Set 2 Case Digest Consti

7/23/2019 Set 2 Case Digest Consti

1/31

SET 2 CASE DIGEST

Compiled by: Josemari C. Quijada

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: The Concept of the State - Sovereignty

Title: THE P!"#$CE !% $!TH C!T&'&T! vs THE(!"E$)E$T !% THE EP*'L#C !% THEPH#L#PP#$ES PE&CE P&$EL !$ &$CEST&L+!)$ ,(P . (// $o/ 10231

%acts:

This case is in relation to writ of injunction and temporaryrestraining order filed by the Province of North Cotabato

against the Government of the Philippines Peace Panel(GRP regarding !"#$#% (!emorandum of #greementon the #ncestral %omain between the GRP and !&')

The petitioners are invo*ing their right to information onpublic concerns+ see* to compel the GRP to provide themthe complete copies on the !"#$#%) Petitioner alsoprayed that the !"#$#% be declared unconstitutional)

%ue to the writ of injunction issued+ the signing of theagreement did not materiali,e)

-y Resolution of #ugust .+ /001+ the Court issued aTemporary Restraining "rder commanding and directingpublic respondents and their agents to cease and desistfrom formally signing the !"#$#%) The Court alsore2uired the respondent to submit to the Court andpetitioners the official copy of the final draft of the !"#$

#%+ to which the respondent complied)

The respondent moved to dismiss the case) Therespondent argued that there is no justiciable controversythat is ripe for judicial review stating !"#$#% remains to

be a proposal that does not automatically create legallydemandable rights and obligations until the operativeacts re2uired have been duly complied with)

#ssues:

3) 4hether the constitutionality and the legality of the!"# is ripe for adjudication5

/) 4hether respondent Government of the Republic of

the Philippines Peace Panel committed grave abuseof discretion amounting to lac* or e6cess ofjurisdiction when it negotiated and initiated the !"#5

7) &s !"#$#% unconstitutional5

Court uling:

#nswer to issue 83) 9es+) Concrete acts under the !"#$#% are not necessary to render the present controversyripe)

The petitions are ripe for adjudication) The failure ofrespondents to consult the local government units orcommunities affected constitutes a departure byrespondents from their mandate under ;)") No) 7)!oreover+ respondents e6ceeded their authority by themere act of guaranteeing amendments to the


2/31

SET 2 CASE DIGEST


Constitution) #ny alleged violation of the Constitution byany branch of government is a proper matter for judicialreview)3

%acts:

#nastacio 'aurel filed a petition for habeas corpus basedon a theory that a ilipino citi,en who adhered to theenemy giving the latter aid and comfort during theAapanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime

of treason defined and penali,ed by article 33. of theRevised Penal Code+ for the reason that the sovereigntyof the legitimate government in the Philippines and+conse2uently+ the correlative allegiance of ilipinociti,ens thereto was then suspended> and that there wasa change of sovereignty over these &slands upon theproclamation of the Philippine Republic)

#ssue:

Can the charge of treason be suspended when there ischange of sovereignty5

Court uling:

No+ because it is an offense against the samegovernment and the same sovereign people)

Considering that+ as a corollary of the suspension of thee6ercise of the rights of sovereignty by the legitimategovernment in the territory occupied by the enemymilitary forces+ because the authority of the legitimatepower to govern has passed into the hands of theoccupant (#rticle .7+ Iague Regulations+ the politicallaws which prescribe the reciprocal rights+ duties andobligation of government and citi,ens+ are suspended orin abeyance during military occupation (Co Him cham vs)alde, Tan Heh and di,on+ supra+ for the only reason


