Chapter v Cases

8/18/2019 Chapter v Cases

1/22

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs. JUSTO LUKBAN

39 PHIL 778, Marc !", #9#9

$ac%s& Justo Lukban the Mayor of Manila out of good intentions, in order to

exterminate vice, ordered the district for prostitutes closed. Between

October ! and "# of $!, the women were confined in their houses by the

police, within this period the city government managed to arrange with the

bureau of labor for the women to be sent to %avao, Mindanao as Laborers, and

secured two coast guard cutters to transport the women with the

constabulary as guards. &bout midnight of October "# upon the orders of the

chief of police &nton 'ohman and Mayor Lukban, the police hustled some ()

women in patrol wagons and delivered them to the steamers ready to transport

them to %avao.

*he vessels reached their destination at %avao on October "$. *he women were

landed and receipted for as laborers +eliciano -igo and afael /astillo,

*he governor and the hacendero of %avao. 0hile the two vessels were underway

to %avao the relatives and friends of the deported women filed an

application for habeas corpus. *he application set forth and alleged that

the women were illegally re1 strained of their liberty by Justo Lukban,

Mayor of the city of Manila, &nton 'ohmann, chief of police of the city of

Manila, and by certain unknown parties.

*he fiscal appeared in begalf of Mayor Lukban, /hief &nton 'ohman and prayedthat the writ should not be granted because the action should have been

begun in the /ourt of +irst 2nstance for %avao, %epartment of Mindanao and

3ulu, because the respondents did not have any of the women under their

custody or control, and because their 4urisdiction did not extend beyond the

boundaries of the city of Manila.

Iss'(& )(%(r *r N*% %( +ra%-+ * %( /r-% * Ha0(as c*r1's -s 1r*1(r2

R'-+& *he 3upreme /ourt granted the application for the writ of 'abeas

/orpus and commanded the respondents Mayor Justo Lukban, /hief &nton 'ohman,

5overnor +elician nigo and afael /astillo.

2t is a general rule to avoid unnecessary expense and inconvenience,

petitions for habeas corpus should be presented to the nearest 4udge of the

court of first instance. But this is not a hard and fast rule. *he writ ofhabeas corpus may be granted by the 3upreme /ourt or any 4udge thereof

enforcible anywhere in the 6hilippine 2slands.

0hether the writ shall be made returnable before the 3upreme /ourt or before

an inferior court rests in the discretion of the 3upreme /ourt and is

dependent on the particular circumstances.

& prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corp

restraint of liberty any restraint which will preclude freedom of acti

sufficient. *he forcible taking of these women from Manila by officia

that city, who handed them over to other parties, who deposited them

distant region, deprived these women of freedom of locomotion 4u

effectively as if they had been imprisoned. *he restraint of liberty

began in Manila continued until the aggrieved parties were return

Manila and released or until they freely and truly waived this right.

*o agree with the contention of respondents would mean that *he

executive of any municipality in the 6hilippines could forcibly

illegally take a private citi7en and place him beyond the boundaries omunicipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official ac

could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no rest

and that he, the official, had no 4urisdiction over this other municipa

0e believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is w

the 4urisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the ord

the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he shou

compelled to do so. 8ven if the party to whom the writ is addresse

illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application fo

writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. *he respondents, withi

reach of process, may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citi7en o

liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act

impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her birthrig

liberty has no effective recourse. *he great writ of liberty may not th

easily evaded.

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

K'r*4a v. Jaa4*-

5! O6 5!8!, Marc !, #959

$ac%s& 3higenori :uroda, formerly a Lieutenant15eneral of the Jap2mperial &rmy and /ommanding 5eneral of the Japanese 2mperial +orces i

6hilippines during a period covering $;< and $;;, now charged bef

Military /ommission convened by the /hief of 3taff of the &rmed +orc

the 6hilippines, with having unlawfully disregarded and failed =to dis

his duties as such commander to control the operations of members o

command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high c

against noncombatant civilians and prisoners war, in violation of theand customs of war > came before the supreme /ourt seeking to establis

illegality of 8xecutive Order ?o. @! of the 6resident of the 6hilippine

en4oin and prohibit respondents Melville 3. 'ussey and obert 6ort

participating in the prosecution of petitioners case before the Mil

/ommissionA and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding wi

case of petitioner.


2/22

'e presents the following argumentsC

. 8.O. @! violates not only the provisions of our constitutional law but

also our local laws because the 6hilippines is not is not a signatory

to the 'ague /onvention on ules and egulations covering Land 0arfare

hence, he is charged of crimes not based on law, national and

international". *hat the participation in the prosecution of the case against him in

behalf of the Dnited 3tates of &merica, of attorneys Melville 'ussey

and obert 6ort, who are not attorneys authori7ed by the 3upreme /ourt

to practice law in the 6hilippines, is a diminution of our personality

as an independent state.


3/22

• & provision allowing the heirs of aliens now engaged in the retail

business who die, to continue such business for a period of six months

for purposes of liEuidation.

L&O '. 2/'O?5 for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien

residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the

provisions of epublic &ct ?o. !), brought this action to obtain a

4udicial declaration that said &ct is unconstitutional, and to en4oin the

3ecretary of +inance and all other persons acting under him, particularly

city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. 6etitioner

attacks the constitutionality of the &ct

/ontending inter alia that the &ct violates international and treaty

obligations of the epublic of the 6hilippines

Iss'(C )(%(r *r N*% R.A. ##8: v-*a%(s %( -%(ra%-*a a4 %r(a%

*0-+a%-*s * %( P--11-(s 0 a%-*a--+ r(%a- 0's-(ss a4 (c(

c*%rar %* %( c*s%-%'%-*.

R'-+C *he 3upreme /ourt upheld the validity of .&. !) and dismissed

petition.

*he Dnited ?ations /harter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding

the rights and freedom of their sub4ects, and the %eclaration of 'uman

ights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common

standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. *hat such is the

import of the Dnited ?ations /harter aid of the %eclaration of 'uman ightscan be inferred from the fact that members of the Dnited ?ations

Organi7ation, such as ?orway and %enmark, prohibit foreigners from engaging

in retail trade, and in most nations of the world laws against foreigners

engaged in domestic trade are adopted.

