Consti 1 - Atty.

Mariacos 1

SAMUEL OCCENA v. COMELEC

SEPARATE OPINIONS
FACTS: TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:
I vote to give due process to the petition at bar and grant
Petitioners Occena and Gonzales, both members of the PH Bar application for temporary restraining order enjoining the
and former delegates to the 1971 constitutional convention plebiscite scheduled for April 7, 1981.
that framed the present Constitution, are suing as taxpayers.
The suits for prohibition were filed respectively on March 6 Teehankee, J., reiterates his dissent on Sanidad v. COMELEC,
and 12 1981. the transcendal constituent power to propose and approve
amendments to the Constitution has been withheld by the
The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings Constitution from the President as sole repository of executive
against validity of 3 Batasang Pambansa Resolutions No 28, power and that so long as National Assembly provided for in
104 and 106; ART 8 of the Constitution had not come to existence and the
1. Reso No. 28; allowing a natural-born citizen of the PH proposals for constitutional amendments were now deemed
naturalized in a foreign country to own a limited area of land necessary to be discussed and adopted for submittal to the
for residential purposes. (Approved by 122 to 5 votes) people, strict adherence with the mandatory requirements of
2. Reso No. 104; dealing with the Presidency, the Prime the amending process as provided in the Constitution must be
Minister and the Cabinet, and the Nat’l Assembly (Approved by complied with.
147 to 5 votes)
3. Reso No. 106; amendment to the Article on the COMELEC Constitutional amendments which created the Interim
(Approved by 148 to 2 vote) Batasang Pambansa were invalid since as ruled by the Court
therein, constitutional provisions on amendments "dealing
The aforementioned resolutions were approved by the Interim with the procedure or manner of amending the fundamental
Batasang Pambansa sitting as constituent assembly on Feb 5 & law are binding upon the Convention and the other
27, 1981, which the date of plebiscite has been set on April 7, departments of the government (and) are no less binding upon
1981. It thus within the 90-day period provided by the the people" and "the very idea of departing from the
Constitution. fundamental law is anachronistic in the realm of
constitutionalism and repugnant to the essence of the rule of
The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the law."
assertion that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental
law. Petitioners urge that proposition that the amendments GUIDELINES & TOPIC/S:
proposed are so extensive in character that they go far beyond
the limits of the authority conferred on the Interim Batasang Constitutional law – 1973 Constitution
Pambansa as successor of the Interim National Assembly.
Constitutional Amendmentsss
Petition was dismissed.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is a fundamental law?

Whether or not the Interim Pambansa has the power to
propose amendments.

RULING/S:

Yes. The 1973 Constitution is the fundamental Law. In

declaring what the law is, it may not only nullify the acts of
coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity.
The existence of the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa
is indubitable. The applicable provision in the 1976
Amendments is quite explicit, it reads: “The Interim Batasang
Pambansa shall have the same power and its Members shall
have the same functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and
disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the
regular national assemble and the members thereof.” One of
such powers is precisely that of proposing amendments.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 2

TOLENTINO v. COMELEC votes cast at an election at which the amendments

are submitted to the people for their ratification."
FACTS: As a preliminary and prejudicial matter, the intervenors raise
question of jurisdiction. They contend that the issue before Us
Petitioner seek for prohibition to restrain respondent “from is a political question and that the Convention being a
undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971,” at legislative body of the highest order is sovereign, and as such,
which the proposed amendment in SEC 1 ART 5, that reads; its acts impugned by petitioner are beyond the control of the
“SEC. 1; Suffrage may be exercised by (male) citizen of Congress and the courts.
the PH not otherwise disqualified by law, who are (21)
18 years or over and are able to read and write and ISSUE/S:
who shall have resided in the PH for 1 year & in the
municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least Whether or not court has jurisdiction over the case? Is it
6 mos. preceding the election” justiciable?
for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution Whether or not Organic Resolution No. 1 constitutional?
No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and
implementation of the resolution, by declaring it to be without RULING/S:
force and effect of law in so far as they direct the holding of PETITION IS GRANTED.
such plebiscite and by also declaring the acts of the respondent The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine the
COMELEC to be null and void, for being violative of the constitutionality of the acts of a Constitutional Convention.
Constitution of the PH. The Convention owes its existence and derives all it’s authority
“CC ORGANIC RESOLUTION NO.1” from the existing constitution. Thus, it has been called to
A resolution amending SEC 1 ART 5 of the Constitution which formulate, the Convention's Organic Resolution No. 1 and all
reads; subsequent acts of the Convention implementing the same
SEC 1. Refer aforementioned provision violate the condition in Section 1, Article XV that there should
SEC 2. This amendment shall be valid as part of the only be one "election" or plebiscite for the ratification of all the
Constitution of the PH when approved by a majority of the amendments the Convention may propose. We are not
votes cast in a plebiscite denying any right of the people to vote on the proposed
SEC 3. This partial amendment, which refers only to the age amendment; We are only holding that under Section 1, Article
qualification for the exercise of suffrage shall be without XV of the Constitution.
prejudice to other amendments that will be proposed in the
future by the 1971 Constitutional Convention SEPARATE OPINION/S:
SEC 4. The Convention hereby authorizes the use of the sum of MAKALINTAL, J.,
P75,000.00 from its savings or from its unexpended funds for The resolutions in question is voted down by a sufficient
the expense of the advanced plebiscite; provided, however majority of the Court on just one ground, which to be sure
that should there be no savings or unexpended sums, the achieves the result from the legal and constitutional viewpoint.
Delegates waive P250.00 each or the equivalent of 2-1/2 days I entertain grave doubts as to the validity of the premises
per diem.'" postulated and conclusions reached in support of the
dispositive portion of the decision.
Upon facts, the main thrust of the petition is that
aforementioned resolution and other implementing REYES, J.B.L, ZALDIVAR, CASTRO and MAKASIAR, JJ.,
resolutions subsequently approved by the convention have no concurring:
force and effect as they provide for the holding a plebiscite co AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION; REQUIREMENTS FOR
incident with the elections of 8 senators and all city, hence, all PROPER SUBMISSION THEREOF TO PEOPLE.
of COMELEC’s acts in obedience to carry out the holding pf the Amendments must be fairly laid before the people for their
plebiscite by said resolution are null and void, on the ground blessing or spurning. The people are not to be mere rubber
that the calling and holding of such plebiscite is, by the stamps. They are not to vote blindly.
Constitution, a power lodged exclusively in Congress, and We believe the word "submitted" can only mean that the
may not be exercised by the convention, and that under SEC1 government, within its maximum capabilities, should strain
ART 15 of the Constitution, which read; every efforts to inform every citizen of the provisions to be
amended, and the proposed amendments and the meaning,
“SEC 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a nature and effects thereof.
vote of three- fourths of all the Members of the FERNANDO, J., concurring and dissenting:
Senate and of the House of Representatives voting As the Constitution occupied the topmost rank in the hierarchy
separately. may propose amendments to this of legal norms, Congress and Constitutional Convention alike,
Constitution or call a convention for the purpose. no less than this Court, must bow to its supremacy. Thereby
Such amendments shall be valid as part of this constitutionalism asserts itself. With the view I entertain of
Constitution when approved by a majority of the what is allowable, if not indeed required by the Constitution,
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 3

