US v. DORR, 2 Phil.

332 (1903) RULING: The Court held that the article published by Dorr, in which he
virulently attacked the policy of the Civil Commission in appointing Filipinos
Facts: In this case, the defendants have been convicted in a complaint
to office, did not come within the purview of the law, although it "may have
charging them with the offense of writing, publishing, and circulating a
had the effect of exciting among certain classes dissatisfaction with the
scurrilous libel against the Government of US and Philippines. The
Commission and its measures." It found that there was nothing in the
complaint is based on section 8 of Act No. 292 of the commission “Every
article which could "be regarded as having a tendency to produce anything
person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or
like what may be called disaffection, or, other words, a state of feeling
circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or
incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and
the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb
obedient to the laws."
or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to
instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which The message which the accused herein caused to be published with his
suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up picture contained no libel or criticism against the instituted system of
the people against the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the government as distinct from the administration. On the contrary, the gist of
community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall the message was that the author was desperate and was going to kill
knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not himself because many men in the government were following the practices
exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two of absolute and despotic rulers in other parts of the world. He wanted
years, or both, in the discretion of the court. President Truman and Mr. Churchill, leading exponents of such democratic
institutions as are consecrated in the Philippine Constitution, to be
The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the issue of the “Manila
informed that President Roxas and others in his administration were
Freedom” (April 6, 1902 – A Few Hard Facts) (Many branches of the govt
unfaithful to the tenets of constitutional government. He pointed to the
organized by civil commission are rotten and corrupt and men of no
turbulent situation in Central Luzon, the rampant banditry in Leyte, the
personal character and that the Philippines is far from being what it should
attempted assassination of President Roxas by Guillen, etc., not as
and that the Filipino office holders are rascals/dishonest.) The court states
examples to be emulated to be emulated but as the direct outcome of
that it is not claimed that defendants succeeded in establishing the truth of
what he claimed widespread graft and corruption in the Government. He
any of the statements during the trial. The important question is to
pretended to have decided to take his life because he was impotent to
determine what is meant in section 8 of Act No. 292 by the expression "the
remedy or suppress this deplorable state of affairs, and he ashamed of the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." Does it mean in a general
way the Government was being conducted. He likened some men in the
and abstract sense the existing laws and institutions of the Islands, or does
Government, whom he did not specify, to Hitler and Mussolini, not that he
it mean the aggregate of the individuals by whom the government of the
idolized those notorious characters but because, he felt, evil forces that
Islands is, for the time being, administered? Either sense would doubtless
undermined the ideas and ideals of the Constitution were at work in our
be admissible. The only question that is considered is that whether their
republic. In short, far from advocation the overthrow or change of the
publication constitutes an offense under sec 8 of act no. 292.
present scheme of polity, the article evinced intense feeling of devotion to
ISSUE: Whether or not the publication of Dorr constitutes and offense the welfare of the country and its institutions.
under section 8 of Act No. 292
President Roxas was the only official named in the article. But the
defendant did not counsel violence in his reference to the President and
the unnamed officials. In his statement to the effect that he was going to Twofold functions: CONSTITUENT AND MINISTRANT
kill himself because he could not kill President Roxas and the men who
Constituent – are those which constitute the very bonds of society and are
surrounded the Executive, it is not a necessary deduction that he wished
compulsory in nature.
others to do it. Let it be remembered that the message was addressed to
the writer's "wife" and "children" who, it turned out, were imaginary. 1. Keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and
property from violence and robbery
At best, the meaning of the sentence is doubtful and the norm is that,
2. Fixing of legal relations between man and wife and between
where the defendant's intention is ambiguous he should be given the
parents and children
benefit of the doubt. The courts may not subject an act or utterance to a
3. Regulation of holding, transmission, and interchange of property,
microscopic examination in an endeavor to find in it germs of seditious
and determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime
utmost caution is called for lest the freedom of expression be impaired.