*he *reaty of &mity between the epublic of the 6hilippines and the epublic

of /hina of &pril !, $;( is also claimed to be violated by the law in

Euestion. &ll that the treaty guarantees is eEuality of treatment to the

/hinese nationals =upon the same terms as the nationals of any other

country.= But the nationals of /hina are not discriminated against because

nationals of all other countries, except those of the Dnited 3tates, who are

granted special rights by the /onstitution, are all prohibited from engaging

in the retail trade. But even supposing that the law infringes upon the said

treaty, the treaty is always sub4ect to Eualification or amendment by a

subseEuent law and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the

police power of the 3tate.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

S(cr(%ar * J's%-c( v. La%-*

33! SCRA #:, Ja'ar #8, !:::

$ac%sC On January


4/22

*he doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals Gor

local courtsH are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a

conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the

constitution or statute of the local state. 8fforts should first be exerted

to harmoni7e them in the case at bar, is there really a conflict between

international law and municipal or national law, the law is silent as to

these rights. eference to the D.3. extradition procedures also manifests

this silence. *here is no occasion to choose which of the two should beupheld. 2nstead, we see a void in the provisions of the 61D3 8xtradition

*reaty, as implemented by 6residential %ecree ?o. )@$, as regards the basic

due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of

extradition proceeding

2n the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair

play. &n application of the basic twin due process rights of notice and

hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing law. ?either the

*reaty nor the 8xtradition Law precludes these rights from a prospective

extraditee.

RESOLUTION& Oc%*0(r #7, !:::

;(c-s-* R(v(rs(4.

*he private respondent is not entitled to the right of notice and hearing

during the evaluation stage of the extradition processA that there is no

provision in the 61D3 8xtradition *reaty and in 6.%. ?o. )@$ giving an

xtradite such rightA that a court cannot alter, amend or add to a treatyany clause, upon any motion of eEuity, or general convenience, or

substantial 4usticeA that the terms of the treaty should be interpreted in

the light of their intentA that other countries with similar extradition

treaties with the 6hilippines have expressed the same interpretation adopted

by the 6hilippine and D3 governmentsA and that an extradition proceeding is

sui generis, not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all

the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of ights.

*here is no provision in the 61D3 8xtradition *reaty and in 6.%. ?o. )@$

which gives an xtradite the right to demand from the petitioner 3ecretary

of Justice copies of the extradition reEuest from the D3 government and its

supporting documents and to comment thereon while the reEuest is still

undergoing evaluation. 0e cannot write a provision in the treaty giving

private respondent that right where there is none.

2t is well1settled that a Kcourt cannot alter, amend, or add to a treaty by

the insertion of any clause, small or great, or dispense with any of its

conditions and reEuirements or take away any Eualification, or integral part

of any stipulation, upon any motion of eEuity, or general convenience, or

substantial 4ustice. 3econd.

&ll treaties, including the 61D3 8xtradition *reaty, should be interp

in light of their intent. ?othing less than the Iienna /onvention on th

of *reaties to which the 6hilippines is a signatory provides that Ka t

shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary me

to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light o

ob4ect and purpose. 2t cannot be gainsaid that today, countries lik

6hilippines forge extradition treaties to arrest the dramatic ri

international and transnational crimes like terrorism and drug traffic

8xtradition treaties provide the assurance that the punishment of

crimes will not be frustrated by the frontiers of territorial sovere

2mplicit in the treaties should be the unbending commitment tha

perpetrators of these crimes will not be coddled by any signatory stat

ought to follow that the 61D3 8xtradition *reaty calls fo

interpretation that will minimi7e if not prevent the escape of extra

from the long arm of the law and expedite their trial.

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

I R(&6arc-a

! SCRA 985, A'+'s% #", #9#

$ac%s& &rturo 8. 5arcia has applied for admission to the practice of l

the 6hilippines without submitting to the reEuired bar examinations. 2

verified petition, he avers, among others, that he is a +ilipino ci

born in Bacolod /ity, 6rovince of ?egros Occidental, of +ilipino paren

that he had taken and finished in 3pain, the course of =Bachil3uperior=A that he was approved, selected and Eualified by the =2nstitu

/ervantes= for admission to the /entral Dniversity of Madrid whe

studied and finished the law course graduating there as =Licencia

%erecho=A that thereafter he was allowed to practice the law professi

3painA and that under the provisions of the *reaty on &cademic %egree

the 8xercise of 6rofessions between the epublic of the 6hilippines an

3panish state, he is entitled to practice the law profession i

6hilippines without submitting to the reEuired bar examinations.

Iss'(C )(%(r *r N*% Ar%'r* 6arc-a s*'4 0( a4=-%%(4 %* %( 1rac

a/ /-%*'% %a>-+ %( 0ar (


5/22

"he !ationals of each of the two countries who shall have otained

recognition of the validity of their academic degrees y virtue of the

stipulations of this reaty, can practice their professions within the

territory of the other,#

+rom which it could clearly be discerned that said *reaty was intended to

govern +ilipino citi7ens desiring to practice their profession in 3pain, and

the citi7ens of 3pain desiring to practice their professions in the

6hilippines. &pplicant is a +ilipino citi7en desiring to practice the legal

profession in the 6hilippines. 'e is therefore sub4ect to the laws of his

own country and is not entitled to the privileges extended to 3panish

nationals desiring to practice in the 6hilippines.

G"H &rticle 2 of the *reaty, in its pertinent part, providesC

"he nationals of oth countries who shall have otained degrees or diplomas

to practice the lieral professions in either of the Contracting States,

issued y competent national authorities, shall e deemed competent to

e$ercise said professions in the territory of the %ther, suject to the laws

and regulations of the latter& & & &"

2t is clear, therefore, that the privileges provided in the *reaty invoked

by the applicant are made expressly sub4ect to the laws and regulations of

the contracting 3tate in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal

professionA and 3ection of ule "(, in connection with 3ections ", $, and

@ thereof, which have the force of law, reEuire that before anyone can

practice the legal profession in the 6hilippines he must first successfullypass the reEuired bar examinationsA and

G


6/22

2t was also declared in &rticle 2I, 3ection ;G"H that >

=Sec& )*2+ Any evidence otained in violation of this or the preceding

section shall e inadmissile for any purpose in any proceeding&"

*he precarious state of lawlessness in amboanga /ity at the time in

Euestion certainly did not excuse the non1observance of the constitutional

guaranty against unreasonable searches and sei7ures. *here was no state of

hostilities in the area to 4ustify, assuming it could, the repressions

committed therein against the petitioners.

2n acting as they did, they defied the precept that =civilian authority is

at all times supreme over the military= so clearly proclaimed in the

/onstitution.

2n the instant case, the respondents simply by1passed the civil courts,

which had the authority to determine whether or not there was probable cause

to search the petitioners premises. 2nstead, they proceeded to make the

raid without a search warrant on their own unauthori7ed determination of the

petitioners guilt.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

IBP v. Za=*ra

338 SCRA 8#, A'+'s% #", !:::

$ac%sC *he 6resident of the 6hilippines, Joseph 84ercito 8strada, in averbal directive, ordered the 6?6 and the Marines to conduct 4oint

visibility patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression.