my conformity does not extend as far as the acceptance of the

conclusion reached.
Under the circumstances, with the express recognition in the
Constitution of the powers of the Constitutional Convention to
propose amendments, I cannot discern any objection to the
validity of its action, there being no legal impediment that
would call for its nullification.
The view that commends itself for acceptance is that
legislature and constitutional convention, alike recognized by
the Constitution, are coordinate, there being no superiority of
one over the other. Congress and constitutional convention
are agencies for submitting proposals under the fundamental
law. A power granted to one should not be denied the other.
No justification for such a drastic differentiation either in
theory or practice exists.
This is where I am irresistibly led to the conclusion
that the challenged resolution was well within the power of
the convention.

GUIDELINES & TOPIC/S:

1971 Constitutional Convention

Proper Allocation of Powers in Government

Power to amend or propose amendments vested in the people

Power of Congress and COMELEC

Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 4

MANUEL IMBONG v. COMELEC

ISSUE/S:
FACTS: Whether or not the Congress has a right to call a Constitutional
Petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to SEC 19 of Convention?
RA No. 6132, which reads: Whether or not the Par. 1 SEC. 8(a) of RA No. 6132
“SEC 19; Petition for Declaratory Relief. Any natural or constitutional?
judicial person whose rights are affected by any
provision of this Act, may, before breach or violation RULING/S:
thereof, bring an action to determine any question WHEREFORE, the prayers in both petitions are hereby denied
construction, validity or constitutionality arising and R.A. No. 6132 including Secs. 2, 4, 5, and 8(a), paragraph
under this Act and declaration of his rights or duties 1, thereof, cannot be declared unconstitutional. Without costs.
thereunder.”
by petitioners Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, both Yes. While the authority to call a constitutional convention is
members of the Bar, taxpayers and interested in running as vested by the present Constitution solely and exclusively in
candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly, the power to enact
Both impugn the constitutionality of RA No, 6132, claiming the implementing details, which are now contained in
during the oral argument that it prejudices their rights as such Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 as well as in R.A. No. 6132, does not
candidates. exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent
On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly.
Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, passed
Resolution No. 2 which among others called for a Yes. Provision is Constitutional. The very Sec. 8(a) in its
Constitutional Convention to propose constitutional provisos permits the candidate to utilize in his campaign the
amendments to be composed of two delegates from each help of the members of his family within the fourth civil degree
representative district who shall have the same qualifications of affinity, and a campaign staff composed of not more than
as those of Congressmen. Congress, acting as a legislative one for every ten precincts in his district. It allows the full
body, enacted RA No. 4914 implementing the aforesaid exercise of his freedom of expression and his right to peaceful
Resolution No. 2. assembly. It is therefore patent that the restriction contained
in Sec. 8 (a) is so narrow that the basic constitutional rights
On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting as a Constituent themselves remain substantially intact and inviolate.
Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 which reads;
“Reso No. 4; Shall be composed of 320 apportioned SEPARATE OPINION/S:
among the existing representative districts according
to the number of their respective inhabitants; FERNANDO, J., concurring and dissenting;
Provided, that a representative district shall be The opinion of Justice Makasiar speaking for the Court,
entitled to at least two delegates, who shall have the comprehensive in scope, persuasive in character and lucid in
same qualifications as those required of members of expression, has much to recommend it. On the whole, I concur.
the House of Representatives,”
On Aug 24, 1970, Congress, acting as legislative body, enacted I find difficulty, however, in accepting the conclusion that there
RA No. 6132, implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 & 4, and is no basis for the challenge hurled against the validity of Par 1
expressly repealing RA No. 4914. SEC 8 of RA 6132. The right of an individual to join others of a
like persuasion to pursue common objectives and to engage in
Petitioner Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law. activities is embraced within if not actually encouraged by the
SEC 2: Apportionment of delegates regime of liberty ordained by the Constitution. This particular
SEC 4: Considers all public officer employees resigned freedom has an indigenous cast, its origin being traceable to
when they file their candidacy. the Malolos Constitution.
Petitioner Gonzales asserts SEC 2 is not accordance with
proportional representation and therefore violates the **For guidelines, case focuses only on the constitutionality of
Constitution and the intent of law itself. RA 6132 and the power of Congress to call a Constitutional
However, petitioner Imbong only impugns the Convention.
constitutionality of only Par. 1 of SEC 8 of said RA No. 6132,
which bans against all political parties or organized groups
from giving support or representing a delegate to the
convention.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 5