9/31

SET 2 CASE DIGEST


that as they e6clusively bear relation to the oustedlegitimate government+ they are inoperative or notapplicable to the government established by theoccupant> that the crimes against national security+ such

as treason and espionage> inciting to war+correspondence with hostile country+ flight to enemyscountry+ as well as those against public order+ such asrebellion+ sedition+ and disloyalty+ illegal possession offirearms+ which are of political comple6ion because theybear relation to+ and are penali,ed by our Revised PenalCode as crimes against the legitimate government+ arealso suspended or become inapplicable as against theoccupant+ because they can not be committed againstthe latter (Peralta vs) %irector of Prisons+ supra> andthat+ while the offenses against public order to bepreserved by the legitimate government wereinapplicable as offenses against the invader for thereason above stated+ unless adopted by him+ were alsoinoperative as against the ousted government for thelatter was not responsible for the preservation of thepublic order in the occupied territory+ yet article 33. of thesaid Revised Penal Code+ was applicable to treasoncommitted against the national security of the legitimategovernment+ because the inhabitants of the occupiedterritory were still bound by their allegiance to the latterduring the enemy occupation541


10/31

SET 2 CASE DIGEST


%acts:

The Republic of the Philippines in this certiorari and

prohibition proceedings challenged the validity of the writof e6ecution to garnish the funds of the #rmed orces ofthe Philippines issued by the respondent AudgeGuillermo illasor)

The petitioner alleged ground of being e6cess ofjurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion and prayed thatthe writ of e6ecution must be nullified)

Audge Guillermo illasor on a pecial Proceedingsfavored P)A Hiener Co)+ Gavino Bnchuan and&nternational Construction Corporation against thepetitioner+ confirming the arbitration award in the amountof Php 3+ ?3/+ 7D@).0) Audge illasor+ issued an orderdeclaring the decision final and e6ecutory+ directing theheriffs of Ri,al Province+ ue,on City+ as well as !anilato e6ecute the said decision)

The funds of the #rmed orces of the Philippines ondeposit with the -an*s+ particularly+ with the Philippineeterans -an* and the Philippine National -an* JorK theirbranches are public funds duly appropriated andallocated for the payment of pensions of retirees+ pay andallowances of military and civilian personnel and formaintenance and operations of the #rmed orces of thePhilippines+ as per Certification by the #P Controller)

#ssue:

Can the funds of #P be part of garnishmentproceedings5

Court uling:

No+ the #P funds could not be part of garnishmentproceedings)

# corollary+ both dictated by logic and sound sense froma basic concept is that public funds cannot be the objectof a garnishment proceeding even if the consent to besued had been previously granted and the state liabilityadjudged)02

%acts:

"n the ground of non$suability of the tate+ the Republicof the Philppines+ as the petitioner see*s the review ofthe &ntermediate #ppellate Court and reversing the orderof the Court of irst &nstance of Camarines ur whichdismissed the complaint of the respondent Pabloeliciano for the recovery of ownership and possessionof parcel of land)

Iistory of the case:

Pablo eliciano bought a land consisting of . lots ('ot 3+'ot /+ 'ot 7 and 'ot . inTinambac+ Camarines ur whichis covered by Proclamation No) D0 of Ramon

!agasaysay and was reserved for settlementpurposes)Bnder the administration of N#RR#+ a tract ofland situated in the !unicipality of Tinambac and iruma+Camarines ur+ the 'and #uthority started sub$diving and

distributing the land to the settlers)

-ecause of this+ Pablo eliciano filed for recovery ofownership and possession of a parcel of land andprayed that he be declared the rightful and true owner ofthe property in 2uestion and that the defendant beordered to cancel and nullify all awards to the settlers)

The trial court rendered a decision that 'ot No) 3 to bethe private property of Pablo eliciano and lots /+ 7 and .reverted to the public domain)

# group of settlers on the 2uestioned property intervenedand alleging among other things that they had been inpossession of the land in 2uestion for more than /0 yearsunder claim of ownership) The intervenor filed a motion todismiss the case on the ground the tate cannot be suedwithout its consent)

#ssue:

&n the case at bar+ can the state invo*e its immunity fromsuit for the recovery of property5