2n compliance with the presidential mandate, the 6?6 /hief, through 6olice

/hief 3uperintendent 8dgar B. &glipay, formulated Letter of 2nstruction

)"N"))) Gthe =LO2=H which detailed the manner by which the 4oint visibility

patrols, called *ask +orce *ulungan, would be conducted.

*ask +orce *ulungan was placed under the leadership of the 6olice /hief of

Metro Manila. 2nvoking his powers as /ommander1in1/hief under 3ection !,

&rticle I22 of the /onstitution, the 6resident directed the &+6 /hief of

3taff and 6?6 /hief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment

and utili7ation of the Marines to assist the 6?6 in preventing or

suppressing criminal or lawless violence.

*he 6resident also declared that the services of the Marines in the anti1

crime campaign are merely temporary in nature and for a reasonable period

only, until such time when the situation shall have improved.

*he 2ntegrated Bar of the 6hilippines Gthe =2B6=H filed the instant petition

to annul LO2 )"N"))) and to declare the deployment of the 6hilippine Marines

null and void and unconstitutional, arguing that the deployment of marines

in Metro Manila is violative of the /onstitution because no eme

situation obtains in Metro Manila as would 4ustify, even only remotely

deployment of soldiers for law enforcement workA hence, said deployme

derogation of &rticle 22, 3ection < of the /onstitution.

Iss'(C )(%(r *r N*% %( 4(1*=(% * Mar-(s *r v-s-0--%

%*+(%(r /-% %( 1*-c( *rc( v-*a%-v( * %( c*s%-%'%-*a 1r*v-

c-v--a s'1r(=ac2

R'-+& *he 3upreme /ourt found no merit in the petition hence dismisse

0hen the 6resident calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress la

violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discreti

power solely vested in his wisdom.

*his is clear from the intent of the framers and from the text o

/onstitution itself. *he /ourt, thus, cannot be called upon to overrul

6residents wisdom or substitute its own.

2n view of the constitutional intent to give the 6resident

discretionary power to determine the necessity of calling out the

forces, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the 6resid

decision is totally bereft of factual basis.

*he petition failed to discharge such heavy burden as there was no evi

to support the assertion that there exists no 4ustification for callin

the armed forces nor was grave abuse committed because the power to cal

exercised in such a manner as to violate the constitutional provisi

civilian supremacy over the military.

*he calling of the Marines in this case constitutes permissible u

military assets for civilian law enforcement. *he participation o

Marines in the conduct of 4oint visibility patrols is appropr

circumscribed. *he limited participation of the Marines is evident i

provisions of the LO2 itself, which sufficiently provides the mete

bounds of the Marines authority. 2t is noteworthy that the local p

forces are the ones in charge of the visibility patrols at all times

real authority belonging to the 6?6. Dnder the LO2, the police force

tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol procedures.

their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the Marine

is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary eEuipment to the Ma

and render logistical support to these soldiers. 2t cannot be pr

argued then that military authority is supreme over civilian auth

Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the 6?6 does not u

the civilian character of the police force.


7/22

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

P(*1( v. La+=a a4 S*sa

P- #3, J' #3, #938

$ac%s& *ranEuilino Lagman and 6rimitivo de 3osa are charged with a violation

of section @) of /ommonwealth &ct ?o. , known as the ?ational %efense Law.

2t is alleged that these two appellants, being +ilipinos and having reached

the age of twenty years in $


8/22

consensus was eventually cured when the two nations concluded the Iisiting

+orces &greement GI+&H in $$$.

*he entry of &merican troops into 6hilippine soil is proximately rooted in

the international anti1terrorism campaign declared by 6resident 5eorge 0.

Bush in reaction to the tragic events that occurred on 3eptember , ")).

On +ebruary , "))", petitioners &rthur %. Lim and 6aulino 6. 8rsando filed

this petition for certiorari and prohibition, attacking the

constitutionality of the 4oint exercise. " *hey were 4oined subseEuently by

3&?L&:&3 and 6&*2%O ?5 M&?55&5&0&, both party1list organi7ations, who filed

a petition1in1intervention on +ebruary , "))".

6etitioners Lim and 8rsando present the following argumentsC

. *he 6hilippines and the united states signed the mutual defense treaty

GM%*H in $# to provide mutual military assistance in accordance with

the constitutional processes of each country only in the case of an

armed attack by an external aggressor, meaning a third country against

one of them. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the

&bu 3ayyaf bandits in basilan constitute an external armed force that

has sub4ect the 6hilippines to an armed external attack to warrant

D.3. military assistance under the M%* of $#

". ?either does the I+& of $$$ authori7e &merican soldiers to engage in

combat operations in 6hilippine territory, not even to fire back =if

fired upon=.

Iss'(& )(%(r *r N*% Ba->a%a :!@# %( (%r * U.S. %r**1s a4 -%s

c*4'c% * c*=0a% *1(ra%-*s - %( c*'%r c*v(r(4 0 %( V$A2

R'-+C both the Mutual %efense *reaty and the Iisiting +orces &greement,

as in all other treaties and international agreements to which the

6hilippines is a party, must be read in the context of the $!(

/onstitution. 2n particular, the Mutual %efense *reaty was concluded way

before the present /harter, though it nevertheless remains in effect as a

valid source of international obligation. *he present /onstitution contains

key provisions useful in determining the extent to which foreign military

troops are allowed in 6hilippine territory.

SC& 2& he Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,

adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the

law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,

freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations&

SC& -& he State shall pursue an independent foreign policy& In its

relations with other states the paramount consideration shall e national

sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the rig

self.determination&

SC& /& he Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopt

pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in the country&

*he aforeEuoted provisions betray a marked antipathy towards f

military presence in the country, or of foreign influence in general. '

foreign troops are allowed entry into the 6hilippines only by way of d

exception. /onflict arises then between the fundamental law an

obligations arising from international agreements.

Our /onstitution espouses the opposing view. 0itness our 4urisdicti

stated in section # of &rticle I222C

*he 3upreme /ourt shall have the following powersC

*2+ 0eview, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorar

the law or the 0ules of Court may provide, final judgments and ord

lower courts in1

*A+ All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any tr

international or e$ecutive agreement, law, presidential de

proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in questi

0e ruled that the provisions of a treaty are always sub4ect to Eualificor amendment by a subseEuent law, or that it is sub4ect to the police

of the 3tate. Our /onstitution authori7es the nullification of a treaty

only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it

counter to an act of /ongress.

*he foregoing premises leave us no doubt that D3 forces are prohibited

engaging in an offensive war on 6hilippine territory. *he foregoing pre

leave us no doubt that D3 forces are prohibited from engaging

offensive war on 6hilippine territory. 'owever, it is all too apparent

the determination thereof involves basically a Euestion of fact. On

point, we must concur with the 3olicitor 5eneral that the present su

matter is not a fit topic for a special civil action for certiorari. 0e

held in too many instances that Euestions of fact are not entertain

such a remedy. *he sole ob4ect of the writ is to correct erro

4urisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. 2n this connection, it wil

be amiss to add that the 3upreme /ourt is not a trier of fact.