NORTH COTABATO v. GRP joint jurisdiction, authority and management over all natural
resources.
FACTS:
The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of negotiation Included in the resources is the stipulation that the BJE is free
and the concluding of several prior agreements between the to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations
two parties beginning in 1996. n July 18, 1997, the GRP and with foreign countries and shall have the option to establish
MILF Peace Panels signed the Agreement on General Cessation trade missions in those countries, as well as environmental
of Hostilities. The following year, they signed the General cooperation agreements, but not to include aggression in the
Framework of Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998. GRP. They are to be entitled to participate in Philippine official
missions and delegations for the negotiation of border
Early on, there was not any smooth sailing in the GRP-MILF agreements or protocols for environmental protection and
peace process. Towards end of 1999 and 2000, MILF attacked equitable sharing of incomes and revenues involving the
a number of municipalities in Central Mindanao. In response, bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forming
President Estrada declared an “all-out-war” against MILF. part of the ancestral domain. The BJE shall also have the right
to explore its resources and that the sharing between the
The resumption of peace talks was revisited when President Central Government and the BJE of total production pertaining
Arroyo assumed office. President Arroyo asked the to natural resources is to be 75:25 in favor of the BJE.
Government of Malaysia through Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohammad to help convince the MILF to return to the And lastly in the governance, the MOA-AD claims that the
negotiating table, then MILF eventually decided to meet with relationship between the GRP and MILF is associative i.e.
GRP. The parties met at Kuala Lumpur March 24, 2001, the characterized by shared authority and responsibility. This
parties signing the same date of the Resumption of Peace structure of governance shall be further discussed in the
Talks. The MILF thereafter suspended all its military actions. Comprehensive Compact, a stipulation which was highly
contested before the court. The BJE shall also be given the right
Formal peace talks between the parties were held in Tripoli, to build, develop and maintain its own institutions, the details
Libya from June 20-22, 2001, the outcome of which was the of which shall be discussed.
GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement
2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on the With the formulation of the MOA-AD, petitioners aver that the
following aspects of the negotiation: Security Aspect, negotiation and finalization of the MOA-AD violates
Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect. constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation,
as mandated by Executive Order No. 3, and right to
In 2005, several exploratory talks were held between the information. They further contend that it violates the
parties in Kuala Lumpur, eventually leading to the crafting of Constitution and laws. Hence, the filing of the petition.
the draft MOA-AD in its final form, which, as mentioned, was
set to be signed last August 5, 2008. ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the MOA-AD violates constitutional and
MOA-AD OVERVIEW statutory provisions on public consultation?
The MOA-AD goes on to describe the Bangsamoro people as Whether or not the MOA-AD violates Constitution and the
"the ‘First Nation' with defined territory and with a system of Laws?
government having entered into treaties of amity and
commerce with foreign nations." It then mentions for the first RULING/S:
time the "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to which it grants GUIDELINES/TOPICS:
the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Vote to GRANT the petitions and declare the MOA-AD
Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro. the BJE shall embrace the UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region, involving the
present ARMM, parts of which are those which voted in the ON THE 1st SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE
inclusion to ARMM in a plebiscite. The territory is divided into SEC.7 ART 3 on the Bill of Rights
two categories, “A” which will be subject to plebiscite not later “Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on
than 12 mos. after the signing and “B” which will be subject to matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access
plebiscite 25 years from the signing of another separate to of􏰄official records, and to documents, and papers
agreement. Embodied in the MOA-AD that the BJE shall have pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,
jurisdiction over the internal waters-15kms from the coastline as well as to government research data used as basis
of the BJE territory; they shall also have "territorial waters," for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
which shall stretch beyond the BJE internal waters up to the subject to such limitations as may be provided by
baselines of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) south east and law.”
south west of mainland Mindanao; and that within these
territorial waters, the BJE and the government shall exercise
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 6

THE MOA-AD AS A PUBLIC CONCERN jurisdiction, powers and authority over land use,
Respondents admit that the MOA-AD is indeed a public development, utilization, disposition and exploitation
concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial of natural resources within the Bangsamoro
integrity of the State. Homeland. In doing so, respondents in effect
The effectivity of the policy disclosure need not await the surrendered to the BJE ownership and gave it full
passing of a statue. Respondents then cannot point to the control and supervision over the exploration,
absence of an implementing legislation as an excuse of not development, utilization over the natural resources
effecting such policy. which belong to the State. This is in clear
contravention of the Regalian Doctrine now
ON THE 2ND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE expressed under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
MOA-AD cannot all be accommodated under the present Constitution,
Constitution and laws. The MOA-AD itself recognizes the need 5. The MOA-AD also grants to the BJE powers to enter
to amend the existing legal framework to render effective at into any economic cooperation and trade relations
least some of its provisions. with foreign countries.
THE MOA-AD IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND 6. the MOA-AD dismembers parts of Mindanao, turning
LAWS it into a geographical dalmatian. It creates a
The objection against the MOA-AD center on the extent of the Bangsamoro Homeland with a specified land mass,
powers conceded to the BJE, namely, the international law maritime, aerial domain, atmospheric space, and
concept of ‘association’ – may have been intended to be even distinct "territorial waters" within the RP
defined more precisely to be forged Comprehensive Compact. baselines.
The MOA-AD most clearly uses it to describe the envisioned 7. The MOA-AD grants to the BJE plenary power to undo
relationship between BJE and the Central Government. executive acts and delegate to the BJE the authority
“The relationship between the Central Government to revoke existing proclamations, issuances, policies,
and the Bangsamoro juridical entity shall be rules and guidelines. This constitutes an undue
associative characterized by shared authority and delegation of executive power.
responsibility” 8. The MOA-AD empowers the BJE to build, develop,
Also the MOA-AD, contains many provisions which are and maintain its own institutions.
consistent with International legal concept of association,
specifically; the BJE’s capacity to enter into economic trade
and relations with foreign countries.
The concept of association is NOT recognized under the
present Constitution. No province, city, or municipality, not
even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an
"associative" relationship with the national government.
Indeed, the concept implies powers that go beyond anything
ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional
government. It also implies the recognition of the associated
entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not
contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the
Philippine State.

