed; in fact, Senate Bill expenses which would be incurred in the conduct of the
No. 1290 entitled An Act Prescribing and initiative itself. Hence, the transcendental importance to the
Regulating Constitutional Amendments by public and the nation of the issues raised demands that this
Peoples Initiative, which petitioner Senator petition for prohibition be settled promptly and definitely,
Santiago filed on 24 November 1995, is brushing aside technicalities of procedure and calling for the
still pending before the Senate Committee admission of a taxpayers and legislators suit. Besides, there
on Constitutional Amendments. is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
(2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for
three systems of initiative, namely,
P a g e 1 | 27
On January 2, 1997, the respondents argued that, it is not true promote effective proper empowerment for participation in
that the proposed People’s Initiative would entail expenses to policy and decision-making for the common good; hence, to
the government if ever COMELEC grants the said petition. remove the term limits is to negate and nullify the noble vision
They further stated that all expenses in the signature of the 1987 Constitution.
gathering are all for the account of Delfin and his volunteers
per their program and activities. The respondents also (3) The Delfin proposal runs counter to the purpose of
emphasized that the pending petition before the COMELEC is initiative, particularly in a conflict-of-interest situation. Initiative
only on the signature gathering. RA No. 6735 which was is intended as a fallback position that may be availed of by the
approved on August 4, 1989 is the enabling law implementing people only if they are dissatisfied with the performance of
the power of the People Initiative to propose amendments to their elective officials, but not as a premium for good
the Constitution. Senator Defensor-Santiago’s Senate Bill No. performance.
1290 is only a duplication of what was already provided for in
RA No. 6735. Furthermore, the respondents argued that the (4) R.A. No. 6735 is deficient and inadequate in itself to be
lifting of the limitation on the term of office of the elective called the enabling law that implements the peoples initiative
officials provided under the 1987 Constitution is not a revision on amendments to the Constitution. It fails to state (a) the
but rather an amendment only of the Constitution. proper parties who may file the petition, (b) the appropriate
“Amendment” envisages an alteration of one of a few specific agency before whom the petition is to be filed, (c) the contents
provisions of the Constitution while “Revision” contemplates a of the petition, (d) the publication of the same, (e) the ways
re-examination of the entire document to determine how and and means of gathering the signatures of the voters
to what extend it should be altered. nationwide and 3% per legislative district, (f) the proper parties
who may oppose or question the veracity of the signatures,
On the same date, Delfin filed his Comment stating that (g) the role of the COMELEC in the verification of the
contrary to the claim of the petitioners, there is a law, R.A. No. signatures and the sufficiency of the petition, (h) the appeal
6735, which governs the conduct of initiative to amend the from any decision of the COMELEC, (I) the holding of a
Constitution. Section 9(b) of R.A. No. 6735 specifically plebiscite, and (g) the appropriation of funds for such peoples
provides that the proposition in an initiative to amend the initiative. Accordingly, there being no enabling law, the
Constitution approved by the majority of the votes cast in the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to hear Delfins petition.
plebiscite shall become effective as of the day of the
plebiscite. The claim that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is (5) The deficiency of R.A. No. 6735 cannot be rectified or
ultra vires is contradicted by (a) Section 2, Article IX-C of the remedied by COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, since the
Constitution, which grants the COMELEC the power to COMELEC is without authority to legislate the procedure for a
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the peoples initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and Constitution. That function exclusively pertains to Congress.
recall; and (b) Section 20 of R.A. 6735, which empowers the Section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 does not constitute a legal basis
COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may for the Resolution, as the former does not set a sufficient
be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. The standard for a valid delegation of power.
proposed initiative does not involve a revision of, but mere
amendment to, the Constitution because it seeks to alter only On 20 January 1997, Senator Raul Roco filed his Petition in
a few specific provisions of the Constitution, or more Intervention.[21] He avers that R.A. No. 6735 is the enabling
specifically, only those which lay term limits. It does not seek law that implements the people’s right to initiate constitutional
to reexamine or overhaul the entire document. amendments. This law is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 17
and House Bill No. 21505; he co-authored the House Bill and
On 17 January 1997, the Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang even delivered a sponsorship speech thereon. He likewise
Konstitusyon (DIK) and the Movement of Attorneys for submits that the COMELEC was empowered under Section
Brotherhood Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI), filed a 20 of that law to promulgate COMELEC Resolution No. 2300.
Motion for Intervention. Attached to the motion was their Nevertheless, he contends that the respondent Commission
Petition in Intervention, which was later replaced by an is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Delfin Petition
Amended Petition in Intervention wherein they contend that: and to order its publication because the said petition is not the
initiatory pleading contemplated under the Constitution,
(1) The Delfin proposal does not involve a mere amendment Republic Act No. 6735, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300.
to, but a revision of, the Constitution because, in the words of What vests jurisdiction upon the COMELEC in an initiative on
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.,[18] it would involve a change from a the Constitution is the filing of a petition for initiative which is
political philosophy that rejects unlimited tenure to one that signed by the required number of registered voters. He also
accepts unlimited tenure; and although the change might submits that the proponents of a constitutional amendment
appear to be an isolated one, it can affect other provisions, cannot avail of the authority and resources of the COMELEC
such as, on synchronization of elections and on the State to assist them is securing the required number of signatures,
policy of guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public as the COMELECs role in an initiative on the Constitution is
service and prohibiting political dynasties.[19] A revision limited to the determination of the sufficiency of the initiative
cannot be done by initiative which, by express provision of petition and the call and supervision of a plebiscite, if
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution, is limited to warranted.
amendments.
ISSUES:
(2) The prohibition against reelection of the President and the
limits provided for all other national and local elective officials 1. Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a
are based on the philosophy of governance, to open up the System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds
political arena to as many as there are Filipinos qualified to Therefor, was intended to include or cover initiative on
handle the demands of leadership, to break the concentration amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act,
of political and economic powers in the hands of a few, and to as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
P a g e 2 | 27
legislation is authorized and which satisfies the completeness

2. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In and the sufficient standard tests.
re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative
on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National
and Local Laws) regarding the conduct of initiative on 3. The Comelec has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the petition filed by Delfin. This being so, it becomes imperative to
absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of stop the Comelec from proceeding any further, and under the
such initiative. Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 2, a petition for prohibition is
the proper remedy.
3. Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has
jurisdiction over the Petition filed by Delfin and whether the Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the
lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to
proposed in the draft Petition for Initiative on the 1987 satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The
Constitution, would constitute a revision of, or an amendment delegation of the power to the COMELEC is invalid.
to, the Constitution.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A.
HELD: No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be
entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The
1. Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides: latter knew that the petition does not fall under any of the
actions or proceedings under the COMELEC Rules of
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it
may likewise be directly proposed by the did not assign to the petition a docket number. Hence, the said
people through initiative upon a petition of petition was merely entered as UND, meaning, undocketed.
at least twelve per centum of the total That petition was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper,
number of registered voters, of which which should not have been dignified by the Order of 6
every legislative district must be December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the
represented by at least three per centum order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their
of the registered voters therein. No memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC
amendment under this section shall be acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and
authorized within five years following the merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener
than once every five years thereafter. The foregoing considered, further discussion on the issue of
whether the proposal to lift the term limits of the elective
The Congress shall provide for the national and local officials is an amendment to, and not a
implementation of the exercise of this revision of, the Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not
right. academic.
This provision is not self-executory. In his book, Joaquin 3. Lambino vs COMELEC