0e find that the holding of =Balikatan )"1= 4oint military exercise ha

intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call

correction on our part. 2n other words, respondents in the case at bar


9/22

not committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

4urisdiction.

*he petition and the petition1in1intervention were %23M2338% without

pre4udice to the filing of a new petition sufficient in form and substance

in the proper egional *rial /ourt.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

Caaa+ v. )--a=s

7: P- 7!, ;(c(=0(r !, #95:

$ac%sC the ?ational *raffic /ommission, in its resolution of July (, $;),resolved to recommend to the %irector of 6ublic 0orks and to the 3ecretary

of 6ublic 0orks and /ommunications that animal1drawn vehicles be prohibited

from passing along osario 3treet extending from 6la7a /alderon de la Barca

to %asmari-as 3treet, from (C


10/22

liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because then society

will fall into anarchy. ?either should authority be made to prevail over

liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. *he citi7en

should achieve the reEuired balance of liberty and authority in his mind

through education and personal discipline, so that there may be established

the resultant eEuilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for

all. *he moment greater authority is conferred upon the government,

logically so much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty which resides in

the people. *he paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of

liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its preservation.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

6'-4* v. R'ra Pr*+r(ss A4=.

6.R. N*. L@!:89. Oc%*0(r 3#, #959.

$ac%s& Justa 5. 5uidoFs land two ad4oining lots, part commercial, with a

combined area of "",@## sEuare meters, situated in Maypa4o, /aloocan, i7al,

4ust outside the north Manila boundary, on the main street running from this

city to the north. 0as expropriated by the ural 6rogress &dministration.

3he now brings this petition to for prohibition to prevent the ural

6rogress &dministration and Judge Oscar /astelo of the /ourt of +irst

2nstance of i7al from proceeding with the expropriation. 3he contends that

that the land sought to be expropriated is commercial and therefore excluded

within the purview of the provisions of &ct #


11/22

and her familys security, and sell it at cost to a few lessees who refuse

to pay the stipulated rent or leave the premises.

?o fixed line of demarcation between what taking is for public use and what

is not can be madeA each case has to be 4udged according to its peculiar

circumstances. 2t suffices to say for the purpose of this decision that the

case under consideration is far wanting in those elements which make for

public convenience or public use. 2t is patterned upon an ideology far

removed from that consecrated in our system of government and embraced by

the ma4ority of the citi7ens of this country. 2f upheld, this case would

open the gates to more oppressive expropriations.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

Car-* v. CHR

!:5 SCRA 583, ;(c(=0(r !, #99#

$ac%s& On 3eptember (, $$), a Monday and a class day, some !)) public

school teachers, among them members of the Manila 6ublic 3chool *eachers

&ssociation GM63*&H and &lliance of /oncerned *eachers G&/*H undertook what

they described as =mass concerted actions= to =dramati7e and highlight=

their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to

act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latters

attention. &ccording to them they had decided to undertake said =mass

concerted actions= after the protest rally staged at the %8/3 premises on

3eptember ;, $$) without disrupting classes as a last call for the

government to negotiate the granting of demands had elicited no response

from the 3ecretary of 8ducation.

*he =mass actions= consisted in staying away from their classes, converging

at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable assemblies, etc. *hrough

their representatives, the teachers participating in the mass actions were

served with an order of the 3ecretary of 8ducation to return to work in ";

hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing the %8/3 officials

concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not comply

and to hire their replacements. *hose directives notwithstanding, the mass

actions continued into the week, with more teachers 4oining in the days that

followed.

+or failure to heed the return1to1work order, the /' complainants were

administratively charged on the basis of the principals report and givenfive G#H days to answer the charges. *hey were also preventively suspended

for ninety G$)H days pursuant to 3ection ; of 6.%. !)( and temporarily

replaced

*he administrative case docketed as /ase ?o. %8/3 $)1)!" resulted in a

%ecision of 3ecretary /ari-o dated %ecember (, $$), rendered after

evaluation of the evidence as well as the answers, affidavits and docu

submitted by the respondents, decreeing dismissal from the servi

&polinario 8sber and the suspension for nine G$H months of Babaran,

and %el /astillo.

*he respondent teachers submitted sworn statements dated 3eptember "(,

to the /ommission on 'uman ights to complain that while they

participating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of

replacements as teachers, allegedly without notice and conseEuentl

reasons completely unknown to them.

*he 3olicitor 5eneral, 3ecretary /ari-o sought and was granted leave to

a motion to dismiss the case on the ground =that the complaint stat

cause of action and that the /' has no 4urisdiction over the case.

*he /' denied the motion to dismiss 2t held that the =striking teac

=were denied due process of lawA they should not have been replaced wi

a chance to reply to the administrative chargesA= there had been a viol

of their civil and political rights which the /ommission was empower

investigate.

3olicitor 5eneral, in behalf of petitioner /ari-o, commenced the p

action of certiorari and prohibition.

Iss'(C /(%(r *r *% %( C*==-ss-* * H'=a R-+%s as %( 1*/(r '

C*s%-%'%-*, ->( a c*'r% * 's%-c(, *r (v( a ?'as-@'4-c-a a+(

'r-s4-c%-* *r a4'4-ca%*r 1*/(rs *v(r, *r %( 1*/(r %* %r a4 4(c-

(ar a4 4(%(r=-(, c(r%a- s1(c--c %1( * cas(s, ->( a(+(

r-+%s v-*a%-*s -v*v-+ c-v- *r 1*-%-ca r-+%s2

R'-+& 6etition is granted. *he /ourt declares the /ommission on

ights to have no such powerA and that it was not meant by the funda

law to be another court or Euasi14udicial agency in this countr

duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.

*he most that may be conceded to the /ommission in the way of ad4udic

power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make fin

of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civi

political rights.

But fact1finding is not ad4udication, and cannot be likened to the 4ud

function of a court of 4ustice, or even a Euasi14udicial agency or offi

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

M((r v. N(0ras>a

!! U.S. 39:, J'( 5, #9!3


12/22

$ac%sC On May "#, $"), obert *. Meyer, while an instructor in ion6arochial 3chool, a one1room schoolhouse in 'ampton, ?ebraska, taught the

sub4ect of reading in the 5erman language to )1year1old aymond 6arpart, a

fourth1grader, the 'amilton /ounty &ttorney entered the classroom and

discovered 6arpart reading from the Bible in 5erman.