4. Contract rights between individuals
Although statutes against sedition have been held not to violate the
5. Definition of punishment of crime
constitutional guaranty to the freedom of expression, the courts are
6. Administration of justice in civil cases
warned to so construe or interpret them as not to abridge that freedom.
7. Political duties, privileges, relations of citizens
(33 C.J., 164, citing U.S. vs. Apurado et al., 7 Phil., 422.) It is axiomatic that
8. Dealings of state with foreign powers
the Constitution is the paramount law and that legislation has to be
adjusted thereto. Accordingly in the solution of clashes, which frequently Ministrant – are those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the
occur, between liberty or free speech and prosecution for sedition, the general interests of society, and are merely optional.
criterion, it is submitted, should be the presence or absence of real, not
imaginary, danger of the utterance materializing or inciting others to 1. Public works
disloyalty to the Government and its laws. 2. Public education
3. Public charity
GOVERNMENT: In the case of US v. Dorr, government may be defined as 4. Health and safety regulations
“that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent 5. Trade and industry
society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to
enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people Government-owned or controlled corporations (=NACOCO)
forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of
BACANI v. NACOCO
prescribing them.”
The mere fact that the government happens to be a major stockholder of a
Gobyerno - Gumagawa at nagsasakatuparan ng mga alituntunin ng pagkilos
corporation does not make it a public corporation
na kinakailangan upang ang mga tao ay mamuhay sa isang panlipunang
estado, o na ipinataw sa mga taong bumubuo ng lipunang iyon ng mga may FACTS:
kapangyarihan o awtoridad
The plaintiffs are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of
3 branches of government: legislative, executive, and judiciary through First Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said
which the powers and functions of government are exercised. court, entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant
Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for defendant, requested said
stenographers for copies, of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken bonds of society and are compulsory in nature; the latter are those that are
by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of society, and
delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages are merely optional.
and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees.
To this latter class belongs the organization of those corporations owned or
The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T.
controlled by the government to promote certain aspects of the economic
Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1
life of our people such as the National Coconut Corporation. These are
per page.
what we call government-owned or controlled corporations, which may
Upon inspecting the books of this corporation, the Auditor General take on the form of a private enterprise or one organized with powers and
disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the formal characteristics of a private corporation under the Corporation Law.
amounts paid. The respondents argue that National Coconut Corporation
But while NACOCO was organized for the ministrant function of promoting
may be considered as included in the term “Government of the Republic of
the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate
the Philippines” for the purposes of the exemption of the legal fees
and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the
provided for in Rule 1-30 of the Rules of Court.
provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and
the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4,
ISSUE: Commonwealth Act No. 518).

WON NACOCO is a part of the Government of the Philippines by virtue of ―Government of the Republic of the Philippines” used in section 2 of the
its performance of government functions. Revised Administrative Code refers only to that government entity through
which the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of
sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which political
RULING: No, NACOCO does not acquire that status for the simple reason authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other
that it does not come under the classification of municipal or public form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations.
corporation. To resolve the issue in this case requires a little digression on They do not include government entities, which are given a corporate
the nature and functions of our government as instituted in our personality, separate and distinct from the government and ‘which are
Constitution. To begin with, we state that the term “Government” may be governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, duties and liabilities have
defined as “that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an to be determined in the light of that law and of their corporate charters.
independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are
necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed As this Court has aptly said, “The mere fact that the Government happens
upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or to be a majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation”
authority of prescribing them” (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil., 332). This institution, (National Coal Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil., 586-597). “By
when referring to the national government, has reference to what our becoming a stockholder in the National Coal Company, the Government
Constitution has established composed of three great departments, the divested itself of its sovereign character as far as respects the transactions
legislative, executive, and the judicial, through which the powers and of the corporation. Unlike the Government, the corporation may be sued
functions of government are exercised. These functions are twofold: without its consent, and is subject to taxation. Yet the National Coal
constitute and ministrant. The former are those which constitute the very
Company remains an agency or instrumentality of government.” of public schools and public hospitals. And when, aside from the
(Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Springer, 50 Phil., 288.) governmental objectives of the ACA, geared as they are to the
implementation of the land reform program of the State, the law itself
ACCFA v. CUGCO, G.R. No. L-21484, November 29, 1969
declares that the ACA is a government office, with the formulation of
FACTS: ACCFA, a government agency created under RA 821, as amended policies, plans and programs vested no longer in a Board of Governors, as
was reorganized and its name changed to Agricultural Credit Administration in the case of the ACCFA, but in the National Land Reform Council, itself a
(ACA) under the RA 3844 or Land Reform Code. While ACCFA Supervisors' government instrumentality; and that its personnel are subject to Civil
Association (ASA) and the ACCFA Workers' Association (AWA), are labor Service laws and to rules of standardization with respect to positions and
organizations (the Unions) composed of the supervisors and the rank-and- salaries, any vestige of doubt as to the governmental character of its
file employees in the ACCFA. functions disappears.

A CBA was agreed upon by labor unions (ASA and AWA) and ACCFA. The
said CBA was supposed to be effective on 1 July 1962. Due to non-
The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this
implementation of the CBA the unions held a strike. And 5 days later, the
traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic,
Unions, with its mother union, the Confederation of Unions in Government
not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise
Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a complaint against ACCFA before
and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter
the CIR on ground of alleged acts of unfair labor practices; violation of the
optionally, and only "because it was better equipped to administer for the
collective bargaining agreement in order to discourage the members of the
public welfare than is any private individual or group of
Unions in the exercise of their right to self-organization, discrimination
individuals,"5continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be
against said members in the matter of promotions and refusal to bargain.
absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its
ACCFA moved for a reconsideration but while the appeal was pending, RA sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the
3844 was passed which effectively turned ACCFA to ACA. Then, ASA and times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly
AWA petitioned that they obtain sole bargaining rights with ACA. While this towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course this
petition was not yet decided upon, EO 75 was also passed which placed development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the
ACA under the Land Reform Project Administration. Notwithstanding the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion
latest legislation passed, the trial court and the appellate court ruled in of social justice.
favor of ASA and AWA.
REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN
ISSUE: W/N ACA is a government entity
FACTS: The PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for
RULING: Yes. It was in furtherance of such policy that the Land Reform reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against
Code was enacted and the various agencies, the ACA among them, private respondents Bienvenido Tantoco and Dominador Santiago, et al.
established to carry out its purposes. There can be no dispute as to the fact Private respondents jointly moved to strike out some portions of the
that the land reform program contemplated in the said Code is beyond the complaint and for bill of particulars of other portions, which motion was
capabilities of any private enterprise to translate into reality. It is a purely opposed by the PCGG. The Sandiganbayan gave the PCGG 45 days to
governmental function, no less than, the establishment and maintenance expand its complaint to make more specific certain allegations.
Private respondents then presented a Motion to leave to file The PCGG cannot claim a superior or preferred status to the State, even
interrogatories under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. The Sandiganbayan while assuming of an act for the State. The suggestion that the State makes
denied private respondents‘ motions. Private respondents filed an Answer no implied waiver of immunity by filing a suit except when in doing so it
to with Compulsory Counterclaim. In response, the PCGG presented a acts in, or in matters concerning, its proprietary or nongovernmental
Reply to Counterclaim with Motion to Dismiss compulsory counterclaim. capacity, is unacceptable. It attempts a distinction without support in
Private respondents filed a pleading denominated Interrogatories to principle or precedent. On the contrary, ―the consent of the State to be
Plaintiff, and Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff as well as a motion for sued may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be
production and inspection of documents. manifested either through a general law or a special law. Implied consent is
given when the State itself commences litigation or when it enters into a
The Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Interrogatories and granted the
contract.
motion for production and inspection of documents respectively.
MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS
The PCGG moved for reconsideration, arguing that the documents are
privileged in character since they are intended to be used against the PCGG FACTS: In this case, former President Corazon Aquino bars the Marcoses
and/or its Commission in violation of Sec.4 of EO No. 1, V12: from returning to the Philippines on ground of national interest.

1. No civil action shall lie against the Commission or any member The argument of the petitioner states that under Section 6 of Art. 3, the
thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task President is without pwer to impair the liberty of abode nor impair the
contemplated by this Order. right to travel because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed
by law and because no law has authorized her to do so.
2. No member or staff by the Commission shall be required to testify
or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative Respondents argue for the importance of the right of the state to national
proceedings concerning matter within its official cognizance. security over individual rights (Art. 2, Sec. 4&5)

The Sandiganbayan promulgated two Resolutions. The first, denying Dissenting opinion: It is also said that Mr. Marcos, in cadaver form, has no
reconsideration of the Resolution allowing production of the documents, constitutional or human rights, to speak of. This contention entirely begs
and the second, reiterating, by implication the permission to serve the the issue. In the first place, one cannot overlook that the right of Mr.
amended interrogatories on the plaintiff. Marcos, as a Filipino, to be buried in this country, is asserted not for the
first time after his death. It was vigorously asserted long before his death.
But, more importantly, the right of every Filipino to be buried in his
ISSUE: Is the PCGG immune from suit? country, is part of a continuing right that starts from birth and ends only
on the day he is finally laid to rest in his country.
HELD: NO. The state is of course immune from suit in the sense that it ISSUE: Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution
cannot, as a rule, be sued without its consent. However, it is axiomatic that to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines
in filing an action, it divests itself of its sovereign character and sheds its
immunity from suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant. RULING: Yes. Though the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this
list is not defined & exclusive. The President has residual & discretionary
powers not stated in the Constitution which include the power to protect guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution. Any alleged violation of the
the general welfare of the people. The President is obliged to protect the Constitution by any branch of government is a proper matter for judicial
people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 review.
of the Constitution). Residual powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt,
dictate that the President can do anything which is not forbidden in the As the petitions involve constitutional issues which are of paramount public
Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to vest discretionary powers interest or of transcendental importance, the Court grants the petitioners,
on the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president has petitioners-in-intervention and intervening respondents the requisite locus
to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day standi in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in David v. Macapagal-
operation of the State. Arroyo.

In Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre, this Court HELD:

x x x [B]y the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the
challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. THE GRP controversy even without any other overt act. Indeed, even a singular
violation of the Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial
FACTS: The petitions before the Supreme Court were consolidated cases
duty.x x x x
challenging the legality of the Memorandum of Agreement on the
Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on
By the same token, when an act of the President, who in our constitutional
Peace of 2001, which was scheduled to be signed between the
scheme is a coequal of Congress, is seriously alleged to have infringed the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic
Constitution and the laws x x x settling the dispute becomes the duty and
Liberation Front (MILF) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on August 5, 2008. The
the responsibility of the courts.
petitioners included the Province of North Cotabato, the City Government
of Zamboanga, the City of Iligan, the Provincial Government of Zamboanga
That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate
del Norte, and several senators, among others. They sought to prevent the
ripeness.
signing of the MOA-AD and to have it declared unconstitutional for several
reasons, including the lack of public consultation and the perceived Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No. 109406, September 11,1998
unconstitutional provisions within the MOA-AD that seemed to grant
excessive powers to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) beyond what the FACTS: On Feb. 21, 1992, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 268 which granted
Constitution allows for autonomous regions. each official and employee of the government the productivity incentive
benefits in a maximum amount equivalent to 30% of the employee’s one
ISSUE: Whether or not the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is month basic salary but which amount not be less than P2, 000.00. Said AO
ripe for adjudication provided that the productivity incentive benefits shall be granted only for
the year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of agencies, including
RULING: Yes, the petitions are ripe for adjudication. The failure of the
government boards of government-owned or controlled corporations and
respondents to consult the local government units or communities affected
financial institutions, are strictly prohibited from granting productivity
constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate under EO No.
incentive benefits for the year 1992 and future years pending the result of
3. Moreover, the respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of
a comprehensive study being undertaken by the Office of the Pres.