Bernas, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
stated: Lambino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174153,
174299, , [October 25, 2006]
Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate.
Thus, although this mode of amending the Constitution is a FACTS:
mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in
the last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action. On 15 February 2006, Lambino Group commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a
amendments to the Constitution through the system of petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section
Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum
Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has recognized or
Act RA 6735.
granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress,
for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation. The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support
of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least 12% of all
registered voters, with each legislative district represented by
2. The COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it at least 3% of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also
prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of Initiative on claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the
Amendments to the Constitution is VOID.
signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987
promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI
the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the (Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII
Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled
that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELECs
"Transitory Provisions." These proposed changes will shift the
power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-
misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are
those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Parliamentary form of government.
Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate The COMELEC issued its Resolution denying the Lambino
P a g e 3 | 27
Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative people through initiative upon a petition" only if the
petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the
this Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections proposed amendments.
declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative
The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. The
pleadings opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of
opposing intervenors challenged (1) the Lambino Group's the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the
standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of the signature signature sheet.
gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino Group's
Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only
compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage
100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than
of voters supporting an initiative petition under Section 2,
six months later with the COMELEC.The inescapable
Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; (4) the nature of the
conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to
proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as
the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed
provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987
changes.
Constitution; and (5) the Lambino Group's compliance with the
requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative The Lambino Group's signature sheets do not contain the full
petitions to only one subject. text of the proposed changes, either on the face of the
signature sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the
signature sheet of such attachment. This omission is fatal.
The Issues The failure to so include the text of the proposed changes in
the signature sheets renders the initiative void for non-
1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition
compliance with the constitutional requirement.
complies with Section
2, Article XVII of the The signatories could not have known the nature and effect of
Constitution on the proposed changes, among which are:
amendments to the
1. The term limits on members of the
Constitution through a
legislature will be
people's initiative;
lifted and thus
2. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative members of
constitute an Parliament can be re-
amendment or elected indefinitely;
revision of the
2. The interim Parliament can continue to function
Constitution.
indefinitely until its
members, who are
almost all the present
Ruling
members of
1. No. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Congress, decide to
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution call for new
on Direct Proposal by the People parliamentary
elections. Thus, the
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution states: members of the
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may interim Parliament
likewise be directly proposed by will determine the
the people through initiative expiration of their
upon a petition of at least twelve own term of office;
per centum of the total number of 3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the
registered voters of which every proposed changes,
legislative district must be the interim
represented by at least three per Parliament shall
centum of the registered voters convene to propose
therein. further amendments
Two essential elements must be present. First, the people or revisions to the
must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or Constitution.
representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an These three specific amendments are not stated or even
initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a indicated in the Lambino Group's signature sheets.
petition.
The proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII on Transitory
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the Provisions, as found in the amended petition, states:
proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a Section 5(2). The interim Parliament shall provide
petition. Thus, an amendment is "directly proposed by the for the election of the members of
P a g e 4 | 27
Parliament, which shall be half of the present Senators. Thus, all the present
synchronized and held members of the House will remain members of the
simultaneously with the interim Parliament after 30 June 2010.
election of all local government
The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against
officials.
the Senators.
Section 5(2) does not state that the elections for the regular
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without
Parliament will be held simultaneously with the 2007
first showing to the people the full text of the proposed
local elections. This section merely requires that the
amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a
elections for the regular Parliament shall be held
gigantic fraud on the people. In short, the Lambino Group's
simultaneously with the local elections without
initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dismally fails
specifying the year.
to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the
The absence of the word "next" allows the interim Parliament Constitution that the initiative must be "directly proposed by
to schedule the elections for the regular Parliament the people through initiative upon a petition."
simultaneously with any future local elections.
The proposed changes mandate the interim Parliament to
2. The Initiative constitutes a revision of the
make further amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
Constitution.
The proposed Section 4(4), Article XVIII on Transitory
Provisions, provides: A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to
an amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. In
Section 4(4). Within forty-five days from
contrast, Congress or a constitutional convention can propose
ratification of these amendments,
both amendments and revisions to the Constitution. Article
the interim Parliament shall
XVII of the Constitution provides:
convene to propose
amendments to, or revisions of, ARTICLE XVII
this Constitution consistent with
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
the principles of local autonomy,
decentralization and a strong Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
bureaucracy. Constitution may be proposed
Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift by:
from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral- (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of
Parliamentary system. American jurisprudence on initiatives all its
outlaws this as logrolling — when the initiative petition Members
incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the same petition. , or
This puts the people in a dilemma since they can answer only
either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing them to sign (2) A constitutional convention.
a petition that effectively contains two propositions, one of Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may
which they may find unacceptable. likewise be directly proposed by
Combining multiple propositions into one proposal the people through initiative .
constitutes "logrolling," which, if our judicial Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of
responsibility is to mean anything, we cannot permit. amending the Constitution. The first mode is through
Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The
The signature sheets do not explain the reason for this rush in second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third
amending or revising again so soon the Constitution. The mode is through a people's initiative.
signature sheets do not also explain what specific There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the
amendments or revisions the initiative proponents want the Constitution intended, and wrote, a clear distinction between
interim Parliament to make, and why there is a need for such "amendment" and "revision" of the Constitution. The framers
further amendments or revisions. The people are again left intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a constitutional
in the dark to fathom the nature and effect of the proposed convention may propose revisions to the Constitution. The
changes. framers intended, and wrote, that a people's initiative may
The proposed Section 4(3) of the Transitory Provisions states: propose only amendments to the Constitution.
Section 4(3). Senators whose term of office ends Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic
in 2010 shall be members of principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of
Parliament until noon of the separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances.
thirtieth day of June 2010. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial
entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects
After 30 June 2010, not one of the present Senators will substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other
remain as member of Parliament. However, there is no hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds,
counterpart provision for the present members of the reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle
House of Representatives even if their term of office will involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the
all end on 30 June 2007, three years earlier than that of constitution, while amendment generally affects only the
P a g e 5 | 27
specific provision being amended. to undertake only amendments and not revisions.
The Courts have developed a two-part test: the quantitative In the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed
test and the qualitative test. The quantitative test asks whether Section 2 of the Transitory Provisions states:
the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to
Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the
change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by
incumbent President and Vice
the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions."
President, with the exception of
The court examines only the number of provisions affected
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of
and does not consider the degree of the change.
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the which shall hereby be amended
proposed change in the constitution. and Sections 18 and 24 which
shall be deleted, all other Sections
Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino
of Article VI are hereby retained
Group's initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment.
and renumbered sequentially as
Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed changes
Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26,
overhaul two articles — Article VI on the Legislature and
unless they are inconsistent
Article VII on the Executive — affecting a total of 105
with the Parliamentary system
provisions in the entire Constitution. Qualitatively, the
of government, in which case,
proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of
they shall be amended to
government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a
conform with a unicameral
bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
parliamentary form of
A change in the structure of government is a revision of the government;
Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of
The basic rule in statutory construction is that if a later law is
government in the present Constitution are reduced into two.
irreconcilably inconsistent with a prior law, the later law
This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution.
prevails. This rule also applies to construction of constitutions.
A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a
However, the Lambino Group's draft of Section 2 of the
Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision of the
Transitory Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction
Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches
by stating that in case of such irreconcilable inconsistency, the
is a radical change in the structure of government.
earlier provision "shall be amended to conform with a
The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus unicameral parliamentary form of government." The effect is
of Executive Power alters the separation of powers and thus to freeze the two irreconcilable provisions until the earlier one
constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the "shall be amended," which requires a future separate
abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters the system constitutional amendment.
of checks-and-balances within the legislature and constitutes
The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed
a revision of the Constitution.
Section 2 of the Transitory Provisions is not between a
By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and a provision
Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary in the proposed changes. The inconsistency is between a
system, involving the abolition of the Office of the President provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the
and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond "Parliamentary system of government," and the
doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. On the face alone inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of a "unicameral
of the Lambino Group's proposed changes, it is readily parliamentary form of government."
apparent that the changes will radically alter the framework
In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino
of government as set forth in the Constitution
Group's initiative is a revision and not an amendment. Thus,
The Lambino Group's initiative not only seeks a shift from a the present initiative is void and unconstitutional because it
bicameral to a unicameral legislature, it also seeks to merge violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution limiting the
the executive and legislative departments. scope of a people's initiative to Amendments to this
Constitution."
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific
provision of the Constitution without affecting any other
section or article, the change may generally be considered an II. General Considerations
amendment and not a revision.
A. National Territory and the Archipelagic Doctrine
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or
several provisions of a constitution, a deliberative body with 1. Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the
recorded proceedings is best suited to undertake a revision. Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral
A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions, Domain
but also the altered principles with those that remain
unaltered. Thus, constitutions normally authorize deliberative 2. Magallona vs Ermita
bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional MAGALLONA vs. ERMITA
conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand, Facts:
constitutions allow people's initiatives, which do not have fixed
and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings,
P a g e 6 | 27
In 1961, Congress passed RA3046 demarcating the maritime maritime zones – in short, they are not to be enclosed within
baselines of the Phils. as an archipelagic state. the baselines of the main archipelago (which is the Philippine
Island group). This is because if we do that, then we will be
In March 2009, Congress amended RA3046 by enacting enclosing a larger area which would already depart from the
RA9522, an act defining the baselines of the Phils. The provisions of UNCLOS – that the demarcation should follow
change was meant to comply with the terms of UNCLOS III the natural contour of the archipelago.
which was ratified by Phils. In Feb. 1984.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and
Petitioner Magallona et al., assail the constitutionality of RA the Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
9522 contending among others:
 RA9522 reduces Phil. Maritime territory and the B. State Immunity