SEPARATE OPINION/S:
REYES, R.T., J. concurring:
The MOA-AD is unconstitutional. The commitment of the GRP
Panel to the MILF to change the Constitution to conform to the
MOA-AD violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
Defects of the MOA-AD
1. MOA-AD creates new political subdivision, the so-
called Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). This is not
permitted by the Constitution.
2. The creation of the BJE is prohibited even assuming
that the MOA-AD only attempts to create the BJE as
an autonomous region. Only Congress is empowered
to create an autonomous region.
3. The MOA-AD creates the Bangsamoro Homeland as
an ancestral domain.
4. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE is vested with
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 7

SANTIAGO v. COMELEC 4. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the

implementing law.
FACTS: 5. The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the
Petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is Constitution, not to revision thereof.
the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the 6. Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people’s
Constitution through system initiative under SEC. 2 ART 17 of initiative; neither the COMELEC nor any government
the 1987 Constitution which reads; departments have realigned funds for the purpose.
“SEC 2; Amendments to this Constitution may The petitioners allege that in the event the COMELEC grants
likewise be directly proposed by the people through the Delfin Petition, the people's initiative spearheaded by
initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total PIRMA would entail expenses to the national treasury for
number of registered voters, of which every general re-registration of voters amounting to at least P180
legislative district must be represented by at least 3% million, not to mention the millions of additional pesos in
of the registered voters therein. No amendment expenses which would be incurred in the conduct of the
under this section shall be authorized within 5 years initiative itself.
following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every year thereafter.” Private Respondent then files their comment on the petition.
Dec 6, 1996, private respondent Atty. Delfin filed with public They argue therein that it is not true that it would entail
respondent COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, expenses to the national treasury for general registration of
to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative.” voters. Not a single centavo would be spent if COMELEC grants
Delfin asked COMELEC for an order; the petition, all expenses in the signature gathering are all for
1. Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering the account of Private Respondent Delfin and his volunteers.
al over the country;
2. Causing necessary publication of said Order and On Jan 20, 1997, Senator Raul Roco files his Petition in
the aforementioned Petition Intervention. He contends that the respondent is without
3. Instructing Municipal Elections Registrar in all jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Delfin Petition and to
region of the PH, to assist Petitioners and order its publication because said petition is not the initiatory
volunteers, in establishing signing stations pleading contemplated under the Constitution.
Delfin alleged in his petition that he is a founding member of
the Movement for People’s Initiative. He and the members of The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996
said movement intend to exercise the power to directly is made permanent as against the COMELEC, but is LIFTED as
propose amendments to the Constitution granted under SEC against private respondents.
2, ART 17 of the Constitution. According to Delfin, the said
Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and ISSUES/S:
after it is signed by at least 12% of the total number of Whether or not SEC. 2 ART 17 of the Constitution self-
registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with the expressing?
COMELEC. Whether or not COMELEC regarding conduct of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution valid, considering absence of
On Dec 18, 1996, petitioner, Sen. Defensor Santiago, et al – the law?
files this special civil action for prohibition raising the following Whether or not the lifting term of elective officials would
arguments; constitute a revision or amendments of the Constitution?
1. The provision on People’s Initiative to amend the
Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by RULING/S:
Congress. SEC 2 ART 17 of the Constitution is not self-executory. Without
2. RA No 6735 provides for 3 system of initiative; a implementing legislation SEC 2 cannot operate. Thus, although
a. Initiative on the Constitution this mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of
b. On Statutes amendment by which bypasses congressional action, in the
c. On local legislation last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action.
However, it failed to provide any subtitle initiative on the COMELEC does not have the power to validly promulgate rules
Constitution. Tolentino stressed this deficiency in the law in his and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the
privilege speech delivered before the Senate in 1994: "There is people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
not a single word in that law which can be considered as under RA No. 6735.
implementing [the provision on constitutional initiative]. Such Lastly, R.A No 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of
implementing provisions have been obviously left to a initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and have failed
separate law." to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation
3. RA No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law after
publication in print media.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 8

SEPARATE OPINIONS: initiative on the Constitution. I completely agree with the

PUNO, J., concurring & dissenting: inspired and inspiring opinions of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS: R.A. 6735; SUFFICIENTLY and Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco that RA 6735, the Roco law
IMPLEMENTS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO INITIATE on initiative, sufficiently implements the right of the people to
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THRU INITIATIVE. initiate amendments to the Constitution.
1. the policy statement declares: "Sec. 2. Statement of
Policy. — The power of the people under a system of COMELEC CANNOT ENTERTAIN ANY PETITION IN THE ABSENCE
initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES.
approve or reject, in whole or in part, the
Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed GUIDELINES/TOPIC:
by any legislative body upon compliance with the
requirements and guaranteed." 1987 Constitution;
2. the law defines "initiative" as "the power of the
people to propose amendments to the Constitution Amendments or revisions
or to propose and enact legislations through an
election called for the purpose," and "plebiscite" as SEC. 2 ART 17 of the 1987 Constitution
"the electoral process by which an initiative on the
Constitution is approved or rejected by the people."
3. the law provides the requirements for a petition for
initiative to amend the Constitution.
LAPSES IN R.A. 6735 ARE TO BE EXPECTED, FOR LAWS ARE NOT
ALWAYS WRITTEN IN IMPECCABLE ENGLISH.
These lapses are to be expected for laws are not always written
in impeccable English. Rightly, the Constitution does not
require our legislators to be word-smiths

VITUG, J., concurring:

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS; R.A. 6735; DELFIN PETITION,
UTTERLY DEFICIENT.
Instead of complying with the constitutional imperatives, the
petition would rather have much of its burden passed on, in
effect, to the COMELEC. The petition would require COMELEC
to schedule "signature gathering all over the country," to cause
the necessary publication of the petition "in newspapers of
general and local circulation,"

FRANCISCO, J., dissenting & concurring:

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS; R.A. 6735; AMPLY COVERS AN
INITIATIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION.
Republic Act No. 6735 defines initiative as "the power of the
people to propose amendments to the constitution or to
propose and enact legislations through an election called for
the purpose." The same section, in enumerating the three
systems of initiative, included in "initiative on the constitution
which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the
constitution."