'e charged Meyer with violating the 3iman &ct. Meyer was tried and convicted

in the district court for 'amilton county, ?ebraska, and fined Q"#. *he

?ebraska 3upreme /ourt affirmed his conviction by a vote of ; to ". *he

ma4ority thought the law a proper response to =the baneful effects= of

allowing immigrants to educate their children in their mother tongue, with

results =inimical to our own safety.= *he dissent called the 3iman &ct thework of =crowd psychology.

Iss'(& Does the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringe on

the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Ruling: *he decision of the ?ebraskan 3upreme /ourt was *he =liberty=protected by the %ue 6rocess clause =without doubt...denotes not merely

freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to

contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acEuire

useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to

worship 5od according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally

to en4oy those privileges long recogni7ed at common law as essential to the

orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

*hat the state may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the

Euality of its citi7ens, physically, mentally and morally, is clearA but the

individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. *he

protection of the /onstitution extends to all, to those who speak other

languages as well as to those born with 8nglish on the tongue. 6erhaps it

would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary

speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the

/onstitution>a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means. 'e

allowed that wartime circumstances might 4ustify a different understanding,

but that ?ebraska had not demonstrated sufficient need =in time of peace and

domestic tranEuility= to 4ustify =the conseEuent infringement of rights long

freely en4oyed.

P-(rc( v. S*c-(% * S-s%(rs

!! U.S. 39:, J'( #, #9!"

$ac%s& On ?ovember (, $"", the voters of Oregon passed an initiative

amending Oregon Law 3ection #"#$, /ompulsory 8ducation &ct it reEuired

Oregon children between eight and sixteen years of age to attend public

school.

*he 3isters of the 'oly ?ames and 'ill Military &cademy separately

0alter 6ierce, the governor of Oregon, along with 2saac '. Ian 0inkle

state attorney general, and 3tanley Myers, district attorney of Mult

/ounty Gof which 6ortland is the county seat, and where both the 3ister

the &cademy were headEuarteredH. *he two cases, heard and decided toge

were slanted along slightly different lines. *he 3isters case alleged

*he enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools

their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training

right of the child to influence the parents choice of a school, the

of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profe

2ts primary allegation was that the 3tate of Oregon was violating sp

+irst &mendment rights Gsuch as the right to freely practice

religionH. *heir case alleged only secondarily that the law infring

+ourteenth &mendment rights regarding protection of property Gnamely

schools contracts with the familiesH.

Iss'(C ;*(s %( Ac% 'r(as*a0 -%(r(r( /-% %( -0(r% * 1ar(

+'ar4-as %* 4-r(c% %( '10r-+-+ a4 (4'ca%-* * c-4r( '4(

c*%r*2

R'-+& *he D.3. 3upreme /ourt decided in favor of the appellant

*he ;th &mendment provides a liberty interest in a parentFs or guar

right to decide the mode in which their children are educated. 3tate

not usurp this right when the Euestioned legislation does not reaso

relate to a viable state interest.

*he &ct violates the ;th &mendment because it interferes with prot

liberty interests and has no reasonable relationship to any purpose w

the competency of the

*he &ppellees have standing because the result of enforcing the &ct wou

destruction of the appelleesF schools. *he state has the power to re

all schools, but parents and guardians have the right and duty to choos

appropriate preparation for their children.

0hile the state has the right to insure that children receive a

education, the ;th &mendment provides parents and guardians with a li

interest in their choice in the mode in which their children are educat

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

;ECS v. Sa ;-(+*

#8: SCRA "83, ;(c(=0(r !#, #989

$ac%sC oberto ey /. 3an %iego is a graduate of the Dniversity of the

with a degree of Bachelor of 3cience in oology. *he petitioner %8/3 c


13/22

that he took the ?M&* three times and flunked it as many times. 0hen he

applied to take it again, the petitioner re4ected his application on the

basis of the rule.

& student shall be allowed only three G@r'(D *r4(r -s

va-4 a4 c*s%-%'%-*a2

R'-+& *he petition is 5&?*8%. *he decision of the respondent court dated,

is 8I838%.

0e cannot sustain the respondent 4udge. 'er decision must be reversed.

*he right to Euality education invoked by the private respondent is not

absolute. *he /onstitution also provides that =every citi7en has the right

to choose a profession or course of study, sub4ect to fair, reasonable and

eEuitable admission and academic reEuirements.

0hile every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a

constitutional right to be a doctor. *his is true of any other calling in

which the public interest is involvedA and the closer the link, the longer

the bridge to ones ambition. *he 3tate has the responsibility to harness

its human resources and to see to it that they are not dissipated or, noless worse, not used at all. *hese resources must be applied in a manner

that will best promote the common good while also giving the individual a

sense of satisfaction.

*he /ourt feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to Euality

education as a guarantee of the /onstitutionC one must show that he is

entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. *he p

respondent has failed the ?M&* five times. 0hile his persisten

noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hop

love.

?o depreciation is intended or made against the private respondent.

stressed that a person who does not Eualify in the ?M&* is not an abs

incompetent unfit for any work or occupation. *he only inference is th

is a probably better, not for the medical profession, but for a

calling that has not excited his interest

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

V-r%'*s* v. M'-c-1a J'4+(

8! SCRA #9#, Marc !#, #97

$ac%s& On +ebruary "


14/22

+rancisco Iirtouso, 3r. and Manuela Iirtouso and his counsel, &tty.

5uillermo B. Bandonil, who, in open court, agreed to act in such capacity,

without pre4udice to further proceedings in a pending case against

petitioner being taken in accordance with law.= ( *his /ourt should,

whenever appropriate, give vitality and force to the outh and 0elfare /ode,

which is an implementation of this specific constitutional mandateC =*he

3tate recogni7es the vital role of the youth in nation1building and shall

promote their physical, intellectual, and social well1being.

0here, however, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory

by reEuiring a sum that is excessive. 3o the /onstitution commands. 2t is

understandable why. 2f there were no such prohibition, the right to bailbecomes meaningless. 2t would have been more forthright if no mention of

such a guarantee were found in the fundamental law.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

PTT v.NLRC

6.R. N*. ##8978. Ma !3, #997

$ac%s& 5race de 5u7man was initially hired by 6*R* as a reliever,specifically as a 3upernumerary 6ro4ect 0orker, for a fixed period from

?ovember ", $$) until &pril "), $$ vice one /.+. *enorio who went on

maternity leave. Dnder the eliever &greement which she signed with

petitioner company, her employment was to be immediately terminated upon

expiration of the agreed period. *hereafter, from June ), $$ to July ,

$$, and from July $, $$ to &ugust !, $$, private respondentFs

services as reliever were again engaged by petitioner, this time in

replacement of one 8rlinda +. %i7on who went on leave during both periods.

&fter &ugust !, $$, and pursuant to their eliever &greement, her services

were terminated.