The Pres. issued subject AOs to regulate the grant of productivity incentive
The petitioners, who are officials and employees of several government benefits and to prevent discontent, dissatisfaction and demoralization
departments and agencies, were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992. among government personnel by committing limited resources of
Then, on Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres. Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the government for the equal payment of incentives and awards. The Pres. was
grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in the maximum only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the heads of
amount of P1,000.00 and reiterating the prohibition under Sec. 7 of AO the government agencies who granted incentive benefits to their
268, enjoining the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the Pres.,
approval of the President. Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all departments, offices thereby resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources.
and agencies which authorized payment of productivity incentive bonus for
the year 1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately cause the refund of The President’s duty to execute the law is of constitutional origin. So, too, is
the excess. In compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or his control of executive departments.
agencies of the government concerned caused the deduction from
ZABAL v. DUTERTE
petitioners’ salaries or allowances of the amounts needed to cover the
alleged overpayments. FACTS: President Rodrigo R. Duterte, witnessing Boracay Island’s
devastation due to abuse, declared a need for its temporary closure to
ISSUE: Whether or not AO 29 and AO 268 were issued in the valid exercise
undergo rehabilitation. He branded the island as a cesspool during a
of presidential control over the executive departments
February 2018 business forum. The closure was announced to be a
RULING: The Pres. is the head of the government. Governmental power maximum of six months, commencing on April 26, 2018. Police and military
and authority are exercised and implemented through him. His power troops were deployed to the island, and guidelines for closure were
includes the control of executive departments as provided under Sec. 17, disseminated by the Department of Interior and Local Government.
Art. VII of the Constitution.
Petitioners Mark Anthony V. Zabal and Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, both
residents reliant on Boracay’s tourism, together with Odon S. Bandiola who
Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what
frequents the island for business and leisure, challenged the legality of the
a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
island’s closure on April 25, 2018. They sought immediate issuance of a
substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The Pres. can,
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Preliminary Injunction. They argued
by virtue of his power of control, review, modify, alter or nullify any action
that the decline in tourist engagements severely affected their livelihoods
or decision of his subordinate in the executive departments, bureau or
and feared complete economic loss due to the upcoming closure. On April
offices under him.
26, 2018, President Duterte officially promulgated Proclamation No. 475,
formally declaring Boracay in a state of calamity, and ordered a six-month
When the Pres. issued AO 29 limiting the amount of incentive
closure, substantiating the earlier verbal declarations.
benefits, enjoining heads of government agencies from granting incentive
benefits without approval from him and directing the refund of the excess The Supreme Court required respondents to comment on the petition.
over the prescribed amount, the Pres. was just exercising his power of Petitioners emphasized that the Proclamation represented an invalid
control over executive departments.
exercise of legislative powers and infringed upon their constitutional rights President) may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
to travel and due process, affecting their livelihood. privelege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law xxx";
Respondents, on their part, contended that the President is immune from
suit. They argued that the petition is inappropriate since the acts WHEREAS, Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
complained of (closure and rehabilitation) have already started, and that 6968, provides that "the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by
mandamus does not lie as they were performing a duty to protect the rising and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing
environment, not neglecting it. from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or
ISSUE: Whether the President acted within his constitutional powers in
other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature,
ordering the closure of Boracay for rehabilitation.