reach of Phil. State sovereign power, in violation of
Art. 1 of 1987 constitution, embodying terms of 1. UP vs Dizon
Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties. University of the Philippines v. Dizon
 RA9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the Note: For purposes of ‘State Immunity’ refer only to Issue No.
baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and 1;
aircrafts, undermining Phil. Sovereignty and national
security, contravening the country’s nuclear free State Immunity; State Suability; State Liability
policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation
of relevant constitutional provisions.
 The classification of KIG, as well as Scarborough BERSAMIN, J.:
shoal as regime of islands pursuant to UNCLOS Trial judges should not immediately issue writs of execution or
results in loss of large maritime area but also garnishment against the Government or any of its
prejudices the livelihood of fisherman. subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities to enforce money
judgments. They should bear in mind that the primary
Issue: WON the contentions of Magallona et al is tenable. jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all claims of any sort
due from the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies
The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or UNCLOS, and instrumentalities pertains to the Commission on Audit
itself is not a means to acquire, or lose, territory. The treaty (COA) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1445
and the baseline law has nothing to do with the acquisition, (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines).
enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory. What
Facts
controls when it comes to acquisition or loss of territory is the
international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession The University of the Philippines, through its President Jose
and prescription and NOT the execution of multilateral treaties Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with
on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to Stern Builders, represented by Manager Servillano dela Cruz,
comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and for the extension and renovation of the College of Arts and
continental shelves. Sciences Building in the campus in Los Banos.
Out of the three billings corresponding to the work
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In accomplished, UP paid only two. The Commission on Audit
fact it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522 disallowed the Third billing be paid at first but then lifted the
(RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing disallowance which UP still refused. Stern Builders then filed
the Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 square a case against UP with the RTC; the RTC ruled in favor of
nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under 9522, and with the Stern Builders ordering UP to pay holding it liable for moral &
inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our actual damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC denied due
maritime was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi. course the appeal of UP and granted Stern Building’s motion
for execution and notice of demand; eventually issuing the
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international same. UP’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine
UP assailed the denial through a petition for certiorari in the
areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights.
Court of Appeals having been filed out of time, this was
UNCLOS may term our waters as “archipelagic waters” and denied. UP’s sought reconsideration but was denied. The
that we may term it as our “internal waters”, but the bottom Court as well denied the petition for review and its motion for
reconsideration of the denial being final and executory.
line is that our country exercises sovereignty over these
waters and UNCLOS itself recognizes that. However, due to Stern Builders filed in the RTC motions for execution despite
our observance of international law, we allow the exercise of their previous motion having already been granted and
others of their right of innocent passage. No modern State can issued. The RTC granted another motion for execution filed
validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent on May of 2003. (Although the writ of execution on October
passage that is exercised in accordance with customary 2002 has already been issued)
international law without risking retaliatory measures from the In June and July, respectively, the sheriff served notices of
international community. garnishment on UP’s depositary banks; UP assailed the
garnishment but was denied by the RTC and granted Stern
The classification of the KIG (or the Spratly’s), as well as the Builders’ ex parte motion for issuance of a release order. UP’s
Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did not diminish motion for reconsideration was again denied, thus the RTC
our maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the baselines granting to release the garnished funds.
law, since they are regimes of islands, they generate their own
P a g e 7 | 27
Stern Builders moved to cite DBP for its noncompliance with It is a government instrumentality, performing the State’s
the order of release; UP brought a petition for certiorari in the constitutional mandate of promoting quality and accessible
CA challenging the jurisdiction of the RTC issuing the order. education. As a government instrumentality, it administers
Arguing that government funds and properties could not be special funds sourced from the fees and income to achieve
seized by virtue of writs of execution of garnishment citing the purposes laid down by Section 2 of Act 1870, as expanded
DAR v. NLRC and Sec. 84 of P. D. No. 1445 to the effect that in Republic Act No. 9500 (The UP Charter). All funds
“revenue funds shall not be paid out of any public treasury or constitute a "special trust fund," subject to auditing by the
depository except in pursuance of an appropriation law or COA.
other specific statutory authority;" and that the order of
garnishment clashed with the ruling in University of the Presidential Decree No. 1445 defines a "trust fund" as a fund
Philippines Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan to the effect that that officially comes in the possession of an agency of the
the funds belonging to the UP were public funds. government or of a public officer as trustee, agent or
administrator, or that is received for the fulfillment of some
The Court of Appeals issued a TRO upon application by UP, obligation. A trust fund may be utilized only for the "specific
Stern Builders thereafter filed in the RTC an amended motion purpose for which the trust was created or the funds received.”
for sheriff’s assistance to implement the release order stating
that TRO of the CA had already lapsed. The RTC thereafter The funds of the UP are government funds, public in
granted the same directing the sheriff to proceed to the DBP. character. Hence, could not be validly made the subject of the
RTC’s writ of execution or garnishment. The adverse
The RTC, through Judge Dizon, resolved that the check judgment rendered against the UP was not immediately
should not be encashed/withdrawn pending the final enforceable by execution because suability of the State did
resolution of UP’s petition for certiorari. Judge Yadao, not necessarily mean its liability.
(replacing Judge Dizon) effectively reversed the latter Judge’s
decision by allowing the check to be enchased/withdrawn. The A marked distinction exists between suability of the State and
CA dismissed UP’s petition having given ample opportunity to its liability. As the Court succinctly stated in Municipality of San
contest the motion to direct the DBP to deposit the check in Fernando, La Union v. Firme:
the name of Stern Builders; that the garnished funds could be "Suability depends on the consent of the
the proper subject of garnishment because they had been state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and
already earmarked for the project, with UP holding the fund the established facts. The circumstance that a state
only in a fiduciary capacity. is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable;
In summary, the progression of the case is as follows on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does
not first consent to be sued. Liability is not conceded
a) The Decision in this case had long been final and by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to
executory after it was rendered on November 28, 2001; be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign
b) The propriety of the dismissal of U.P. System’s immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to
appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court; prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable.
c) A writ of execution had been issued;
Also, in Republic v. Villasor the Court said:
d) Defendant U.P. System’s deposit with DBP was
garnished pursuant to a lawful writ of execution issued by the xxx The universal rule that where the State
Court; and gives its consent to be sued by private parties either
e) The garnished amount had already been turned by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s
over to the plaintiffs and deposited in their account with DBP. action "only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power
The garnished amount, was already owned by the plaintiffs, of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered,
having been delivered to them by the Deputy Sheriff pursuant since government funds and properties may not be
to par. (c), Sec. 9, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil seized under writs of execution or garnishment to
Procedure. The TRO issued by the Supreme Court being satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious
functus oficio. considerations of public policy. Disbursements of
public funds must be covered by the corresponding
Issue appropriation as required by law. The functions and
public services rendered by the State cannot be
(a) Whether the funds of the UP were the proper subject of allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion
garnishment in order to satisfy the judgment award; and of public funds from their legitimate and specific
(b) whether the UP’s prayer for the deletion of the awards of objects, as appropriated by law.
actual damages of ₱ 5,716,729.00, moral damages of ₱ The UP correctly submits here that the garnishment of its
10,000,000.00 and attorney’s fees of ₱ 150,000.00 plus ₱ funds in satisfaction of actual and moral damages (including
1,500.00 per appearance could be granted despite the finality attorney’s fees) was not validly; there being no special
of the judgment of the RTC. appropriation by Congress. The CA and the RTC unjustifiably
Ruling ignored the legal restriction imposed on the trust funds of the
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities to be used
I. exclusively to fulfill the purposes for which the trusts were
UP’s funds, being government funds, created.
are not subject to garnishment.
Appropriation by Congress is required before the judgment
UP remains to be chartered institution performing a legitimate that rendered the UP liable damages (including attorney’s
government functions. It is an institution of higher learning, not fees) would be satisfied considering that such monetary
a corporation established for profit. Congress has declared liabilities were not covered by the "appropriations earmarked
the UP as the national university enacting R. A. No. 9500. for the said project." The Constitution strictly mandates that
P a g e 8 | 27
"no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in of the Court ends when the judgment is rendered,
pursuance of an appropriation made by law." since government funds and properties may not be
seized under writs of execution or garnishment to
II
satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious
COA must adjudicate private respondents’ claim
considerations of public policy. Disbursements of
before execution should proceed
public funds must be covered by the corresponding
The execution of the monetary judgment against the UP was appropriation as required by law. The functions and
within the primary jurisdiction of the COA. This was expressly public services rendered by the State cannot be
provided in Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, to wit: allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion
of public funds from their legitimate and specific
Section 26. General jurisdiction. - The objects, as appropriated by law.
authority and powers of the Commission shall extend
to and comprehend all matters relating to auditing Upon determination of State liability, the prosecution,
procedures, systems and controls, the keeping of the enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in
general accounts of the Government, the accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in P.D.
preservation of vouchers pertaining thereto for a No. 1445, (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA
period of ten years, the examination and inspection 693, 701-02 1993 citing Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84
of the books, records, and papers relating to those 1973). All money claims against the Government must first be
accounts; and the audit and settlement of the filed with the Commission on Audit which must act upon it
accounts of all persons respecting funds or property within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the
received or held by them in an accountable capacity, claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on
as well as the examination, audit, and settlement of certiorari and in effect, sue the State thereby (P.D. 1445,
all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to Sections 49-50).
the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies Notwithstanding the rule that government properties are not
and instrumentalities. The said jurisdiction extends to subject to levy and execution unless otherwise provided for by
all government-owned or controlled corporations, statute the Court has distinguished between government
including their subsidiaries, and other self-governing funds and properties for public use and otherwise. In Viuda de
boards, commissions, or agencies of the Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo, the Court ruled that
Government, and as herein prescribed, including "where property of a municipal or other public corporation is
non-governmental entities subsidized by the sought to be subjected to execution to satisfy judgments
government, those funded by donations through the recovered against such corporation, the question as to
government, those required to pay levies or whether such property is leviable or not is to be determined by
government share, and those for which the the usage and purposes for which it is held."
government has put up a counterpart fund or those
partly funded by the government. 1. Properties held for public uses – and generally
everything held for governmental purposes – are not
The settlement of the monetary claim was still subject to the subject to levy and sale under execution against such
primary jurisdiction of the COA despite the final decision of the corporation. The same rule applies to funds in the hands
RTC having already validated the claim. Stern Builders had no of a public officer and taxes due to a municipal
alternative except to first seek the approval of the COA of their corporation.
monetary claim.
III
The RTC had no authority to direct the immediate withdrawal Period of appeal did not start without effective
of any portion of the garnished funds from the depository service of decision upon counsel of record;
banks of UP. The RTC acted beyond its jurisdiction, and all its Fresh-period rule announced in
orders and issuances thereon were void and of no legal effect. Neypes v. Court of Appeals
Administrative Circular No. 10-2000, issued on October 25, can be given retroactive application
2000, enjoining them (Judges) "to observe utmost caution, It is true that a decision that has attained finality becomes
prudence and judiciousness in the issuance of writs of immutable and unalterable, and cannot be modified in any
execution to satisfy money judgments against government respect. Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes
agencies and local government units" precisely in order to final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should
prevent the circumvention of Presidential Decree No. 1445, as not be deprived of the fruits of victory by some subterfuge
well as of the rules and procedures of the COA, to wit: devised by the losing party.
In order to prevent possible circumvention of the
The doctrine of immutability of a final judgment has not been
rules and procedures of the Commission on Audit, judges
absolute, and has admitted several exceptions, among them:
are hereby enjoined to observe utmost caution, prudence
and judiciousness in the issuance of writs of execution to (a) The correction of clerical errors;
satisfy money judgments against government agencies (b) The so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no
and local government units. prejudice to any party;
(c) Void judgments; and
Judges should bear in mind that in Commissioner of Public (d) Whenever circumstances transpire after the
Highways v. San Diego (31 SCRA 617, 625 1970), this Court finality of the decision that render its execution unjust and
explicitly stated: inequitable.
"The universal rule that where the State
gives its consent to be sued by private parties either Moreover, in Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosca, it was stated that
by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s despite the absence of the preceding circumstances, the
action ‘only up to the completion of proceedings Court is not precluded from brushing aside procedural norms
anterior to the stage of execution’ and that the power if only to serve the higher interests of justice and equity. In
P a g e 9 | 27
Gumaru v. Quirino State College, the Court nullified the no vested rights in rules of procedure. A law or regulation is
proceedings and the writ of execution issued by the RTC for procedural when it prescribes rules and forms of procedure in
the reason that respondent state college had not been order that courts may be able to administer justice. It does not
represented in the litigation by the Office of the Solicitor come within the legal conception of a retroactive law but is
General. given retroactive effect in actions pending and undetermined
at the time of its passage without violating any right of a person
UP’s plea for equity warrants the Court’s exercise of the who may feel that he is adversely affected.
exceptional power to disregard the declaration of finality of the
judgment of the RTC for being in clear violation of the UP’s Stringent procedural rules may be relaxed in order to serve
right to due process. substantial justice and in the exercise of this Court’s equity
jurisdiction which aims to do complete justice in cases where
The UP counters that the service of the denial of the motion a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special
for reconsideration upon Atty. Nolasco was defective circumstances of a case because of the inflexibility of its
considering that its counsel of record was not Atty. Nolasco of statutory or legal jurisdiction.
the UPLB Legal Office but the OLS in Diliman, Quezon City;
and that the period of appeal should be reckoned from May IV
31, 2002, the date when the OLS received the order. Awards of monetary damages,
being devoid of factual and legal bases,
Firstly, the service of the denial of the motion for did not attain finality and should be deleted
reconsideration upon Atty. Nolasco of the UPLB Legal Office
was invalid and ineffectual because he was admittedly not the Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution prescribes that
counsel of record of the UP. The rule is that it is on the counsel express findings of fact and of law should be made in the
and not the client that the service should be made. decision rendered by any court, to wit:
That counsel was the OLS in Diliman, Quezon City, which was Section 14. No decision shall be rendered
served with the denial only on May 31, 2002. As such, the by any court without expressing therein clearly and
running of the remaining period of six days resumed only on distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
June 1, 2002, rendering the filing of the UP’s notice of appeal
on June 3, 2002 timely and well within the remaining days of No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
the UP’s period to appeal. decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
Verily, the service of the denial of the motion for
reconsideration could only be validly made upon the OLS in Implementing the constitutional provision in civil actions is
Section 1 of Rule 36, Rules of Court, viz:
Diliman, and no other. It is settled that where a party has
appeared by counsel, service must be made upon such Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final
counsel. Service on the party or the party’s employee is not orders. — A judgment or final order determining the
effective because such notice is not notice in law. Section 2, merits of the case shall be in writing personally and
second paragraph, of Rule 13, Rules of Court, which explicitly directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and
states: distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,
"If any party has appeared by counsel, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of the court.
service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or (1a)
one of them, unless service upon the party himself is The Constitution and the Rules of Court apparently delineate
ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for two main essential parts of a judgment, namely: the body and
several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy the decretal portion. Although the latter is the controlling part,
of any paper served upon him by the opposite side." the importance of the former is not to be lightly regarded
because it is there where the court clearly and distinctly states
its findings of fact and of law on which the decision is based.
Accordingly, the declaration of finality of the judgment of the To state it differently, one without the other is ineffectual and
RTC, being devoid of factual and legal bases, is set aside. useless. The omission of either inevitably results in a
judgment that violates the letter and the spirit of the
In so declaring the judgment of the RTC as final against the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
UP, the CA and the RTC applied the rule contained in the
second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of The reason and purpose of the Constitution and the Rules of
Court to the effect that the filing of a motion for Court in that regard are obviously to inform the parties why
reconsideration interrupted the running of the period for filing they win or lose, and what their rights and obligations are.
the appeal; and that the period resumed upon notice of the Only thereby is the demand of due process met as to the
denial of the motion for reconsideration. For that reason, the parties. In Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals:
CA and the RTC might not be taken to task for strictly adhering
to the rule then prevailing. It is a requirement of due process that the parties to
a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an
Equity calls for the retroactive application in the UP’s favor of explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
the fresh-period rule, in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, viz: conclusions of the court. The losing party is entitled to know
why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted,
“… The Court deems it practical to allow a should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A
fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and
of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing
or motion for reconsideration.” party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court
The retroactive application of the fresh-period rule is for review by a higher tribunal.
impervious to any serious challenge. This is because there are
P a g e 10 | 27
The award was thus also speculative and whimsical. Like the FACTS: Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park is located in the
actual damages, the moral damages constituted another Central Sulu Sea and pursuant to Proclamation issued by
judicial ipse dixit, the inevitable consequence of which was to President Aquino, proclaimed as a National Marine Park and
render the award of moral damages incapable of attaining inscribed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.
finality. In addition, the grant of moral damages in that manner
contravened the law that permitted the recovery of moral In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines
damages as the means to assuage "physical suffering, mental requested diplomatic clearance for the USS Guardian “to
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship
injury." The contravention of the law was manifest considering replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.
that Stern Builders, as an artificial person, was incapable of
experiencing pain and moral sufferings. In January 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for
Like actual and moral damages. The general rule is that a its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17,
successful litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees as part of the 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran
damages to be assessed against the losing party because of aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the
the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan.
litigate. Prior to the effectivity of the present Civil Code such No one was injured in the incident, and there have been no
fees could be recovered only when there was a stipulation to reports of leaking fuel or oil.
that effect. It was only under the present Civil Code that the
right to collect attorney’s fees in the cases mentioned in Article US representatives regret the incident in a press statement
2208 of the Civil Code came to be recognized. Attorney’s fees which was reiterated again over the grounding incident and
being allowed in the concept of actual damages, their amounts assured Foreign Affairs Secretary del Rosario that US will
must be factually and legally justified in the body of the provide appropriate compensation for the damage to the reef
decretal portion. Stating the amounts only in the dispositive caused by the ship.
portion of the judgment is not enough; a rendition of the factual
and legal justifications for them must also be laid out in the In 2013, above named petitioners filed the present petition
body of the decision. against respondents herein both US and Phil personalities.
That the attorney’s fees granted to the private respondents did Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post
not satisfy the foregoing requirement suffices for the Court to salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and
undo them. The grant was ineffectual for being contrary to law continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude
and public policy, it being clear that the express findings of fact as to affect nearby provinces which events violate their
and law were intended to bring the case within the exception constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology. They
and thereby justify the award of the attorney’s fees. Devoid of also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of civil,
such express findings, the award was a conclusion without a administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation
premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and of environmental laws and regulations in connection with the
conjecture. grounding incident. Among others is the declaration of the
Absence of findings of fact and of any statement of the law grant of immunity found in Art V and VI of the VFA,
and jurisprudence on which the awards of actual and moral unconstitutional for violating equal protection and/or for
damages, as well as of attorney’s fees, is a fatal flaw that violating the preemptory norm of nondiscrimination
invalidated the decision of the RTC only as to such awards. incorporated as part of the law of the land under Section 2,
In Velarde v. Social Justice Society, the failure to comply with Article II, of the Philippine
the constitutional requirement for a clear and distinct
Constitution. Only the Filipino respondents filed their
statement of the supporting facts and law "is a grave abuse of
comment.
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" and that
"decisions or orders issued in careless disregard of the
constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be struck
down as void." ISSUE: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the US
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on respondents who did not submit any pleading or manifestation
certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the in the case
Court of Appeals under review; ANNULS the orders for the
garnishment of the funds of the University of the Philippines
and for the release of the garnished amount to Stern Builders
RULING: NO.
Corporation and Servillano dela Cruz; and DELETES from the
decision of the Regional Trial Court dated November 28, 2001 The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the
for being void only the awards of actual damages of ₱
doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State, is
5,716,729.00, moral damages of ₱ 10,000,000.00, and
expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution
attorney's fees of ₱ 150,000.00, plus ₱ 1,500.00 per
appearance, in favor of Stern Builders Corporation and which states:
Servillano dela Cruz.
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
2. Arigo vs Swift While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the
ARIGO vs SWIFT state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints
filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed
735 SCRA 102 September 16, 2014 by them in the discharge of their duties.
P a g e 11 | 27
This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State The basic concept of state immunity is that no state may be
from being sued in the courts of another State without the subjected to the jurisdiction of another state without its
former’s consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive consent. According to Professor Ian Brownlie, it is “a
doctrine which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts procedural bar (not a substantive defence) based on the
(jure imperii) from private, commercial and proprietary acts status and functions of the state or official in question.”
(jure gestionis). Under the restrictive rule of State immunity, Furthermore, its applicability depends on the law and
State immunity extends only to acts jure imperii. The procedural rules of the forum state.
restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when
the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the No exception exists in Philippine or international law that
foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic would remove the immunity of the United States in order to
affairs. place it under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The Writ of
Kalikasan is a compulsory writ, and its issuance initiates a
In this case, the US respondents were sued in their official legal process that would circumvent the internationally
capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had established rules of immunity. Should the Court issue the Writ,
control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. it could possibly entail international responsibility for
The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate breaching the jurisdictional immunity of a sovereign state.
grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed
while they were performing official military duties. Considering
that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will On a separate concurring opition of Justice Leonen: This
require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US doctrine of relative jurisdictional immunity (sovereign
government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US immunity) of states and their agents becomes binding in our
itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the jurisdiction as international law only through Section 2 of
exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of Article II or Section 21 of Article VII of the Constitution. Article
respondents Swift, Rice and Robling. XVII, Section 3 of the Constitution is a limitation on suits
against our state. It is not the textual anchor for determining
As to the argument of the petitioners on the waiver of immunity the extent of jurisdictional immunities that should be accorded
from suit found in the VFA, the court is not persuaded. The to other states or their agents. International law may have
VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United evolved further than the usual distinction between acta jure
States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to imperii and acta jure gestionis.
promote “common security interests” between the US and the
Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to Indications of state practice even of public respondents show
govern such visits of military personnel, and further defines that jurisdictional immunity for foreign states may not apply to
the rights of the United States and the Philippine government certain violations of jus cogens rules of international
in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and customary law. There can be tort exemptions provided by
aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials statute and, therefore, the state practice of an agent’s
and supplies.36 The invocation of US federal tort laws and sovereign being sued in our courts.
even common law is thus improper considering that it is the
Sovereign immunity is a doctrine recognized by states under
VFA which governs disputes involving US military ships and the international law system. However, its characterization as
crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the a principle is more appropriate in that “the extent to which
objectives of the agreement. foreign states are awarded immunity differs from state to
state.” This appears to be an accepted arrangement in light of
As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains the different state immunity laws all over the world. As it
only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such stands, states are allowed to draw the line in the application
as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. of sovereign immunity in cases involving foreign states and
their agents. As a principle of international law, it is deemed
In the concurring opinion of CJ Sereno, she stated that, under automatically incorporated in our domestic legal system as per
the regime of international law, there is an added dimension Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
to sovereign immunity exceptions: the tort exception. Whether
this has evolved into a customary norm is still debatable; what Considering this leeway, along with the urgency and
is important to emphasize is that while some states have importance of the case at hand, the Philippines is, therefore,
enacted legislation to allow the piercing of sovereign immunity free to provide guidelines consistent with international law,