COMELEC CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON DELFIN PETITION

BECAUSE IT IS UNACCOMPANIED BY THE REQUIRED
PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS; CASE AT BAR.

PANGANIBAN, J., concurring & dissenting:

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS; R.A. 6735; TAKEN TOGETHER
AND INTERPRETED PROPERLY, THE CONSTITUTION, R.A. 6735
AND COMELEC RESOLUTION 2300 ARE SUFFICIENT TO
IMPLEMENT CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVES.
RA No. 6735 contains enough provisions to effectuate an
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 9

LAMBINO v. COMELEC Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of

discretion in denying Lambino Group’s Petition.
FACTS:
On Feb 15, 2006, petitioner & et al., filed a petition with RULING/S:
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative There is no merit to the Petition.
petition under SEC 5(a) and (c) and SEC 7 of RA No 6735 or the Petitioners miserably failed to comply with the basic
‘Initiative & Referendum Act’ requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s
Petitioner alleged that their petition had the support of 6.3M initiative. SEC 2 ART 17 read;
individuals constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, “SEC 2; Amendments to this Constitution may
with each legislative district represented by at least 3% of its likewise be directly proposed by the people through
registered voters. Petitioner also claimed that COMELEC initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per
election registrars had verified the signatures. centum of the total number of registered voters of
Petitioners initiative petition will change the 1987 which every legislative district must be represented
Constitution by modifying SEC. 1-7 ART 6 (Legislative by at least three per centum of the registered voters
Department) and SEC 1-4 ART 7 (Executive Department) and therein. . . (Emphasis supplied)”
by adding ART 18 “Transitory Provisions”. These changes will The framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft of the
shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a proposed constitutional amendment" should be "ready and
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. shown" to the people "before" they sign such proposal. The
framers also "envisioned" that the people should sign on the
RULING OF COMELEC proposal itself because the proponents must "prepare that
COMELEC issued its Resolution denied due to course to the proposal and pass it around for signature."
Lambino Group’s petition for lack of enabling law governing The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people
initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. Respondent also through initiative upon a petition" is that the entire proposal
invoked Court’s ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential
6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on elements must be present. First, the people must author and
proposals to amend the Constitution. thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can
Petitioner prays for the issuance of the writ of certiorari and sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition,
mandamus to set aside COMELEC’s aforementioned ruling and the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
give due course to their initiative petition. Petitioner contends The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition
that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying with this Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as
due course to their petition since Santiago V. COMELEC is not a their initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this
binding precedent. Court a copy of a signature sheet after the oral arguments of
Petitioners claims that the mentioned case binds only the 26 September 2006
parties to that case, and their petition deserves cognizance as
an expression of “will of sovereign people” There Is no need to revisit Santiago v. COMELEC, as the present
Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing petition warrants dismissal based alone in the Petitioner’s
pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group’s glaring failure to comply with the basic requirement of the
petition. Opposing intervenors challenged the following; Constitution.
1. Petitioner’s standing to file petition Lastly, there was no grave abuse of discretion is attributed to
2. The validity of the signatures gathering and the COMELEC.
verification process
3. Petitioner’s compliance with the minimum SEPARATE OPINIONS:
requirement for the percentage of voters supporting PANGANIBAN, C.J., concurring:
an initiative petition under SEC 2 ART 17 of the
Constitution CALLEJO, SR., J., concurring:
4. The nature of the proposed changes as revisions and
not mere amendments as provide in SEC 2 ART 17 PUNO, J., dissenting:
5. The petitioner’s compliance with the requirement in
SEC 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petition to only CORONA, J., dissenting:
one subject.
ISSUE/S: TINGA, J., dissenting:
Whether or not Petitioner’s initiative petition complies with
SEC 2 ART 17 of the 1987 Constitution in amendments to the VELASCO, JR., J.:
Constitution through a people’s initiative
Whether or not this Court should revisit its ruling on Santiago
v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 10