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives";
RULING: The Court dismissed the petition, finding Proclamation No. 475
WHEREAS, part of the reasons for the issuance of Proclamation No. 55 was
constitutional. The President did not usurp legislative powers. The closure
the series of violent acts committed by the Maute terrorist group such as
was within the ambit of powers vested to the executive branch and in
the attack on the military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur in February 2016,
compliance with the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
killing and wounding several soldiers, and the mass jailbreak in Marawi City
Act and other environmental laws. Environmental degradation and
in August 2016, freeing their arrested comrades and other detainees;
resulting social and economic effects prompted the Philippine government
to take drastic steps to rehabilitate Boracay Island. It exposed the tensions WHEREAS, today, 23 May 2017, the same Maute terrorist group has taken
between environmental conservation efforts of the government and the over a hospital in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, established several
constitutional rights of individuals affected by such measures. The decision checkpoints within the City, burned down certain government and private
affirms the principle that individual rights can be curtailed for general facilities and inflicted casualties on the part of Government forces, and
welfare under the valid exercise of police power, provided due process is started flying flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in several
observed. The case underscores the challenges in balancing environmental areas, thereby openly attempting to remove from the allegiance to the
conservation with economic and social rights, highlighting governance Philippine Government this part of Mindanao and deprive the Chief
issues in disaster risk reduction and management. Executive of his powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land
and to maintain public order and safety in Mindanao, constituting the
[ PROCLAMATION NO. 216, May 23, 2017 ]
crime of rebellion; and
DECLARING A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVELEGE
WHEREAS, this recent attack shows the capability of the Maute group and
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE WHOLE OF MINDANAO
not only in Lanao del Sur but also in other parts of Mindanao.ℒαwρhi ৷
other rebel groups to sow terror, and cause death and damage to property
WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 55, series of 2016, was issued on 04
September 2016 declaring a state of national emergency on account of
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, President of the Republic of
lawless violence in Mindanao;
the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution
WHEREAS, section 18, Article VII of the Constitution provides that "xxx In and by law, do hereby proclaim, as follows:
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he (the
Section 1. There is hereby declared a state of martial law in the Mindanao declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
group of islands for a period not exceeding sixty days, effective as of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
date hereof.
Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power not reposed upon it. However,
Section 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall likewise be knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be possible or
suspended in the aforesaid area for the duration of the state of martial law. practicable for Congress to meet and exercise its powers, the framers of
our Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant emergency
FORTUN v. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
powers to the President, subject to certain conditions, thus:
FACTS: These case concern the constitutionality of a presidential
 (1) There must be a war or other emergency.
proclamation of Martial Law and suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus in
2009 in the province of Mindanao which were withdrawn after just 8 days.  (2) The delegation must be for a limited period only.

Nov 24, 2009, after the brutal killings of 57 people in Maguindanao,  (3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the
President Arroyo declare a state of emergency in Maguindanao, Sultan Congress may prescribe.
Kudarat and Cotabato City
 (4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a
Dec 4, 2009 national policy declared by Congress.

EMERGENCY POWER - There’s a distinction between the Presidents Contracting and Guaranteeing Foreign Loans
authority to declare a “state of national emergency” and to “exercise
The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the
emergency powers.” The President has the power to declare a “state of
Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary
national emergency” even without authorization from Congress. The
Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The
exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking over of privately owned
Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of
public utility or business affected with public interest, is a different matter.
the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decisions
This requires a delegation from Congress.
on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the
Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. This is evident Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which
in the tenor of Section 23 (2), Article VI authorizing the Congress to would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other
delegate such powers to the President. Section 23, Article VI of matters as may be provided by law. (Section 20, Article VII, 1987
the Constitution reads: Constitution of the Philippines)

SEC. 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint REQUISITES
session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare
This includes, first, the concurrence of the Monetary Board (Section 20,
the existence of a state of war.
Article VII, 1987 Constitution), second, subject to the limitations as may
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, be provided by law (Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution), and third,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed shall be made
as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a available to the public. (Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution)
It is important to note that the President does not need the prior and personally” can validly bind the country. Hence, they would like Cuisia
approval by the Congress because the Constitution places the power to et al to stop acting pursuant to the said scheme.
check the President’s power on the Monetary Board. But Congress may
ISSUE: Whether or not the President of the Philippines can validly delegate
provide guidelines and have them enforced through the Monetary
her debt power to the respondents.