in tortuous actions, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of domestic legislation, and existing jurisprudence.
1976 of the United States (FSIA) contains such privilege.
Specifically, the FSIA contains exceptions for (1) waiver; (2) Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713 (1990), evolved the
commercial activity; (3) expropriation; (4) property rights doctrine further as it stated that “[the] rational for this ruling is
acquired through succession or donation; (5) damages for that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an
personal injury or death or damage to or loss of property; (6) instrument for perpetrating an injustice.” Tortious acts or
enforcement of an arbitration agreement; (7) torture, crimes committed while discharging official functions are also
extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the not covered by sovereign immunity.
provision of material support to such an act, if the state
As it stands, the Philippines has no law on the application of
sponsors terrorism; and (8) maritime lien in a suit for admiralty
sovereign immunity in cases of damages and/or violations of
based on commercial activity.
domestic law involving agents of a foreign state. But our
jurisprudence does have openings to hold those who have
P a g e 12 | 27
committed an act ultra vires responsible in our domestic Ruling: Yes. The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
courts. have the same interest in participating in the party-list system
on the same basis as other political parties similarly situated.
Considering the flexibility in international law and the doctrines
that we have evolved so far, I am of the view that immunity State intrusion in this case is equally burdensome. Hence,
does not necessarily apply to all the foreign respondents laws of general application should apply with equal force to
should the case have been brought in a timely manner, with LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list system
the proper remedy, and in the proper court. Those who have on the same basis as other marginalized and under-
directly and actually committed culpable acts or acts resulting represented sectors.
from gross negligence resulting in the grounding of a foreign Respondent mistakenly opines that the ruling in Ang
warship in violation of our laws defining a tortious act or one Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those
that protects the environment which implement binding
sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said
international obligations cannot claim sovereign immunity
sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth,
C. General Principles and State Policies veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be
registered under the party-list system. As explicitly ruled in
1. Deutsche Bank vs CIR
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on
2. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs COMELEC Elections, “the enumeration of marginalized and under-
G.R. No. 190582 April 8, 2010 represented sectors is not exclusive”. The crucial element is
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether
Chair, DANTON REMOTO, Petitioner, a particular organization complies with the requirements of the
vs. Constitution and RA 7941.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent. The Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that
“[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of
Doctrine: Every group has a right to join the religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom,
democratic process, association itself being an act of what our non-establishment clause calls for is “government
expression of the member’s belief, even if the group offends neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance
the sensibilities of the majority. Any restriction to such requires on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of
a compelling state interest to be proven by the state. neutrality.” We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-
establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible
Facts: Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be it
men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, noted that government action must have a secular purpose.
bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs). Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought
Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad first applied for registration to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the
with the COMELEC in 2006. The application for accreditation youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its
was denied on the ground that the organization had no position that petitioner’s admission into the party-list system
substantial membership base. On August 17, 2009, Ang would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric
Ladlad again filed a Petition for registration with the of society.
COMELEC.
Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT 3. Imbong vs. Ochoa
Imbong v Ochoa, et al. (G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934,
community is a marginalized and under-represented sector
204957, 205003, 205138, 204988, 205043, 205478, 205491,
that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual 205720, 206355, 207111, 207172, 207563)
orientation and gender identity; that LGBTs are victims of
exclusion, discrimination, and violence; that because of Substantial: Right to Life; Health; Religion; Free Speech;
negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide Privacy; Due Process Clause; Equal Protection Clause
their sexual orientation; and that Ang Ladlad complied with
Facts:
the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang Bagong
Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. Ang Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the
Ladlad laid out its national membership base consisting of Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of
individual members and organizational supporters, and 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21,
2012.
outlined its platform of governance.7
On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioner’s Challengers from various sectors of society are questioning
evidence, the COMELEC dismissed the Petition on moral and the constitutionality of the said Act. The petitioners are
legal grounds. assailing the constitutionality of RH Law on the following
grounds:
Issue: WON Respondent erred in denying
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES:
Petitioners application on moral and legal grounds.
The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn.
P a g e 13 | 27
The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to 3.01(a) of the IRR) would pave the way for the approval of
protection against hazardous products. contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life of the
The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. unborn from conception/fertilization. This violates Section 12,
The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on Article II of the Constitution. For the same reason, the
involuntary servitude. definition of contraceptives under the IRR (Sec 3.01(j)),
The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law. which also uses the term “primarily”, must be struck down.
The RH Law violates the right to free speech.
The RH Law is “void-for-vagueness” in violation of the due 2. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health
process clause of the Constitution. (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to health
The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of one’s family
protected by the Constitution NO. Petitioners claim that the right to health is violated by the
RH Law because it requires the inclusion of hormonal
RULING: contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other
safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning
A. On the constitutionality of RA 10354/Reproductive Health products and supplies in the National Drug Formulary and in
(RH) Law the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of
all national hospitals (Section 9 of the RH Law). They cite
1. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health risks of getting diseases gained by using e.g. oral
(RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to life: contraceptive pills.
NO. Majority of the Members of the Court believe that the Some petitioners do not question contraception and
question of when life begins is a scientific and medical issue contraceptives per se. Rather, they pray that the status quo
that should not be decided, at this stage, without proper under RA 4729 and 5921 be maintained. These laws prohibit
hearing and evidence. However, they agreed that individual the sale and distribution of contraceptives without the
Members could express their own views on this matter. prescription of a duly-licensed physician.
Ponente’s view (Justice Mendoza): Article II, Section 12 of The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA 4729
the Constitution states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the Court believes adequate
family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a safeguards exist to ensure that only safe contraceptives are
basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect made available to the public. In fulfilling its mandate under
the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the DOH must keep in mind the
conception. provisions of RA 4729: the contraceptives it will procure shall
be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical
In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory company and that the actual distribution of these
construction), the traditional meaning of “conception” contraceptive drugs and devices will be done following a
according to reputable dictionaries cited by the ponente is prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.
that life begins at fertilization. Medical sources also support
the view that conception begins at fertilization. Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is to
be considered “mandatory” only after these devices and
The framers of the Constitution also intended for (a) materials have been tested, evaluated and approved by the
“conception” to refer to the moment of “fertilization” and (b) FDA. Congress cannot determine that contraceptives are
the protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In “safe, legal, non-abortificient and effective”.
addition, they did not intend to ban all contraceptives for
being unconstitutional; only those that kill or destroy the 3. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health
fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the freedom of
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and female religion and right to free speech
ovum, and those that similarly take action before fertilization
should be deemed non-abortive, and thus constitutionally The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of
permissible. contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH
measures (a) is moral from a religious standpoint; or, (b)
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the right or wrong according to one’s dogma or belief. However,
life of the unborn child was to prevent the Legislature from the Court has the authority to determine whether or not the
passing a measure prevent abortion. The Court cannot RH Law contravenes the Constitutional guarantee of
interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is in line with this intent religious freedom.
and actually prohibits abortion. By using the word “or” in
defining abortifacient (Section 4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not a.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious
only drugs or devices that prevent implantation but also freedom since it mandates the State-sponsored procurement
those that induce abortion and induce the destruction of a of contraceptives, which contravene the religious beliefs of
fetus inside the mother’s womb. The RH Law recognizes that e.g. the petitioners
the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a
bounded duty to protect it. NO. The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives
without being dictated upon the policies of any one religion.
However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office To allow religious sects to dictate policy or restrict other
when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient by using groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution
the term “primarily”. Recognizing as abortifacients only those or the Establishment Clause. This would cause the State to
that “primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus adhere to a particular religion, and thus, establishes a state
inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized religion. Thus, the State can enhance its population control
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb” (Sec. program through the RH Law even if the promotion of
P a g e 14 | 27
contraceptive use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. freedom to decide on matters of family life without the
the petitioners. intervention of the State.
b.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious 4. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health
freedom by compelling medical health practitioners, (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy
hospitals, and health care providers, under pain of penalty, (marital privacy and autonomy)
to refer patients to other institutions despite their
conscientious objections YES. Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law, which permits RH
procedures even with only the consent of the spouse
YES. Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH Law obliges a undergoing the provision (disregarding spousal content),
hospital or medical practitioner to immediately refer a person intrudes into martial privacy and autonomy and goes against
seeking health care and services under the law to another the constitutional safeguards for the family as the basic
accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious social institution. Particularly, Section 3, Article XV of the
objections based on religious or ethical beliefs. These Constitution mandates the State to defend: (a) the right of
provisions violate the religious belief and conviction of a spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
conscientious objector. They are contrary to Section 29(2), convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood and
Article VI of the Constitution or the Free Exercise Clause, (b) the right of families or family associations to participate in
whose basis is the respect for the inviolability of the human the planning and implementation of policies and programs
conscience. that affect them. The RH Law cannot infringe upon this
mutual decision-making, and endanger the institutions of
The provisions in the RH Law compelling non-maternity marriage and the family.
specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a
religious group and health care service providers to refer The exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor
patients to other providers and penalizing them if they fail to undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a
do so (Sections 7 and 23(a)(3)) as well as compelling them miscarriage (Section 7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family and
to disseminate information and perform RH procedures violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which
under pain of penalty (Sections 23(a)(1) and (a)(2) in relation states: “The natural and primary right and duty of parents in
to Section 24) also violate (and inhibit) the freedom of the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
religion. While penalties may be imposed by law to ensure development of moral character shall receive the support of
compliance to it, a constitutionally-protected right must the Government.” In addition, the portion of Section 23(a)(ii)
prevail over the effective implementation of the law. which reads “in the case of minors, the written consent of
parents or legal guardian or, in their absence, persons
Excluding public health officers from being conscientious exercising parental authority or next-of-kin shall be required
objectors (under Sec. 5.24 of the IRR) also violates the equal only in elective surgical procedures” is invalid as it denies the
protection clause. There is no perceptible distinction between right of parental authority in cases where what is involved is
public health officers and their private counterparts. In “non-surgical procedures.”
addition, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual
and the protection of this freedom remains even if he/she is However, a minor may receive information (as opposed to
employed in the government. procedures) about family planning services. Parents are not
deprived of parental guidance and control over their minor
Using the compelling state interest test, there is no child in this situation and may assist her in deciding whether
compelling state interest to limit the free exercise of to accept or reject the information received. In addition, an
conscientious objectors. There is no immediate danger to the exception may be made in life-threatening procedures.
life or health of an individual in the perceived scenario of the
above-quoted provisions. In addition, the limits do not pertain 5. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health
to life-threatening cases. (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the freedom of
expression and academic freedom
The respondents also failed to show that these provisions
are least intrusive means to achieve a legitimate state NO. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of
objective. The Legislature has already taken other secular Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates the State to
steps to ensure that the right to health is protected, such as provide Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive
RA 4729, RA 6365 (The Population Act of the Philippines) Health Education. Although educators might raise their
and RA 9710 (The Magna Carta of Women). objection to their participation in the RH education program,
the Court reserves its judgment should an actual case be
c.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious filed before it.
freedom by requiring would-be spouses, as a condition for
the issuance of a marriage license, to attend a seminar on Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because the
parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant Department of Education has not yet formulated a curriculum
nutrition on age-appropriate reproductive health education.
NO. Section 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be Section 12, Article II of the Constitution places more
spouses to attend a seminar on parenthood, family planning, importance on the role of parents in the development of their
breastfeeding and infant nutrition as a condition for the children with the use of the term “primary”. The right of
issuance of a marriage license, is a reasonable exercise of parents in upbringing their youth is superior to that of the
police power by the government. The law does not even State.
mandate the type of family planning methods to be included
in the seminar. Those who attend the seminar are free to The provisions of Section 14 of the RH Law and
accept or reject information they receive and they retain the corresponding provisions of the IRR supplement (rather than
P a g e 15 | 27
supplant) the right and duties of the parents in the moral NO. The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for
development of their children. private and non-government health care service providers to
render 48 hours of pro bono RH services does not amount to
By incorporating parent-teacher-community associations, involuntary servitude, for two reasons. First, the practice of
school officials, and other interest groups in developing the medicine is undeniably imbued with public interest that it is
mandatory RH program, it could very well be said that the both the power and a duty of the State to control and
program will be in line with the religious beliefs of the regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.
petitioners. Second, Section 17 only encourages private and non-
government RH service providers to render pro bono service.
6. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health Besides the PhilHealth accreditation, no penalty is imposed
(RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the due process should they do otherwise.
clause
However, conscientious objectors are exempt from Sec. 17
NO. The RH Law does not violate the due process clause of as long as their religious beliefs do not allow them to render
the Constitution as the definitions of several terms as RH service, pro bono or otherwise (See Part 3b of this
observed by the petitioners are not vague. digest.)
The definition of “private health care service provider” must B. WON the delegation of authority to the Food and Drug
be seen in relation to Section 4(n) of the RH Law which Administration (FDA) to determine WON a supply or product
defines a “public health service provider”. The “private health is to be included in the Essential Drugs List is valid
care institution” cited under Section 7 should be seen as
synonymous to “private health care service provider.” NO. The delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to
determine whether or not a supply or product is to be
The terms “service” and “methods” are also broad enough to included in the Essential Drugs List is valid, as the FDA not
include providing of information and rendering of medical only has the power but also the competency to evaluate,
procedures. Thus, hospitals operated by religious groups are register and cover health services and methods (under RA
exempted from rendering RH service and modern family 3720 as amended by RA 9711 or the FDA Act of 2009).
planning methods (as provided for by Section 7 of the RH
Law) as well as from giving RH information and procedures. C. WON the RH Law infringes upon the powers devolved to
Local Governments and the Autonomous Region in Muslim
The RH Law also defines “incorrect information”. Used Mindanao (ARMM)
together in relation to Section 23 (a)(1), the terms “incorrect”
and “knowingly” connote a sense of malice and ill motive to NO. The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of
mislead or misrepresent the public as to the nature and local governments. Paragraph (c) of Section 17 provides a
effect of programs and services on reproductive health. categorical exception of cases involving nationally-funded
projects, facilities, programs and services. Unless a local
7. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health government unit (LGU) is particularly designated as the
(RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection implementing agency, it has no power over a program for
clause which funding has been provided by the national government
under the annual general appropriations act, even if the
NO. To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the program involves the delivery of basic services within the
government’s RH program is not a violation of the equal jurisdiction of the LGU.
protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11, Article
XIII of the Constitution, which states that the State shall In addition, LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH
prioritize the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, services. Provision of these services are not mandatory.
disabled, women, and children and that it shall endeavor to Therefore, the RH Law does not amount to an undue
provide medical care to paupers. encroachment by the national government upon the
autonomy enjoyed by LGUs.
The RH Law does not only seek to target the poor to reduce
their number, since Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor Article III, Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 or the Organic
and marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility Act of the ARMM merely delineates the powers that may be
issues and desire to have children. In addition, the RH Law exercised by the regional government. These provisions
does not prescribe the number of children a couple may cannot be seen as an abdication by the State of its power to
have and does not impose conditions upon couples who enact legislation that would benefit the general welfare.
intend to have children. The RH Law only seeks to provide
priority to the poor. 4. Garcia vs Drilon
Jesus Garcia vs Judge Drilon
The exclusion of private educational institutions from the
mandatory RH education program under Section 14 is valid. G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
There is a need to recognize the academic freedom of
private educational institutions especially with respect to PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity towards
the teaching of reproductive health education.
DOCTRINE: Before a statute or its provisions duly
8. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health
challenged are voided, an unequivocal breach of, or a clear
(RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the prohibition
against involuntary servitude conflict with the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or
argumentative one, must be demonstrated in such a manner
P a g e 16 | 27
as to leave no doubt in the mind of the Court. In other words, violative of the due process and the equal protection
the grounds for nullity must be beyond reasonable doubt. In clauses, and (2) the validity of the modified TPO issued in
the instant case, however, no concrete evidence and the civil case for being "an unwanted product of an invalid
convincing arguments were presented by petitioner to law."
warrant a declaration of the unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262,
which is an act of Congress and signed into law by the Subsequently, however, on January 24, 2007, the
highest officer of the co-equal executive department. As we appellate court dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner
said in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, courts must assume that to raise the constitutional issue in his pleadings before the
the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of trial court in the civil case, which is clothed with jurisdiction to
its plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of resolve the same. Secondly, the challenge to the validity of
the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and R.A. 9262 through a petition for prohibition seeking to annul
advancing the welfare of the majority. the protection orders issued by the trial court constituted a
collateral attack on said law.
We reiterate here Justice Puno's observation that
"the history of the women's movement against domestic Hence this petition.
violence shows that one of its most difficult struggles was the
ISSUE/s:
fight against the violence of law itself. If we keep that in mind,
law will not again be a hindrance to the struggle of women 1) Did the Family Court have jurisdiction?
for equality but will be its fulfillment. Accordingly, the 2) Was the challenge of the constitutionality of the
constitutionality of R.A. 9262 is, as it should be, sustained. law properly raised?
3) Does RA 9262 violate the equal protection
clause?
FACTS: On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private 4) Does RA 9262 violate the due process clause?
respondent) filed, for herself and in behalf of her minor 5) By allowing the non-referral of mediators in
children before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod aVAWC cases, does the law violate the
City for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) avowed policy of the State to "protect and
against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical abuse; social institution."?
emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result 6) Was there undue delegation of judicial power to
of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with threats of barangay officials?
deprivation of custody of her children and of financial
support. Private respondent alleges that petitioner, who is of
Filipino-Chinese descent, is dominant, controlling, and
demands absolute obedience from his wife and children (i.e. RULING:
forbidding her to pray, isolated her from her friends,
trivialized her pursuit of a law degree). Things turned for the
1) YES. Inspite of its designation as a family court, the
worse when petitioner took up an affair with a bank manager RTC of Bacolod City remains possessed of
of Robinson's Bank, Bacolod City, who is the godmother of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to
one of their sons pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal,
special proceedings, land registration, guardianship,
Petitioner's infidelity spawned a series of fights that naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. It is settled
left private respondent physically and emotionally that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the
wounded. Petitioner sometimes turned his ire on their constitutionality of a statute, "this authority being
daughter, Jo-Ann, who had seen the text messages he sent embraced in the general definition of the judicial
to his paramour and whom he blamed for squealing on him.
power to determine what are the valid and binding
He beat Jo-Ann on the chest and slapped her many times as
laws by the criterion of their conformity to the
well.
fundamental law."
The RTC found reasonable ground to believe that
an imminent danger of violence against the private 2) NO. The issue of constitutionality of R.A. 9262
respondent and her children exists or is about to recur, the could have been raised at the earliest opportunity in
RTC then issued a TPO on March 24, 2006 effective for his Opposition to the petition for protection order
thirty (30) days. However it was continuously renewed and before the RTC of Bacolod City, which had
finally claiming that petitioner continued to deprive them of jurisdiction to determine the same, subject to the
financial support; failed to faithfully comply with the TPO; and review of the Supreme Court.
committed new acts of harassment against her and their
The theory espoused by petitioner that,
children, private respondent filed another application for the
since a counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party
issuance of a TPO ex parte.
complaint are to be excluded from the opposition,
During the pendency the civil case, petitioner filed the issue of constitutionality cannot likewise be
before the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition raised therein. The unconstitutionality of a statute is
not a cause of action that could be the subject of a
challenging (1) the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for being
counterclaim, cross-claim or a third-party complaint.
P a g e 17 | 27
Therefore, it is not prohibited from being raised in III. The classification is not limited to
the opposition in view of the familiar maxim existing conditions only, and apply equally
expressio unius est exclusio alterius. to all members
3) NO. R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of The application of R.A. 9262 is not
equal protection of the laws. Measured against the limited to the existing conditions
foregoing jurisprudential yardstick, we find that R.A. when it was promulgated, but to
9262 is based on a valid classification as shall future conditions as well, for as
hereinafter be discussed and, as such, did not long as the safety and security of
violate the equal protection clause by favoring women and their children are
women over men as victims of violence and abuse threatened by violence and abuse.
to whom the State extends its protection.
R.A. 9262 applies equally to all
I. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial women and children who suffer
distinctions. violence and abuse. Section 3
thereof defines VAWC as:
The unequal power relationship
between women and men; the fact x x x any act or a series of acts
that women are more likely than committed by any person against a
men to be victims of violence; and woman who is his wife, former
the widespread gender bias and wife, or against a woman with
prejudice against women all make whom the person has or had a
for real differences justifying the sexual or dating relationship, or
classification under the law. with whom he has a common child,
or against her child whether
II. The classification is germane to the legitimate or illegitimate, within or
purpose of the law. without the family abode, which
result in or is likely to result in
The distinction between men and physical, sexual, psychological
women is germane to the purpose harm or suffering, or economic
of R.A. 9262, which is to address abuse including threats of such
violence committed against women acts, battery, assault, coercion,
and children, spelled out in its harassment or arbitrary deprivation
Declaration of Policy, as follows: of liberty.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It 4.) NO. Petitioner bewails the disregard of R.A. 9262,
is hereby declared that the State specifically in the issuance of POs, of all protections
values the dignity of women and afforded by the due process clause of the
children and guarantees full Constitution. Says he: "On the basis of
respect for human rights. The unsubstantiated allegations, and practically no
State also recognizes the need to opportunity to respond, the husband is stripped of
protect the family and its members family, property, guns, money, children, job, future
particularly women and children, employment and reputation, all in a matter of
from violence and threats to their seconds, without an inkling of what happened."
personal safety and security.
A protection order is an order issued to
Towards this end, the State shall prevent further acts of violence against women and
exert efforts to address violence their children, their family or household members,
committed against women and and to grant other necessary reliefs. Its purpose is
children in keeping with the to safeguard the offended parties from further harm,
fundamental freedoms guaranteed minimize any disruption in their daily life and
under the Constitution and the facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control
provisions of the Universal of their life.
Declaration of Human Rights, the
Convention on the Elimination of The rules require that petitions for
All Forms of Discrimination Against protection order be in writing, signed and verified by
Women, Convention on the Rights the petitioner thereby undertaking full responsibility,
of the Child and other international criminal or civil, for every allegation therein. Since
human rights instruments of which "time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if further
the Philippines is a party violence is to be prevented," the court is authorized
P a g e 18 | 27
to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but before notice The Court has held that the mere fact that
and hearing when the life, limb or property of the an officer is required by law to inquire into the
victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground existence of certain facts and to apply the law
to believe that the order is necessary to protect the thereto in order to determine what his official
victim from the immediate and imminent danger of conduct shall be and the fact that these acts may
VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about affect private rights do not constitute an exercise of
to recur. judicial powers.
Given the comprehensive rules in applying 5. Republic vs Albios