SANIDAD v. COMELEC contend that under the 1935 & 1973 Constitution there is no
grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent
FACTS: power to propose amendments to the new Constitution.
On Sept 2, 1976, President Marcos issued PD No. 911 calling On October 5, 1976, the Solicitor General 􏰄led the
for a national referendum on Oct 16, 1976 for the Citizen comment for respondent Commission on Elections. The
Assemblies (brgys) to resolve, among other things, the issue of Solicitor General principally maintains that petitioners have no
martial law, the interim pambansa, its replacement, the standing to sue; the issue raised is political in nature, beyond
powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the judicial cognizance of this Court; at this state of the transition
length of the period for the exercise by the President of his period, only the incumbent President has the authority to
present power. exercise constituent power; the referendum-plebiscite is a
20 days after, the President issued another related decree, PD step towards normalization.
No. 1031, amending previous PD No 991, providing for the
manner of voting and canvass of votes in brgys applicable to A number of actions for Prohibition with Preliminary
the national referendum-plebiscite of Oct 16, 1976. Quite Injunctions were also filed regarding said issue, one petitioner
relevantly, PD No 1031 repealed SEC 4 of PD No 991, which asserts that the power to propose amendments or revisions
reads; during the transition period is expressly conferred on the
“SEC. 4. Who shall participate. — Every Filipino Interim National Assembly under action 16, ART 17 of the
citizen, literate or not, fifteen years of age or over who has Constitution. Another petition filed to restraint the
resided in the barangay for at least six months shall participate implementation of the PDs. Last petitioners argue that even
in the consultation to his barangay. Provided, however, that granting him legislative power under Martial law, the
any person who may not be able to participate in the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to
consultations of his barangay may do so in any barangay most propose amendments to the Constitution.
convenient to him; Provided, further, that no barangay
member shall participate in more than one barangay ISSUE/S:
consultation.” Whether or not petitions are justiciable one?
On the same date PD No 1033 was issued, stating questions to Whether or not incumbent President can propose
be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on amendments to the Constitution?
Oct 16, 1976.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: RULING/S:
1. There shall be, in lieu of the Interim Assembly, an interim We find the petitions in the three entitled cases to be devoid
Batasang Pambansa. of merit.
2. The interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same We rule that petitioners possess to challenge the
powers and its members shall have the same functions as
constitutional premise of PD Nos. 991, 1031 & 1033. The
the interim National Assembly.
normal course has not been followed. Rather than calling the
3. The incumbent President shall, within 30 days from election
and selection of members, convene the interim Batasang interim National Assembly to constitute itself into a
Pambansa. constituent assembly, the incumbent President undertook the
4. The President and his proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed
Cabinet shall exercise all the powers and functions, and amendments thru Presidential Decree 1033 to the people in a
shall be subject only to such disqualification as the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. The implementing
President may prescribe. Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which
5. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise commonly purport to have the force and effect of legislation
legislative powers until martial law have been lifted.
are assailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity of said
6. Whenever in the judgment of the President, he may, in
Decrees is plainly a justiciable one.
order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees,
which shall form a part of the law of the land. Yes. Incumbent President has authority to propose
7. The brgys shall continue as presently constituted but their amendments to the Constitution. In the period of transition,
functions may be altered by law. the power to propose amendments to the Constitution lies in
8. All provisions of this Constitution not inconsistent with any the interim National Assembly upon special call by the
of these amendments shall continue in full force and effect. President (Sec. 15 of the Transitory Provisions). Again, harking
9. These amendments shall take effect after the incumbent to the dictates of the sovereign will, the President decided not
President shall have proclaimed that they have been to call the interim National Assembly. Would it then be within
ratified by majority of the votes cast in referendum-
the bounds of the Constitution and of law for the President to
plebiscite.
assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-a-
On Sept 27, 1976, petitioners Pablo and Pablito Sanidad, father
vis his assumption of that body's legislative functions? Yes. If
and son, commenced for prohibition with preliminary
the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative
injunction seeking to enjoin COMELEC from holding and
functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he
conducting the said referendum-plebiscite on Oct 16; to
cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to
declare without force PD No. 991, 1033 & 1031. Petitioners
propose amendments to the Constitution.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 11

MAGALLONA v. ERMITA - Whether or not the writs of certiorari and

prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the
FACTS: constitutionality of RA 9522. YES
1961, Congress passed RA 3046 demarcating the maritime When the Court exercises its constitutional power of
baseline of the PH as an archipelagic State following the judicial review, writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper
framing of UNCLOS I, codifying the sovereign right of States remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes.
parties over “territorial Sea.”
March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, Lastly, whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional. NO
to make previous law compliant with UNCLOS III, which the PH Petitioners’ theory fails to persuade court.
ratified Feb 27, 1984. RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to demarcate the
UNCLOS III - prescribes the water-land ratio, length, country’s Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf under
and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the UNVLOS III, not to delineate PH territory. UNCLOS III has
Philippines and sets the deadline for the filing of application nothing to do with acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a
for the extended continental shelf. multilateral treaty regulation, among others, sea-use rights
RA 9522 – (a) shortened one baseline, (b) optimized over maritime zones [Territorial waters – 12 nautical miles
the location of some base points around the Philippine from baseline], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles], exclusive
archipelago (c) and classified adjacent territories, namely, the economic zone [200 nautical miles] and continental shelves.
Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as Baseline laws such as RA 9522 are enacted to mark
"regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines
applicable maritime zones. are drawn.

Petitioners assails the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the RA 9522's Use of the Framework
 of Regime of Islands to
grounds of;
Determine the Maritime Zones of the KIG and the Scarborough
1. Said act reduces PH maritime territory which is a
violation of ART 1 of the 1987 Constitution. Shoal, not Inconsistent
 with the Philippines' Claim of
2. RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the Sovereignty Over these Areas
baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and
aircrafts, undermining PH sovereignty and national Statutory Claim Over Sabah under RA 5446 Retained
security.
3. RA 9522 treatment of the KIG as ‘regime islands’ not UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the
only results in loss of a large maritime area but also Constitution's Delineation of Internal Waters
prejudices the livelihood of the fishermen.

Respondents raised threshold issues questioning the

following;
1. The petitioner’s compliance with the case or
controversy requirement grounded on the
petitioner’s lack of locus standi.
2. The propriety of the the writs of certiorari and
prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
Respondents also defended RA 9522 as the country’s
compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving PH
territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal. They also added
that RA 9522 does not undermine the country’s security,
environment and economic interest.

ISSUE/S:
RULING/S:

Preliminary – Whether or not petitioners possess locus standi

to bring this suits? YES
The Court recognize petitioners’ locus standi as
citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the
resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises
issue of national significance.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 12