Board.
HELD: Yes. There is no question that the president has borrowing powers
According to the Bureau of the Treasury, the National Government’s (NG)
and that the President may contract or guarantee foreign loans in behalf of
total outstanding debt was registered at P12.76 trillion as of end-April
this country with prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. It makes no
2022. The NG domestic debt amounted to P8.93 trillion while the NG
distinction whatsoever, and the fact that a debt or a loan may be onerous is
external debt amounted to P3.83 trillion. The increment to external debt
irrelevant. On the other hand, the President can delegate this power to her
was due to the net availment of external loans amounting to P28.56
direct subordinates. The evident exigency of having the Secretary of
billion and the effect of Peso depreciation against the USD amounting to
Finance implement the decision of the President to execute the debt-relief
P31.50 billion.
contracts is made manifest by the fact that the process of establishing and
Constantino v. Cuisia, G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005 executing a strategy for managing the government’s debt is deep within the
realm of the expertise of the Department of Finance, primed as it is to raise
FACTS: During the Corazon Aquino regime, her administration came up
the required amount of funding, achieve its risk and cost objectives, and
with a scheme to reduce the country’s external debt. The solution resorted
meet any other sovereign debt management goals. If the President were to
to was to incur foreign debts. Three restructuring programs were sought to
personally exercise every aspect of the foreign borrowing power, he/she
initiate the program for foreign debts, they are basically buyback programs
would have to pause from running the country long enough to focus on a
and bond-conversion programs. The spouses Renato Constantino, Jr. and
welter of time-consuming detailed activities, the propriety of
Lourdes Constantino, as a taxpayers, and in behalf of their minor children
incurring/guaranteeing loans, studying and choosing among the many
who are Filipino citizens, together with FFDC (Freedom From Debt
methods that may be taken toward this end, meeting countless times with
Coalition) averred that the buyback and bond-conversion schemes were
creditor representatives to negotiate, obtaining the concurrence of the
onerous and they do not constitute the loan “contract” or “guarantee”
Monetary Board, explaining and defending the negotiated deal to the
contemplated in Sec. 20, Art. VII of the Constitution. And assuming that the
public, and more often than not, flying to the agreed place of execution to
President has such power, unlike other powers which may be validly
sign the documents. This sort of constitutional interpretation would negate
delegated by the President, the power to incur foreign debts is expressly
the very existence of cabinet positions and the respective expertise which
reserved by the Constitution in the person of the President, hence, the
the holders thereof are accorded and would unduly hamper the President’s
respondents herein, Central Bank Governor Jose Cuisia et al, cannot incur
effectivity in running the government. The act of the Cuisia et al are not
debts for the Philippines nor such power can be delegated to them.
unconstitutional.
Constantino argued that the gravity by which the exercise of the power will
affect the Filipino nation requires that the President alone must exercise
this power. They argue that the requirement of prior concurrence of an
Exception
entity specifically named by the Constitution, the Monetary Board,
reinforces the submission that not respondents but the President “alone
There are certain acts which, by their very nature, cannot be validated by
subsequent approval or ratification by the President. There are certain
constitutional powers and prerogatives of the Chief Executive of the Nation
which must be exercised by him in person and no amount of approval or
ratification will validate the exercise of any of those powers by any other
person. Such, for instance, in his power to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus and proclaim martial law and the exercise by him of the benign
prerogative of pardon (mercy).

There are certain presidential powers which arise out of exceptional

circumstances, and if exercised, would involve the suspension of
fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the supersedence of executive
prerogatives over those exercised by co-equal branches of government.
The declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus,
and the exercise of the pardoning power notwithstanding the judicial
determination of guilt of the accused, all fall within this special class that
demands the exclusive exercise by the President of the constitutionally
vested power. The list is by no means exclusive, but there must be a
showing that the executive power in question is of similar gravitas and
exceptional import.