and refuting the extension of an ex parte order REPUBLIC vs. ALBIOS
indicating that the respondent of a petition for GR. No. 198780; 16 October 2013
protection order should be apprised of the charges
DOCTRINE:
imputed to him and afforded an opportunity to
present his side. Thus, the fear of petitioner of being No less than our Constitution (Article XV, Section 2) declares
"stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, that marriage, as an in violable social institution, is the
job, future employment and reputation, all in a foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
matter of seconds, without an inkling of what
happened" is a mere product of an overactive FACTS:
imagination. The essence of due process is to be
Respondent Libert Albios married Daniel Lee Fringer, an
found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and American citizen. She later on filed a petition to nullify their
submit any evidence one may have in support of marriage. She alleged that immediately after their marriage,
one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean they separated and never lived as husband and wife because
verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also they never really had any intention of entering into a married
through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, state or complying with any of their essential marital
either through oral arguments or pleadings, is obligations. She said that she contracted Fringer to enter into
a marriage to enable her to acquire American citizenship; that
accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him the sum of
process. $2,000.00; that after the ceremony, the parties went their
separate ways; that Fringer returned to the United States and
5) NO. Under Section 23(c) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, never again communicated with her; and that, in turn, she did
the court shall not refer the case or any issue not pay him the $2,000.00 because he never processed her
thereof to a mediator. The reason behind this petition for citizenship. She described their marriage as one
provision is well-explained by the Commentary on made in jest and, therefore, null and void ab initio.
Section 311 of the Model Code on Domestic and
The RTC ruled in her favor.
Family Violence as follows: This section prohibits a
court from ordering or referring parties to mediation In declaring the respondent’s marriage void, the RTC ruled
in a proceeding for an order for protection. that when a marriage was entered into for a purpose other
Mediation is a process by which parties in than the establishment of a conjugal and family life, such was
equivalent bargaining positions voluntarily reach a farce and should not be recognized from its inception. In its
resolution denying the OSG’s motion for reconsideration, the
consensual agreement about the issue at hand.
RTC went on to explain that the marriage was declared void
Violence, however, is not a subject for compromise. because the parties failed to freely give their consent to the
A process which involves parties mediating the marriage as they had no intention to be legally bound by it and
issue of violence implies that the victim is somehow used it only as a means for the respondent to acquire
at fault. In addition, mediation of issues in a American citizenship.
proceeding for an order of protection is problematic
because the petitioner is frequently unable to Not in conformity, the OSG filed an appeal before the CA. The
CA, however, upheld the RTC decision.
participate equally with the person against whom
the protection order has been sought. Agreeing with the RTC, the CA ruled that the essential
requisite of consent was lacking. It held that the parties clearly
6) NO. As clearly delimited by the provision on did not understand the nature and consequence of getting
Barangay Protection Orders, the BPO issued by the married. As in the Rubenstein case, the CA found the
Punong Barangay or, in his unavailability, by any marriage to be similar to a marriage in jest considering that
available Barangay Kagawad, merely orders the the parties only entered into the marriage for the acquisition of
American citizenship in exchange of $2,000.00. They never
perpetrator to desist from (a) causing physical harm
intended to enter into a marriage contract and never intended
to the woman or her child; and (2) threatening to to live as husband and wife or build a family.
cause the woman or her child physical harm. Such
function of the Punong Barangay is, thus, purely The OSG then elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
executive in nature, in pursuance of his duty under
the Local Government Code to "enforce all laws ISSUE:
and ordinances," and to "maintain public order in
the barangay."
P a g e 19 | 27
Whether or not the marriage of Albios and Fringer be declared 40 countries and is well-known for independent
null and void. direct actions in the global campaign to
preserve the environment and promote peace.
HELD:
 Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng
No, respondent’s marriage is not void. Agrikultura (MASIPAG)
- Coalition of local farmers, scientists and NGOs
The court said: working towards the sustainable use and
management of biodiversity through farmers’
“Based on the above, consent was not lacking between Albios control of genetic and biological resources,
and Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because it was not agricultural production, and associated
vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent. Their knowledge.
consent was also conscious and intelligent as they
understood the nature and the beneficial and inconvenient  Filipino scientists, professors, public officials and
consequences of their marriage, as nothing impaired their ordinary citizens
ability to do so. That their consent was freely given is best - Group of persons invoking their constitutionally
evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American guaranteed right to health, balanced ecology,
citizenship through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that and suing on their behalf and on behalf of
they willingly and deliberately contracted the marriage. There future generations of Filipinos.
was a clear intention to enter into a real and valid marriage so
as to fully comply with the requirements of an application for
citizenship. There was a full and complete understanding of FACTUAL BACKGROUND :
the legal tie that would be created between them, since it was In 1979, Pres. Marcos approved and provided
that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their funding for the establishment of the National Institute for
goal.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (BIOTECH) at UP
Los Banos (UPLB).
The court also explained that “There is no law that declares a
marriage void if it is entered into for purposes other than what In 1990, Pres. Aquino signed EO 430 creating the
the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisition of National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP)
foreign citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the essential and which was tasked to identify potential hazards involved in
formal requisites prescribed by law are present, and it is not initiating genetic engineering experiments and formulate and
void or voidable under the grounds provided by law, it shall be review national policies on biosafety.
declared valid.”
In 1991, NCBP formulated the Phil. Biosafety
“No less than our Constitution declares that marriage, as an Guidelines which governs the regulation of the importation or
in violable social institution, is the foundation of the family and introduction, movement and field release of potentially
shall be protected by the State. It must, therefore, be hazardous biological materials in the Philippines. This was
safeguarded from the whims and caprices of the contracting followed in 1998 by the “Guidelines on Planned Release of
parties. This Court cannot leave the impression that marriage Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs) and Potentially
may easily be entered into when it suits the needs of the Harmful Exotic Species (PHES)”.
parties, and just as easily nullified when no longer needed.”
On Dec. 29, 1993, the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) came into force. This treaty recognized that
6. International Service vs Greenpeace Southeast Asia modern biotechnology has great potential for human well-
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF being if developed and used with adequate safety measures
AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC. vs. GREENPEACE for environment and human health.
SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES)
G.R. No. 209271, Dec. 8, 2015 In Jan. 2000, an agreement was reached on the
Ponente: Villarama, Jr. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Cartagena Protocol), a
supplemental to the CBD. The Cartagena Protocol aims to
PETITIONER: contribute to ensuring an adequate level of safe transfer,
 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from
Biotech Applications, Inc. (ISAAA) modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the
- International non-profit organization founded in conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,
1990 to facilitate the acquisition and transfer of taking into account risks to human health.
biotechnology applications from the industrial
countries, for the benefit of resource-poor On May 24, 2000, the Philippines signed the
farmers in the developing world and ultimately Cartagena Protocol and on Aug. 14, 2006, the Phil. Senate
to alleviate hunger and poverty in the adopted Senate Resolution No. 92 or the “Resolution
developing countries. ISAAA promotes the use Concurring in the Ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on
of agricultural biotechnology, such as Biosafety to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.”
genetically modified organisms.
In July 2001, Pres. Gloria Arroyo issued a policy
RESPONDENTS: statement reiterating the government policy of promoting the
 Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology and its
- Philippine branch of Greenpeace Southeast products as one of several means to achieve and sustain
Asia. Greenpeace is a non-governmental food security, equitable access to health services,
environmental organization which operates in sustainable and safe environment and industry development.
P a g e 20 | 27
scientist likewise attested to the harmful effects