organized with the purpose of "adjusting the coconut industry

BACANI v. NACOCO to a position independent of trade preferences in the United
States" it was given a corporate power separate and distinct
FACTS: from our government, for it was made to subject to the
Plaintiffs herein are court stenographers assigned for the provisions of our Corporate Law in so far as its corporate
previous case of defendant (Francisco Sycip v. NACOCO). existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned.
Assistant Corporate Counsel, Frederico Alikpala, counsel for "Government of the Republic of the Philippines" used
defendant, requested copies of the transcript of the notes in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to
during hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the said request, and that government entity through which the functions of the
sent the copies along with a billing of Php 714 (Php 1/page), government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and
for which NACOCO paid. in this are included those arms through which political
authority is made effective whether they be provincial,
On January 19 1953, NACOCO’s Auditor General, disallowed municipal or other form of local government.
the payment and required plaintiff to reimburse said amounts
on the strength of a circular of the Dept. of justice expressing
that NACOCO, being a government entity, was exempt from RUFFY v. CHIEF OF STAFF
payment of the fees in question.
On Feb 6, 1954, the Auditor General issued an order FACTS:
directing the cashier of the Dept. of Justice to deduct form the
salary of Leopoldo Bacani Php25 every cutoff and from Mateo Petitioners filed for prohibition, praying that the respondents,
Matoto the amount of Php10 every payday. Chief of Staff and the General Court Martial, be ceased from
further proceedings in their trial. Petitioners seek in their
Defendants claim that NACOCO is a government entity under memorandum to convert the petition into one for certiorari,
SEC 2 of the Revised Administration Code of 1917; with the records of the proceedings before the General Court
'The Government of the Philippine Islands' is a term Martial. The ground of the petition was that the Petitioners
which refers to the corporate governmental entity were not subject to military law at the time the offense was
through which the functions of government are committed. They have also raised an additional question on
exercised throughout the Philippine Islands, the constitutionality of 93rd Article of War.
including, save as the contrary appears from the
context, the various arms through which political On Feb 27, 1942, the Japanese forces landed in Mindoro,
authority is made effective in said Islands, whether petitioner Major Ruffy retreated to the mountains instead of
pertaining to the central Government or to the surrendering to the enemy and organized/led a guerilla outfit
provincial or municipal branches or other form of known as Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area.
local government." However, on June 8, 1944, a change in the command of the
Bolo Area was effected by a certain Colonel Jurado; relieving
However, after trial, the court favors the plaintiffs declaring; Major Ruffy of his post with Capt. Esteban Beloncio.
1. NACOCO is not a government entity within the
purview of SEC 16, Rule 130 of the Rule of Court On Oct 19, 1944, Col. Jurado was slain allegedly by the
2. The payments already made by defendant to plaintiff petitioners. After commission of said crime, petitioners
in the amount of Php714, for copies of the allegedly seceded from the 6th Military District. It was this
stenographic transcripts are valid, just and legal. murder which gave rise to petitioners’ trial, the legality of
3. The plaintiff under no obligation whatsoever to make which is now being contested.
a refund of these payments already received by them.
ISSUE/S
The Government of the PH is exempt from paying legal RULING/S
fees provided therein.
Petition has no merit and that it should be dismissed with
ISSUE/s: costs.
RULING/s:
Petition appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as Whether or not petitioners were subject to military law at the
to costs. time offense was committed, which was at the time of war and
Japanese occupancy. YES
Whether or not NACOCO may be considered as a government By the petitioners’ acceptance of appointments as
entity and can be exempted of the legal fees in question. NO officers in the Bolo Area, they became members of the PH
The term “Government of the Republic of the PH” army which is still covered by National Defense Act, Articles of
refers to a government entity through which the functions of War and other laws – the Bolo Area being a contingent of the
government are exercised. The NACOCO, while it was 6th military district which is recognized by the US army.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 13

in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of

PH VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMIN v. CIR social justice."

FACTS: Thus was laid to rest the doctrine in Bacani v. NACOCO, based
On Dec 20, 1966, private respondents, filed with the on the Wilsonian classification of the tasks incumbent on
respondent Court a petition wherein they alleged their government into constituent and ministrant in accordance
employment relationship, the overtime services in excess of with the Laissez Faire principle.
the regular 8hrs/day rendered by them, and the failure to pay
them overtime compensation in accordance with CA No, 444. Wherefore, the appealed Order and Resolution of respondent
Court, denying a motion for reconsideration are hereby
Petitioner denied the allegations and raised a special defenses affirmed.
of lack of cause of action and lack or jurisdiction.

Presiding judge Arsenio Martinez issued an order sustaining

the claims of private respondents and directing petitioner to
pay the same, minus what it had already paid.

Petitioner predicate its plea for reversal of the order

complained of the basic proposition that it is beyond the
jurisdiction of respondent court as it is exercising
governmental functions and that it is exempted from the
operation of CA No. 444.

ISSUE/s:
RULING/s:

Whether or not can be exempt of the CA No. 444 as it is

exercising governmental function? YES
From a cursory perusal of the purposes and objectives
of RA No. 2265, creating PVTA and RA No. 4155, amending the
same, it is clear that the said body exercises governmental and
not propriety function.

Whether or not the the traditional classification of functions of

government as ministrant and constituent applicable in the
case at bar. NO
Under this traditional classification, such constituent
functions are exercised by the State as attributes of
sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress
and prosperity of the people — these latter functions being
ministrant, the exercise of which is optional on the part of the
government.”
Nonetheless, as he explained so persuasively: "The growing
complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this
traditional classification of the functions of government quite
unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left
to private enterprise and initiative and which the government
was called upon to enter optionally, and only 'because it was
better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is
any private individual or group of individuals,' continue to lose
their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within
activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign
capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the
times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is
undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic
forces. Here of course this development was envisioned,
indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 14