On 3eptember ", $$, private respondent was once more asked to 4oin

6etitioner /ompany as a probationary employee, the probationary period to

cover #) days. 2n the 4ob application form that was furnished her to be

filled up for the purpose, she indicated in the portion for civil status

therein that she was single although she had contracted marriage a few

months earlier, that is, on May "@, $$.

2t now appears that private respondent had made the same representation in

the two successive reliever agreements which she signed on June ), $$ andJuly !, $$. 0hen petitioner supposedly learned about the same later, its

branch supervisor in Baguio /ity, %elia M. Oficial, sent to private

respondent a memorandum dated January #, $$" reEuiring her to explain the

discrepancy. 2n that memorandum, she was reminded about the companyFs policy

of not accepting married women for employment.

2n her reply letter dated January (, $$", private respondent stated

she was not aware of 6*R*s policy regarding married women at the time

that all along she had not deliberately hidden her true civil s

6etitioner nonetheless remained unconvinced by her explanations. 6

respondent was dismissed from the company effective January "$, $

which she readily contested by initiating a complaint for illegal dismi

coupled with a claim for non1payment of cost of living allowances G/

before the egional &rbitration Branch of the ?ational Labor ela

/ommission in Baguio /ity.

Labor &rbiter 2renarco . imando handed down a decision declaring

private respondent, who had already gained the status of a regular emplwas illegally dismissed by petitioner.

*he ?L/ affirmed the decision of the &rbiter except that grace shou

suspended for < months.

Iss'(C )(%(r *r N*% %( 4-s=-ssa * +rac( 1'rs'a% %* a c*=1a 1

*% acc(1%-+ =arr-(4 /*=( -s va-42

R'-+& *he 3upreme /ourt upheld the decision of labor arbiter and the

and dismissed the 6*R*Fs petition for certiorari.

*he /onstitution, cogni7ant of the disparity in rights between men and

in almost all phases of social and political life, provides a gam

protective provisions. *o cite a few of the primordial ones,

Section ), Article II on the 4eclaration of Principles and State Polie$pressly recogni(es the role of women in nation.uilding and command

State to ensure, at all times, the fundamental equality efore the l

women and men

2n the case at bar, petitioners policy of not accepting or consideri

disEualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afo

the test of, and the right against, discrimination, afforded all

workers by our labor laws and by no less than the /onstitution.

/ontrary to petitioners assertion that it dismissed private respondent

employment on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses clearly

her ties with the company were dissolved principally because o

companyFs policy that married women are not Eualified for employme

6*R*, and not merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

O1*sa v. $ac%*ra

!!5 SCRA 79!, J' 3:, #993


15/22

$ac%s& Juan &ntonio Oposa and several other minors represented by their

parents filed a civil case before the regional trial court of Makati to

order the 'onorable +ulgencio 3. +actoran, Jr., then 3ecretary of the

%epartment of 8nvironment and ?atural esources G%8?H and his agents,

representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to /ancel all

existing timber license agreements in the country, and /ease and desist from

receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license

agreements.

*he complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class suit and alleges that the

plaintiffs =are all citi7ens of the epublic of the 6hilippines, taxpayers,

and entitled to the full benefit, use and en4oyment of the natural resourcetreasure that is the countrys virgin tropical rainforests.= *he same was

filed for themselves and others who are eEually concerned about the

preservation of said resource but are =so numerous that it is impracticable

to bring them all before the /ourt.= *he minors further asseverate that they

=represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn.

3ecretary +actoran, Jr., filed a Motion to %ismiss the complaint based on

two G"H grounds, namelyC GH the plaintiffs have no cause of action against

him the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political Euestion which

properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of 5overnment.

*he trial court granted the motion to dismiss hence this petition for

certiorari

Iss'(& )(%(r *r N*% %( 1(%-%-*(rs av( a ca's( * ac%-* a+a-s%S(cr(%ar ac%*ra a4 %( ;ENR2 Is %( cas( a 1*-%-ca ?'(s%-* %a%

c*'r%s s*'4 *% (%(r%a-2

R'-+& *he /ourt ruled in favor of the 6etitioners. 6etition is granted.

*he decision of the lower court dismissing the case is reversed and set

aside.

espondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a

specific legal right violated by the respondent 3ecretary for which any

relief is provided by law. *he /ourt did not agree with this.

*he complaint focuses on one fundamental legal right 11 the right to abalanced and healthful ecology which is incorporated in 3ection @ &rticle

22 of the /onstitution.

*he said right carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the

environment and implies, among many other things, the 4udicious management

and conservation of the countrys forests. 3ection ; of 8.O. $" expressly

mandates the %8? to be the primary government agency responsible fo

governing and supervising the exploration, utili7ation, developmen

conservation of the countrys natural resources.

*he policy declaration of 8.O. $" is also substantially re1stated in

92I Book 2I of the &dministrative /ode of $!(. Both 8.O. $

&dministrative /ode of $!( have set the ob4ectives which will serve a

bases for policy formation, and have defined the powers and functions o

%8?. *hus, right of the petitioners Gand all those they representH

balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as %8?s duty to protec

advance the said right.

& denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correl

duty or obligation to respect or protect or respect the same gives rise

cause of action.

3econd paragraph, 3ection of &rticle I222 of the constitution provide

the expanded 4urisdiction vested upon the 3upreme /ourt. 2t allows the

to rule upon even on the wisdom of the decision of the 8xecutiv

Legislature and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or exce

4urisdiction because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

6'-+*a v. Cara+'(

#9! SCRA !!#, A1r- !!, #99#

$ac%s& *he $$) budget consists of 6$!.; Billion in automatic appropri

Gwith 6!@.! Billion for debt serviceH and 6##.< Billion appropriated

epublic &ct ?o. @!


16/22

/onstitution which mandates to Kassign the highest budgetary priority to

education.

Iss'(C )(%(r *r *% %( a'%*=a%-c a11r*1r-a%-* *r 4(0% s(rv-c( -s

'c*s%-%'%-*aF -% 0(-+ -+(r %a %( 0'4+(% *r (4'ca%-*2

R'-+& *he 3upreme /ourt dismissed the petition and upheld the

constitutionality of automatic appropriation for debt service

while it is true that under 3ection #G#H, &rticle 92I of the /onstitution

/ongress is mandated to Kassign the highest budgetary priority to

education, it does not thereby follow that the hands of /ongress are so

hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of thenational interest and for the attainment of other state policies or

ob4ectives.

/ongress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good

4udgment, to provide an appropriation, that can reasonably service our

enormous debtS2t is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit

standing of the country. More especially, the very survival of our economy

is at stake. *hus, if in the process /ongress appropriated an amount for

debt service bigger than the share allocated to education, the /ourt finds

and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby assailed as

unconstitutional.