In April 2002, the Dept. of Agriculture issued DA-AO of GMOs to human and animal health;
No. 08 providing rules and regulations for the importation - Bt crops can be directly toxic to non-target
and release into the environment of plants and plant species;
products derived from the use of modern biotechnology. - There is a failure to comply with the required
public consultation under Sections 26 and 27 of
On March 17, 2006, EO 514 entitled “Establishing the Local Gov’t Code;
the National Biosafety Framework, Prescribing Guidelines for - These calls for the application of the
its Implementation and Strengthening the NCBP” was precautionary principle, it being a classic
issued. It expressly provides that, unless amended by the environmental case where scientific evidence
issuing departments or agencies, DA-AO 08, the NCBP as to health, environmental and socio-
Guidelines on the Continued Use of GMOs, except for economic safety is insufficient or uncertain and
provisions on potentially harmful exotic species which were preliminary scientific evaluation indicates
repealed, and all issuances of the Bureau of Food and Drugs reasonable grounds for concern that there are
Authority on products of modern technology, shall continue potentially dangerous effects on human health
to be in force and effect. and the environment.
On May 2, 2012, the Court issued the Writ of

FACTS: Kalikasan against ISAAA, Environmental Management
A Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) was Bureau, Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, and UPLB,
executed between UPLB Foundation Inc., ISAAA, and UP ordering them to make a verified return within a non-
Mindanao Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), in pursuance of a extendable period of 10 days. Their contentions are as
collaborative research and development project on eggplants follows:
that are resistant to the fruit and shoot borer. Other partner
agencies in the project were UPLB Institute of Plant - All environmental laws were complied with,
Breeding, Maharastra Hybrid Seed Company (MAHYCO) of including public consultations in the affected
India, Cornell University and the Agricultural Biotechnology communities;
Support Project II of USAID on Sept. 24, 2010. - The Bt talong project is not covered by the
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement
The UPLB Field Trial Proposal states that the pest- Law;
resistant crop subject of the field trial was described as a - There is a plethora of scientific works and
“bio-engineered eggplant.” The crystal toxin genes from the literature, peer-reviewed, on the safety of Bt
soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) were incorporated talong for human consumption;
into the eggplant genome to produce the protein CrylAc - Allegations regarding the safety of Bt talong are
which is toxic to the target insect pests. CrylAc protein is said irrelevant in the field trial stage as none of the
to be highly specific to lepidopteran larvae such as the fruit eggplants will be consumed by humans or
and shoot borer (FSB), the most destructive insect pest of animals;
eggplant. - Non-observance of the rule on hierarchy of
courts;
NCBP issued a Certificate of Completion of - Greenpeace et al have no legal standing as
Contained Experiment which was conducted from 2007 to they do not stand to suffer any direct injury as a
2009 stating that during the conduct of experiment, all the result of Bt talong field tests;
biosafety measures have been complied with and no - The precautionary principle does not apply
untoward incident has occurred. since the field testing is only a part of a
continuing study to ensure that the field trials
The Bureau of Plant Industry issued biosafety have no significant and negative impact on the
permits to UPLB. Field testing commenced on various dates environment.
in the following approved trial sites: Kabacan, North
Cotabato; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; Pili, Camarines Sur; Bago The SC referred the case to the CA. The parties
Oshiro, Davao City; and Bay, Laguna. submitted the following procedural issues before the CA: (1)
Whether Greenpeace et al has a legal standing to file the
On April 26, 2012, Greenpeace, MASIPAG, and petition for a Writ of Kalikasan; (2) Whether the petition has
individual respondents filed a petition for Writ of Kalikasan been rendered moot and academic by the alleged
and Writ of Continuing Mandamus with prayer for the termination of the Bt talong field testing; (3) Whether the
issuance of Temporary Environmental Protection Order case presented is a justiciable controversy.
(TEPO) alleging that the Bt talong field trials violate their
constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology The CA resolved that (1) Greenpeace et al possess
considering that: legal standing; (2) the case is not yet moot since it is capable
of repetition yet evading review; (3) the alleged non-
- The required Environmental Compliance Cert. compliance with environmental and local government laws
(ECC) under PD 1151 was not secured prior to present justiciable controversies for resolution by the court.
the project implementation;
- There is no independent, peer-reviewed study On May 17, 2013, the CA rendered a decision in
on the safety of Bt talong for human favor of Greenpeace et al finding that the precautionary
consumption and the environment; principle set forth in Sec. 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of
- There was a study conducted showing adverse Procedure for Environmental Cases finds relevance in the
effects on rats who were fed Bt corn, local case. It also denied the Motions for Reconsideration filed by
ISAAA, EMB, UPLB and UPLBFI. Moreover, the CA justified
P a g e 21 | 27
its ruling by expounding on the theory that introducing a