of these funds should not be approved by the Government of

GOV’T OF THE PH ISLANDS v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Spain, the same would be returned forthwith. It did not ask
that the $80,000 be given to its as a donation.
FACTS:
About $400,000 were subscribed and paid into the treasury od Whether or not the obligation on the part of Monte de Piedad
the PH Islands by the inhabitants of the Spanish Dominions, for to return the $80,000 to the government, even considering it
the relief of those damages by the earthquakes which took a loan, was wiped out on the change of sovereignty? NO
place June 3, 1863. The court ruled that if legal provisions are in conflict
Oct 6, 1863, a central relief board was appointed, by authority with political character, they become inoperative or lost their
of the king of Spain, to distribute money. Thus voluntarily force upon the cession of the PH island to the USA, but if they
contributed and allotted $365,701.50 to the various sufferers are among “that great body of municipal law which regulates
named in the resolution. These were later distributed up to the private & domestic rights,” they continue in force and are still
sum of $30,299.65, leaving a balance of $365,403.85 for in force unless they have been repealed by the present
distribution. government.
The Philippine Government, by order dated the 1st of that
month, directed its treasurer to turn over to the Monte de Whether or not the government is a property party to the case
Piedad the sum of $80,000 of the relief fund in installments of under the doctrine of parens patriea. YES
$20,000 each. These amounts were received on the following The grounds upon which the right of the government
dates: February 15, March 12, April 14, and June 2, 1883, and to maintain the action rest on the fact the money, being given
are still in the possession of the Monte de Piedad. to a charity becomes public property. It is within those limits
consecrated to the public use, and become part of the public
The PH legislature passed ACT No. 2109, effective Jan 30, 1912, resources for promoting happiness and welfare of the PH
empowering and directing the Treasurer of the PH Islands to government.
file a suit against Monte de Piedad to recover the $80,000,
together with interest. Whether or not the PH government is bound by the statute of
After due trial, judgment favors plaintiff for the sum limitation? NO
of $80,000 gold or its equivalent in PH currency, together with In 25 cyc., 1006, the rule, supported by numerous
legal interest from Feb 28, 1912. authorities is as follows;
 In the absence of express statutory provision to the
The defendant appealed and makes the following assignment contrary, statute limitations do not as a general rule
of error; run against the sovereign, whether state or federal.
1. The $80,000 given to the Monte de Piedad were so  the rule is otherwise where the mischief to be
given as a donation and said donation were already remedied are of such a nature that the state must
cleared. necessarily be included, where the state goes into
2. The government of the PH has not yet subrogated the business in concert or in competition with her
Spanish Government in its rights, as regard an citizens, or where a party seeks to enforces his private
important sum of money above-mentioned; rights by suit in the name of the state or government,
3. ACT No. 2109 passed by the PH legislature is so that the latter is only a nominal party.
unconstitutional.
4. the court erred in holding its decision that there is no
title for the prescription of this suit brought by the
Insular Gov’t against the defendant-appellant.
5. The court erred in sentencing Monte de Piedad to
reimburse the PH gov’t in the sum of $80,000

ISSUE/s:
RULING/s:
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is
affirmed.

Whether or not the $80,000 received by Monte de Piedad was

in form of donation? NO
The foregoing documentary evidence shows the
nature of the transactions which took place between the
Government of Spain and the Philippine Government on the
one side and the Monte de Piedad on the other, concerning
the $80,000. The Monte de Piedad agreed that if the transfer
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 15

PEOPLE v. GOZO CIR v. CAMPOS RUEDA

FACTS: FACTS

Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval
Reservation, she demolished the house and built another one
in its place without securing a building permit from City Mayor.
On Dec 29, 1966, Juan Morales, Building and lot inspector,
force apprehended four carpenters working on the house of
the accused and brought them to police head quarters for
interrogation. After due investigation, respondent was
charged with violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, S. of
1964 with City Fiscal’s Office. The City Court of Olongapo found
her guilty of violating Municipal Oder No. 14, Series of 1964
and sentenced her to an imprisonment of one month as well
as to pay the costs and demolish the house erected.

Appellant seeks to set aside a judgment of the Court

of First Instance of Zambales, convicting her of a violation of an
ordinance, requiring a permit from the municipal mayor for the
construction of a building. She questions it validity, or at the
very least, its applicability to her in view of the location of her
dwelling within naval based leased to the American Armed
Forces; she contended that the municipal government cannot
exercise therein administrative jurisdiction.

ISSUE/s:
RULING/s:
the appealed decision of November 11, 1969 is affirmed
insofar as it found the accused, Loreta Gozo, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of a violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14,
series of 1964

Whether the municipal ordinance has validity to file a case

against respondent? YES
The authority required building permits is predicated
upon the general welfare clause. Its scope covers every aspect
of public health, morals, safety, and the well being and good
order of the community.

Whether or not the municipal cooperation retains its

administrative jurisdiction inside the US Naval Reservation
where Gozo’s house was located? YES
By the agreement, the PH government merely
consent that the US exercise jurisdiction over certain cases.
This consent was given purely as a matter of comity and
courtesy. The PH has not abdicated its sovereignty over the
bases as part of the PH territory or divested itself completely
of jurisdiction over offenses committed. Under the terms of
the treaty, US has preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction
over such offenses.
Consti 1 - Atty. Mariacos 16

RUFFY v. CHIEF OF STAFF

FACTS:

Petitioners filed for prohibition, praying that the respondents,

Chief of Staff and the General Court Martial, be ceased from
further proceedings in their trial. Petitioners seek in their
memorandum to convert the petition into one for certiorari,
with the records of the proceedings before the General Court
Martial. The ground of the petition was that the Petitioners
were not subject to military law at the time the offense was
committed. They have also raised an additional question on
the constitutionality of 93rd Article of War.

On Feb 27, 1942, the Japanese forces landed in Mindoro,

petitioner Major Ruffy retreated to the mountains instead of
surrendering to the enemy and organized/led a guerilla outfit
known as Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area.
However, on June 8, 1944, a change in the command of the
Bolo Area was effected by a certain Colonel Jurado; relieving
Major Ruffy of his post with Capt. Esteban Beloncio.

On Oct 19, 1944, Col. Jurado was slain allegedly by the

petitioners. After commission of said crime, petitioners
allegedly seceded from the 6th Military District. It was this
murder which gave rise to petitioners’ trial, the legality of
which is now being contested.

ISSUE/S
RULING/S

Petition has no merit and that it should be dismissed with

costs.

Whether or not petitioners were subject to military law at the

time offense was committed, which was at the time of war and
Japanese occupancy. YES
By the petitioners’ acceptance of appointments as
officers in the Bolo Area, they became members of the PH
army which is still covered by National Defense Act, Articles of
War and other laws – the Bolo Area being a contingent of the
6th military district which is recognized by the US army.