911111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

PASEI v. ;r-*

#3 SCRA 38, J'( 3:, #988

$ac%s& 6hilippine &ssociation of 3ervice 8xporters, 2nc. G6&382, for shortH,

a firm =engaged principally in the recruitment of +ilipino workers, male and

female, for overseas placement,= challenges the /onstitutional validity of

%epartment Order ?o. , 3eries of $!!, of the %epartment of Labor and

8mployment, in the character of =5D2%8L2?83 5OI8?2?5 *'8 *8M6O&

3D368?32O? O+ %86LOM8?* O+ +2L262?O %OM83*2/ &?% 'OD38'OL% 0O:83,= in

this petition for certiorari and prohibition. 3pecifically, the measure is

assailed for =discrimination against males or femalesA= that it =does not

apply to all +ilipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with

similar skillsA= < and that it is violative of the right to travel. 2t is

held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power

being legislative, and not executive, in character.

2n its supplement to the petition, 6&382 invokes 3ection


17/22

5overnment has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously

dispute, of the lack or inadeEuacy of such protection, and as part of its

duty, it has precisely ordered an indefinite ban on deployment.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

Taa4a v.A+ara

!7! SCRA #8, Ma !, #997

$ac%sC On &pril #, $$;, espondent i7alino ?avarro, then 3ecretary of the

%epartment of *rade and 2ndustry G3ecretary ?avarro, for brevityH,

representing the 5overnment of the epublic of the 6hilippines, signed inMarrakesh, Morocco, the +inal &ct 8mbodying the esults of the Druguay ound

of Multilateral ?egotiations

3enators 0igberto *a-ada, et al. Euestioned the constitutionality of the

concurrence by the 6hilippine 3enate of the 6residentFs ratification of the

international &greement establishing the 0orld *rade Organi7ation G0*OH.

*hey argued that the 0*O &greement violates the mandate of the $!(

/onstitution to Kdevelop a self1reliant and independent national economy

effectively controlled by +ilipinos. GtoH give preference to Eualified

+ilipinos Gand toH promote the preferential use of +ilipino labor, domestic

materials and locally produced goods. +urther, they contended that the

Knational treatment and Kparity provisions of the 0*O &greement Kplace

nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as +ilipinos

and local products, in contravention of the K+ilipino +irst policy of our

/onstitution, and render meaningless the phrase Keffectively controlled by

+ilipinos.

Iss'(& )(%(r *r N*% %( #987 C*s%-%'%-* 1r*-0-% *'r c*'%r r*=

1ar%-c-1a%-+ - /*r4/-4( %ra4( -0(ra-a%-* a4 (c**=-c +*0a-a%-*

a4 r*= -%(+ra%-+ -%* a +*0a (c**= %a% -s -0(ra-(4, 4(r(+'a%(4

a4 1r-va%-(42

R'-+& *he /ourt ruled in favor the validity of the concurrence of the

6hilippine senate with the ratification of the international agreement

establishing 0orld Bank. *he petition is dismissed.

*he $!( /onstitution %O83 ?O* prohibit our country from participating in

worldwide trade liberali7ation and economic globali7ation and from

integrating into a global economy that is liberali7ed, deregulated and

privati7ed.

0hile the /onstitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of +ilipino g

services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recogni7es the

for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of eEu

and reciprocity and limits protection of +ilipino enterprises only a

foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair.

2n other words, the /onstitution did not intend to pursue an isolati

policy. 2t did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services i

development of the 6hilippine economy. 0hile the /onstitution doe

encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and inves

into the country, it does not prohibit them either. 2n fact, it allo

exchange on the basis of eEuality and reciprocity, frowning only on fo

competition that is unfair.

*he constitutional policy of a Kself1reliant and independent na

economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investm

goods and services. 2t contemplates neither Keconomic seclusion

Kmendicancy in the international community. &s explained by /onstitut

/ommissioner Bernardo Iillegas, sponsor of this constitutional policyC

8conomic self1reliance is a primary ob4ective of a developing country

is keenly aware of overdependence on external assistance for even its

basic needs. 2t does not mean autarky or economic seclusionA rathe

means avoiding mendicancy in the international community. 2ndepe

refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the national eco

especially in such strategic industries as in the development of na

resources and public utilities.

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Ass*c-a%-* * S=a La4 O/(rs v. S(c.

#7" SCRA 35!, J' #5, #989

$ac%s& .&. ?o.

had already been enacted by the /ongress of the 6hilippines on &ugu

$@


18/22

*his was followed on July "", $!( by 6residential 6roclamation ?o.


19/22

GdH 3ection @GdH and ( which vest on the %epartment of &grarian eform

the authority to summarily determine the 4ust compensation to be paid for

lands covered by the /omprehensive &grarian eform Law

GeH 3ection


20/22

power of L5Ds are sub4ect to such guidelines and limitation as /ongress may

provide.

+urther, the /ity of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation has no

inherent right to impose taxes. *he /harter of the /ity of Manila is sub4ect

to control by /ongress. 2t should be stressed that Kmunicipal corporations

are mere creatures of /ongress which has the power to Kcreate and abolish

municipal corporations due to its Kgeneral legislative powers. /ongress,

therefore, has the power of control over Local governments. &nd if /ongress

can grant the /ity of Manila the power to tax certain matters, it can also

provide for exemptions or even take back the power.

+urther still, local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities ofthe ?ational 5overnment. 6&5/O is a government owned or controlled

corporation with an original charter, 6% !@$. &ll of its shares of stocks

are owned by the ?ational 5overnment. Otherwise, its operation might be

burdened, impeded or sub4ected to control by a mere Local government.

*his doctrine emanates from the Ksupremacy of the ?ational 5overnment over

local governments.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

;a4*( v. COA

6.R. N*. #!"3":. ;(c(=0(r 3, !::!

$ac%s& 2n $!@, the */ and M*/ 4udges of Mandaue /ity started receiving

monthly allowances of 6, "@) each through the yearly appropriation

ordinance enacted by the 3angguniang 6anlungsod of the said city. 2n $$,

Mandaue /ity increased the amount to 6, #)) for each 4udge.

On March #, $$;, the %epartment of Budget and Management G%BMH issued the

disputed Local Budget /ircular ?o. ## GLB/ ##H

&cting on the %BMs Local Budget /ircular ?o. ##, the Mandaue /ity &uditor

issued notices of disallowances to */ and M*/ Judges, in excess of the

amount Gmaximum of 6))) and 6()) in provinces and cities and

municipalities, respectivelyH authori7ed by said circular. *he additional

monthly allowances of the 4udges shall be reduced to 6))) each. *hey were

also asked to reimburse the amount they received in excess of 6))) from the

last six months.