genetically modified plant into the ecosystem is an In order to protect the environment, the
“ecologically imbalancing act.” precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their
Hence, this consolidated petition of ISAAA, EMB, capabilities. Where there are threats of
UPLB and UPLBFI to reverse the CA decision permanently serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
enjoining the conduct of field trials for genetically-modified scientific certainty shall not be used as a
eggplants. reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the respondents have a legal The Rules incorporated in the principle in Part V, Rule
standing. 20 of the Rio Declaration states that:
2. Whether or not the Bt talong field trials violates the
people’s right to a balanced and healthful ecology. PRECAUTION
3. Whether or not the Precautionary Principle is ARY PRINCIPLE
applicable in this case.
SEC. 1. Applicability. - When there is a
lack of full scientific certainty in
RULING: establishing a causal link between human
1. Yes. The SC cited the case of Oposa v. Factoran activity and environmental effect, the court
where the court signaled a more liberalized policy on locus shall apply the precautionary principle in
standi in public suits; that their personality to sue in behalf of resolving the case before it.
the succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right The constitutional right of the people to a
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. The balanced and healthful ecology shall be
liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of given the benefit of the doubt.
Procedure for Environmental Cases which allows the filing of
a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen SEC. 2. Standards for application. - In
suits in the Rules “collapses the traditional rule on personal applying the precautionary principle, the
and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards following factors, among others, may be
of nature” and aims to “further encourage the protection of considered: (1) threats to human life or
the environment.” health; (2) inequity to present or future
generations; or (3) prejudice to the
2. Yes. There was no consensus among the expert environment without legal consideration of
witnesses who were present during the hot tub proceeding the environmental rights of those affected.
conducted by the CA regarding the safety of Bt talong to
humans and the environment. Their opinions were based on When the features of uncertainty, possibility of
contrasting findings in hundreds of scientific studies irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm
conducted from the time Bt technology was deployed in crop coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is
farming. These different views of local scientists reflect the strongest. The Supreme Court found all three conditions
continuing international debate on GMOs and the varying present.
degrees of acceptance of GM technology by states
especially the developed countries. While the goal of increasing crop yields to raise farm
incomes is laudable, independent scientific studies revealed
Likewise, studies to further the safe use of GMO still uncertainties due to unfulfilled economic benefits from Bt
yielded no scientific consensus. More particularly there is no crops and plants, adverse effects on the environment
consensus on GM food safety environmental risks of GM associated with the use of Genetic Engineering technology in
crops; EU research project does not provide reliable agriculture, and serious health hazards from consumption of
evidence of GM food safety; Existence of a widespread GM foods. For a biodiversity-rich country like the Philippines,
recognition of risks posed by GM food and crops as shown in the natural and unforeseen consequences of contamination
international agreements, among others. In sum, current and genetic pollution would be disastrous and irreversible.
scientific research indicates that the biotech industry has not
sufficiently addressed the uncertainties over the safety of GM D. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
food and crops.
1. Belgica vs Ochoa Jr.
3. Yes. The Precautionary Principle originated in Greco Belgica vs. Exeutive Secretary Paquito Ochoa
Germany in the 1960s, expressing the normative idea that
governments are obligated to “foresee and forestall” harm to
the environment. The Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, the outcome of the 1992 United Nations Doctrine:
Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de
Janeiro, defines the rights of the people to be involved in the
development of their economies, and the responsibilities of Principle of Separation of Powers
human beings to safeguard the common environment.
 It refers to the constitutional demarcation of the 3
The precautionary approach was codified under fundamental powers of the government:
Principle 15, which reads:
P a g e 22 | 27
1. Legislative Branch – through Congress, It underwent several legal designations:

belongs the power to make laws
2. Executive Branch – through the President, Public Works Act of 1922  Support for Local Development
belongs power to enforce laws Project (SLDP)  Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) 
3. Judicial Branch – through the Court, Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
belongs the power to interpret laws
 Each department of the government has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is
supreme within its own sphere. The allocation of the pork barrel is integrated in the annual
 It stem from the notion that the powers of General Appropriations Act (GAA). The PDAF articles in the
government must be divided to avoid concentration GAA provides for realignment of funds whereby certain
of powers in any one branch. cabinet members may request for the realignment of funds
 Thus, the divided power must be wielded by co- into their department provided that the realignment is
equal branches of the government that are equally approved or concurred by the legislator concerned.
capable of independent action
 The principle may be violated in 2 ways. When
there is impermissible:
1. Interference with and/or; It was in 1996 when the first controversy was brought out by
2. Assumption Marikina Representative Remeo Cadanzo (Cadanzo) who
of another department’s functions. alleged that “huge sums of government money, ranging from
19% to 52% of the cost of the project, regularly went into the
pockets of legislators in the form of kickback.
Principle of Checks and Balances
 Provided by the Constitution to secure coordination In 2004, several concerned citizens sought for the
in the workings of various departments of he nullification of PDAF as being unconstitutional. Unfortunately,
government. the petition was dismissed due to lack of evidentiary support.
 Ex. President’s Veto power (Sec 27 (2), Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution)
 The Constitution is a limitation upon the power of
the legislative department of the government, but in In July 2013, 6 whistle-blowers declared that JLN (Janet Lim
this respect it is a grant of power to the executive Napoles) Corporation had swindled 10 billion using 20
department. dummy NGOs for scored of ghost projects diverted into
 The Executive has the affirmative power to enact Napoles private accounts. Whistler blowers likewise alleged
laws; the Chief Executive has the negative power
that atleast 900 Million from royalties of the operation of
by the constitutional exercise of which he may
Malampaya Fund intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries
defeat the will of the Legislature.
 It follows that the Chief Executive must find its has gone into dummy NGOs. After NBI’s investigation ,
authority in the Constitution. But in exercising that criminal complaints were filed in the Ombudsman.
authority, he may not be confined to the rules of
strict constructions or hampered by the unwise
interference of the Judiciary. August 2013, COA released the result of its audit
 The courts will indulge in every intendment in favor
investigation showing that 58% of PDAF and 32% of VILP
of the constitutionality of a veto in the same manner
(Various Infrastructure Including Local Projects) were
as they will presume the constitutionality of an act
as originally passed by the Legislature. released between 2007-2009.
Spurred by the findings of COA, several petitions were

lodged similarly seeking that the pork Barrel System” be
declared unconstitutional:
 August 2013 - petitioner Samson S. Alcantara filed

a Petition for Prohibition
 Sept 3,2013 – petitioner Greco Belgica et al filed an
Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of TRO and/or
Facts: Writ of Preliminary Injunction and prayed the Court
to issue TRO against respondents Paquito Ochoa
et al in their respective capacities as Executive
“Pork Barrel” has been commonly referred to as lump-sum, Secretary of Dept. of Budget and Management.
discretionary funds of Members of the Legislature. Pork  Sept 5, 2013 – petitioner Pedrito Nepumuceno filed
petition seeking that PDAF’s unconstitutionality and
Barrel has been practiced in the Philippines since Pre-Martial
cease and desist order to restrain Pres. Aquino
Law Era to the Aquino Administration (2010-2013).
from releasing such funds to Congress.
P a g e 23 | 27
Issue: enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of

powers and is thus unconstitutional.
Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other

Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto are In view of the forgoing, the Legislative branch should not
unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles cross over the field of implementing the national budget.
on (a) separation of powers and (b) checks and balances?
Checks and Balances

Ruling:
Petitioners claim that the legislator’s identification of the

Separation of Powers projects after the passage of the GAA denies the President
the chance to veto that item later on.
The petitioners submit that the Congressional Pork Barrel

wrecks the assignment of responsibilities between the The Court agrees with the petitioners.
political branches as it allows the individual legislators to
interfere “way past the time it should have ceased” or,
particularly, “after the GAA is passed.
One feature in the principle of checks and balances is the
power of the president to veto items in the GAA which he
may deem to be inappropriate. But this power is being
The Congress enters into the picture when it deliberates or undermined because of the fact that once the GAA is
acts on the proposals of the President. Thereafter, it approved, the legislator can now identify the project to which
formulates an appropriation act which specifies that no he will appropriate his PDAF. Under such system, how can
money may be paid from the Treasury except in accordance the president veto if the appropriation is made after the
with an appropriation made by law. Upon approval and approval of the GAA? Congress cannot choose a mode of
passage of the General Appropriations Act (GAA), Congress budgeting, which effectively renders the constitutionally given
law making role comes to an end and from there the role of power of the President useless.
the Executive implementing the budget begins. So as not to
blur the constitutional boundaries between them, Congress
must not concern it self with details for implementation by the
Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of 24.79 Billion
Executive.
only appears as a collective allocation limit since the said
amount would be further divided among individual legislators
who would then receive personal lump sum allocations and
Under the 2013 PDAF article, the legislators have been could, after the GAA is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF
authorized to participate in the “various operational aspects funds based on their own discretion. As these intermediate
of budgeting”, including “the evaluation of work and financial appropriations are made by legislators only after the GAA is
plans for individual activities” and the “regulation and release passed and hence, outside of the law, it necessarily means
of funds”, in violation of the separation of powers principle. that the actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have
written into the General Appropriations Bill and thus
What’s happening was, after the GAA, itself a law, was effectuated without veto consideration.
enacted, the legislators themselves dictate as to which
projects their PDAF funds should be allocated to, which is a
clear violation of the principle of the separation of powers.
The lump sum of 24.79 Billion would be treated as mere
funding source allotted for multiple purposes of spending.
This setup connotes that the appropriation law laves the
The Court rules in favor of the petitioners. actual amounts and purposes of the appropriation for further
determination and, therefore, does not readily indicate a
discernable item which may be subject to the President’s
The enforcement of the national budget is indisputably a power of item veto.
function both constitutionally assigned and properly
entrusted to the Executive branch of government. Thus,
unless the Constitution provides otherwise, the Executive Hence, in view of the forgoing reasons, the Court finds the
department should exclusively exercise all roles and 2013 PDAF Article, as well as the Congressional Pork Barrel
prerogatives, which go into the implementation of the Laws, to be unconstitutional.
national budget. From the moment the law becomes
effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or
any of its members to play any role in the implementation or
Ruling:
P a g e 24 | 27
The Petitions are partly granted. The Court hereby declares The court stated in Tolentino v. Board of
as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: (a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article Accountancy, et al. that the guarantee simply means that no
and (b) all legal provisions of the part and present person or class of persons shall be denied the same
Congressional Pork Barrel Laws. protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or
other classes in the same place and in like circumstances. In
People v. Cayat, the Court further summarized the
2. Mendoza vs People jurisprudence on equal protection in this wise:
MENDOZA vs. PEOPLE
It is an established principle of
FACTS: constitutional law that the guaranty of the
 Petitioner Romarico Mendoza (Mendoza) filed a Motion for equal protection of the laws is not violated
Reconsideration seeking for the reversal of the decision of by a legislation based on reasonable
the court affirming the petitioners conviction for his failure to classification. And the classification, to be
remit SSS contributions of his employees reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) must be germane to the
 Petitioner anchors the present motion on his supposed purposes of the law; (3) must not be
inclusion within the coverage of Social Security Condonation limited to existing conditions only; and (4)
Law of 2009, whose passage the petitioner claims to be a must apply equally to all members of the
supervening event in his case. same class.
 He further invokes the equal protection clause in support The difference in the dates of payment of delinquent
of his motion contributions provides a substantial distinction between the
two classes of employers. In limiting the benefits of RA No.
 During the trial, petitioner admitted that he DID NOT remit 9903 to delinquent employers who pay within the six (6)-
the SSS premium contributions of his employees at Summa month period, the legislature refused to allow a sweeping,
Alta Tierra Industries from Aug 1998 to July 1999 amounting non-discriminatory condonation to all delinquent employers,
to P239,756.80 lest the policy behind RA No. 8282 be undermined.
 Petitioners’ explanation for his failure to remit was that E. Delegation of Powers
during this period, Summa Alta shut down as a result of
general decline in the economy, which the court disbelieved. 1. Sema vs COMELEC
BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA, vs. COMMISSION ON
ISSUE: ELECTIONS and DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN,
Whether or not Petitioner Mendoza is entitled under G.R. No. 177597; July 16, 2008
the equal protection clause to the dismissal of the case
against him? Facts:
On 28 August 2006, the ARMMs legislature, the ARMM
RULING: Regional Assembly, exercising its power to create provinces
under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054,[5] enacted Muslim
The Court cannot amplify the scope of RA No. 9903 Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 (MMA Act 201) creating
on the ground of equal protection, and acquit the petitioner the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan composed of the eight
and other delinquent employers like him; it would in essence municipalities in the first district of Maguindanao. MMA Act
be an amendment of RA No. 9903, an act of judicial 201 provides:
legislation abjured by the trias politica principle. Section 1. The Municipalities of Barira,
Buldon, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Kabuntalan,
RA No. 9903 creates two classifications of Matanog, Parang, Sultan Kudarat, Sultan
employers delinquent in remitting the SSS contributions of Mastura, and Upi are hereby separated
their employees: from the Province of Maguindanao and
constituted into a distinct and independent
(1) those delinquent employers who pay within the province, which is hereby created, to be
six (6)-month period (the former group), and known as the Province of Shariff
Kabunsuan.
(2) those delinquent employers who pay outside of
this availment period (the latter group). Cotabato City, although part of Maguindanao’s first legislative
district was not included. Hence, on 6 February 2007, the
The creation of these two classes is obvious and Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cotabato City passed Resolution
unavoidable when Section 2 and the last proviso of Section 4 No. 3999 requesting the COMELEC to clarify the status of
of the law are read together. The same provisions show the Cotabato City in view of the conversion of the First District of
laws intent to limit the benefit of condonation to the former Maguindanao into a regular province under MMA Act 201. In
group only response, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 07-0407 on 6
March 2007 "maintaining the status quo with Cotabato City as
Since the law itself excludes the class of employers part of Shariff Kabunsuan in the First Legislative District of
to which the petitioner belongs, no ground exists to justify his Maguindanao.
acquittal. An implementing rule or regulation must conform to
and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute; However, in preparation for the 14 May 2007 elections, the
it cannot amend the law either by abridging or expanding its COMELEC promulgated on 29 March 2007 Resolution No.
scope 7845 stating that Maguindanao’s first legislative district is
P a g e 25 | 27
composed only of Cotabato City because of the enactment of Under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, Congress delegated
MMA Act 201. to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays within the
On 10 May 2007, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. ARMM. Congress made the delegation under its plenary
7902, subject of these petitions, amending Resolution No. legislative powers because the power to create local
07-0407 by renaming the legislative district in question government units is not one of the express legislative powers
as Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City (forme granted by the Constitution to regional legislative bodies. In
rly First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City).[9] the present case, the question arises whether the delegation
to the ARMM Regional Assembly of the power to create
Sema, who was a candidate in the 14 May 2007 elections for provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays conflicts
Representative of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City, with any provision of the Constitution.
prayed for the nullification of COMELEC Resolution No. 7902
and the exclusion from canvassing of the votes cast There is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts with the
in Cotabato City for that office. Sema contended that Shariff delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power to create
Kabunsuan is entitled to one representative in Congress municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10, Article X
under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution[10] and of the Constitution is followed. However, the creation of
Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. provinces and cities is another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI
of the Constitution provides, Each city with a population of at
Sema’s contender, respondent Dilangalen countered that least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have
COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is constitutional because it at least one representative in the House of Representatives.
did not apportion a legislative district for Shariff Kabunsuan or Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
reapportion the legislative districts in Maguindanao but merely Constitution provides, Any province that may hereafter be
renamed Maguindanao’s first legislative district. Respondent created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase
Dilangalen further claimed that the COMELEC could not to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the
reapportion Maguindanao’s first legislative district to make immediately following election to at least one Member
Cotabato City its sole component unit as the power to
reapportion legislative districts lies exclusively with Congress, In summary, we rule that Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054,
not to mention that Cotabato City does not meet the minimum insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the
population requirement under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the power to create provinces and cities, is void for being
Constitution for the creation of a legislative district within a city contrary to Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article
X of the Constitution, as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance
The COMELEC, through the OSG, joined causes with appended to the Constitution. Only Congress can create
respondent Dilangalen and contended that Section 19, Article provinces and cities because the creation of provinces
VI of RA 9054 is unconstitutional because (a) it contravenes and cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative
Section 10 and Section 6, Article X of the Constitution and (b) districts, a power only Congress can exercise under
the power to create provinces was withheld from the Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of
autonomous regions under Section 20, Article X of the the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. The ARMM
Constitution. Regional Assembly cannot create a province without a
legislative district because the Constitution mandates that
Issue: every province shall have a legislative district. Moreover, the
Whether Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly cannot enact a law creating a
ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces, national office like the office of a district representative of
cities, municipalities and barangays, is constitutional; Congress because the legislative powers of the ARMM
Regional Assembly operate only within its territorial
Ruling: jurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of the
Yes, Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 is unconstitutional Constitution. Thus, we rule that MMA Act 201, enacted by
insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the the ARMM Regional Assembly and creating the Province
power to create provinces and cities. of Shariff Kabunsuan, is void.
Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which provides: Resolution No. 7902 Complies with the Constitution
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or Consequently, we hold that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902,
barangay may be created, divided, merged, preserving the geographic and legislative district of the First
abolished or its boundary substantially District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City, is valid as it
altered except in accordance with the merely complies with Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of
criteria established in the local government Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 1 of the
code and subject to approval by a majority Ordinance appended to the Constitution.
of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected. WHEREFORE, we declare Section 19, Article VI of Republic
Act No. 9054 UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it grants to
Thus, the creation of any of the four local government units the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim
province, city, municipality or barangay must comply with Mindanao the power to create provinces and cities. Thus, we
three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit declare VOID Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201
must follow the criteria fixed in the Local Government creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan. Consequently, we
Code. Second, such creation must not conflict with any rule that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902 is VALID.
provision of the Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite
in the political units affected. 2. NPC DAMA vs NAPOCOR
P a g e 26 | 27
P a g e 27 | 27

Abang Lingkod V Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abang Lingkod V Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abang Lingkod V Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW: I & II Case Digests | Wednesday Class @ 4:30-9:30PM

Political Law Review initiative on the Constitution, on statutes,

legislation is authorized and which satisfies the completeness

This provision is not self-executory. In his book, Joaquin 3. Lambino vs COMELEC

 RA9522 reduces Phil. Maritime territory and the B. State Immunity

Given the comprehensive rules in applying 5. Republic vs Albios

scientist likewise attested to the harmful effects

On May 2, 2012, the Court issued the Writ of

its ruling by expounding on the theory that introducing a

1. Legislative Branch – through Congress, It underwent several legal designations:

Spurred by the findings of COA, several petitions were

 August 2013 - petitioner Samson S. Alcantara filed

Issue: enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of

Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other

Checks and Balances

Petitioners claim that the legislator’s identification of the

The petitioners submit that the Congressional Pork Barrel

You might also like