On ?ovember "(, $$#, 8xecutive Judge Mercedes 5o7o1%adole, for and in

behalf of the petitioner 4udges, filed a motion for reconsideration of the

decision of the /O&. 2n a resolution dated May "!, $$@, the /O& denied the

motion.

6etitioner 4udges argue that LB/ ## is void for infringing on the

autonomy of Mandaue /ity by dictating a uniform amount that a

government unit can disburse as additional allowances to 4udges stat

therein. *hey maintain that said circular is not supported by any la

therefore goes beyond the supervisory powers of the 6resident.

Iss'(& )(%(r *r *% L*ca B'4+(% C-rc'ar N*. "" v*-4 *r +*-+ 0(

s'1(rv-s*r 1*/(rs * %( Pr(s-4(% a4 -r-+(s *ca a'%**=2

R'-+& *he 3upreme /ourt rendered 4udgement in favor of the peti

Judges. 6etition is granted.

&lthough the /onstitution guarantees autonomy to local government unitsexercise of local autonomy remains sub4ect to the power of contr

/ongress and the power of supervision by the 6resident. 3ec ; &rt 9 of

/onstitutionC =*he 6resident of the 6hilippines shall exercise ge

supervision over local governments. x x x= *he said provision has

interpreted to exclude the power of control.

*he members of the /abinet and other executive officials are merely

egos of the 6resident. &s such, they are sub4ect to the power of contr

the 6residentA he will see to it that the local governments or

officials were performing their duties as provided by the /onstitutio

by statutes, at whose will and behest they can be removed from offic

their actions and decisions changed, suspended or reversed. *hey are su

to the 6residents supervision only, not control, so long as their act

exercised within the sphere of their legitimate powers. *he 6residen

only interfere in the affairs and activities of a L5D if he or she

that the latter has acted contrary to law. *his is the scope o

6residents supervisory powers over L5Ds

91111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Pa=a%*+ v. C*=((c

6.R. N*. ##87!, A1r- #3, !::5

$ac%s& ev. 8lly Iele7 6amatong filed his /ertificate of /andidac6resident on %ecember (, "))


21/22

*he decision, however, was not unanimous since /ommissioners Lu7viminda 5.

*ancangco and Mehol :. 3adain voted to include petitioner as they believed

he had parties or movements to back up his candidacy.

2n this 6etition +or 0rit of /ertiorari, petitioner seeks to reverse the

resolutions which were allegedly rendered in violation of his right to

KeEual access to opportunities for public service under 3ection "@, &rticle

22 of the $!( /onstitution, by limiting the number of Eualified candidates

only to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign andNor are

nominated by political parties. 2n so doing, petitioner argues that the

/OM8L8/ indirectly amended the constitutional provisions on the electoral

process and limited the power of the sovereign people to choose their

leaders.

Iss'(C )(%(r *r N*% T( COMELEC - 4-s?'a--+ R(v.E V(( Pa=a%*+

v-*a%(4 a c*s%-%'%-*a r-+% %* (?'a acc(ss %* *11*r%'-%-(s *r 1'0-c

s(rv-c(2 Is %(r( s'c a r-+% %* *4 1'0-c *-c(2

R'-+& *he 3upreme /ourt held that the right claimed by ev. 8lly is

nonexistent and remanded the case back to /OM8L8/ for further proceedings

2mplicit in the petitionerFs invocation of the constitutional provision

ensuring KeEual access to opportunities for public office is the claim that

there is a constitutional right to run for or hold public office and,

particularly in his case, to seek the presidency. *here is none. 0hat is

recogni7ed is merely a privilege sub4ect to limitations imposed by law.

3ection "@, &rticle 22 of the /onstitution neither bestows such a right nor

elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. *here is

nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust

or 4ustifies an interpretation of the sort.

*he KeEual access provision is a subsumed part of &rticle 22 of the

/onstitution, entitled K%eclaration of 6rinciples and 3tate 6olicies. *he

provisions under the &rticle are generally considered not self1executing, "

and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the

KeEual access provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in

&rticle 22, the provision does not contain any 4udicially enforceable

constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or

executive action. < *he disregard of the provision does not give rise to any

cause of action before the courts.

9111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119

A?'-*@Sar=-(%* v. M*ra%*

!:3 SCRA "#", N*v(=0(r #3, #99#

$ac%s& 2n +ebruary $!$, /armen 5. &Euino13armiento, herself a member of

respondent Movie and *elevision eview and /lassification Board GM*/BH,

wrote its records officer reEuesting that she be allowed to examin

boards records pertaining to the voting slips accomplished by

individual board members after a review of the movies and telev

productions. 2t is on the basis of said slips that films are either ba

cut or classified accordingly.

&cting on the said reEuest, the records officer informed petitioner tha

has to secure prior clearance from respondent Manuel Morato, as chairm

M*/B, to gain access to the records sought to be examined.

6etitioners reEuest was eventually denied by respondent Morato o

ground that whenever the members of the board sit in 4udgment over a

their decisions as reflected in the individual voting slips partaknature of conscience votes and as such, are purely and completely pr

and personal. 2t is the submission of respondents that the individual v

slips is the exclusive property of the member concerned and anybod

wants access thereto must first secure his Gthe membersH co

otherwise, a reEuest therefor may be legally denied.

6etitioner argues, on the other hand, that the records she wishes to ex

are public in character and other than providing for reasonable cond

regulating the manner and hours of examination, respondents Morato an

classification board have no authority to deny any citi7en s

examination of the boards records.

On +ebruary "(, $!$, respondent Morato called an executive meeting o

M*/B to discuss, among others, the issue raised by petitioner. 2n

meeting, seventeen G(H members of the board voted to declare

individual voting records as classified documents which rendered the

inaccessible to the public without clearance from the chairman.

6etitioner brought the matter to the attention of the 8xecutive 3ecr

which in turn, referred the same to respondent Morato for appro

comment.

Iss'(& )(%(r *r N*% T( r('sa %* a*/ 1(%-%-*(r %* (


22/22

*his constitutional provision is self1executory and supplies =the rules by

means of which the right to information may be en4oyed G/ooley, & *reatise

on /onstitutional Limitations @( $"(PH by guaranteeing the right and

mandating the duty to afford access to sources of information. 'ence, the

fundamental right therein recogni7ed may be asserted by the people upon the

ratification of the /onstitution without need for any ancillary act of the

Legislature G2d. at p. @#H. 0hat may be provided for by the Legislature arereasonable conditions and limitations upon the access to be afforded which

must, of necessity, be consistent with the declared 3tate 6olicy of full

public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest

G/onstitution, &rt. 22, 3ee. "!H.= G3ee also *a-ada v. *uvera,

Chapter v Cases

Documents

Transcript of Chapter v Cases