Court uling:


12/31

SET 2 CASE DIGEST


4e find the petition meritorious) The doctrine of non$suability of the tate has proper application in this case)The plaintiff has impleaded the Republic of the

Philippines as defendant in an action for recovery ofownership and possession of a parcel of land+ bringingthe tate to court just li*e any private person who isclaimed to be usurping a piece of property) # suit for therecovery of property is not an action in rem+ but an actionin personam) &t is an action directed against a specificparty or parties+ and any judgment therein binds onlysuch party or parties) The complaint filed by plaintiff+ theprivate respondent herein+ is directed against theRepublic of the Philippines+ represented by the 'and

#uthority+ a governmental agency created by Republic#ct No) 71..)=753

%acts:

This case is relation to labor issue filed to National 'aborRelations Commission (N'RC by ultan ecurity

#gency who entered into contract with the %epartment of


13/31

SET 2 CASE DIGEST


#griculture for security services provided by ultanecurity #gency)

&n this petition for certiorari+ the petitioner charges the

N'RC with grave abuse of discretion for refusing to2uash the writ of e6ecution) The petitioner faults theN'RC for assuming jurisdiction over a money claimagainst the %epartment+ which+ it claims+ falls under thee6clusive jurisdiction of the Commission on #udit) !oreimportantly+ the petitioner asserts+ the N'RC hasdisregarded the cardinal rule on the non$suability of thetate)

The private respondents+ on the other hand+ argue thatthe petitioner has impliedly waived its immunity from suitby concluding a service contract with ultan ecurity

#gency)

&ntece?ent facts:

everal guards of the ultan ecurity #gency filed acomplaint for underpayment of wages+ non$payment of37th month pay+ uniform allowances+ night shiftdifferential pay+ holiday pay and overtime pay+ as well asfor damages)

The ;6ecutive 'abor #rbiter rendered a decision findingherein petitioner and jointly and severally liable withultan ecurity #gency for the payment of money claims+aggregating P/@@+.17)D3+ of the complainant securityguards) The petitioner and ultan ecurity #gency did not

appeal the decision of the 'abor #rbiter) Thus+ thedecision became final and e6ecutory)

The 'abor #rbiter issued a writ of e6ecution commanding

the City heriff to enforce and e6ecute the judgmentagainst the property %epartment of #griculture) The Cityheriff levied on e6ecution the motor vehicles of thepetitioner+ i)e) one (3 unit Toyota Ii$#ce+ one (3 unitToyota !ini Cruiser+ and one (3 unit Toyota Crown) @These units were put under the custody of the propertycustodian of the petitioner+ pending their sale at publicauction or the final settlement of the case+ whicheverwould come first)

# petition for injunction+ prohibition and mandamus+ withprayer for preliminary writ of injunction was filed by thepetitioner with the National 'abor Relations Commission(N'RC+ Cagayan de "ro+ alleging+ inter alia+ that the writissued was effected without the 'abor #rbiter having dulyac2uired jurisdiction over the petitioner+ and that+therefore+ the decision of the 'abor #rbiter was null andvoid and all actions pursuant thereto should be deemede2ually invalid and of no legal+ effect) The petitioner alsopointed out that the attachment or sei,ure of its propertywould hamper and jeopardi,e petitioners governmentalfunctions to the prejudice of the public good)

#ssues:

3) Iaving established the fact the %epartment of#griculture entered into a contract with ultan


14/31

SET 2 CASE DIGEST


ecurity #gency+ would it ma*e %epartment of#griculture suable5

/) Can their property be the object of e6ecutionshould their be liability5

Court uling:

#nswer to issue 8 3) No) %epartment of #griculture caninvo*e its immunity from suit)

&n the instant case+ the %epartment of #griculture has notpretended to have assumed a capacity apart from itsbeing a governmental entity when it entered into the2uestioned contract> nor that it could have+ in fact+performed any act proprietary in character)The restrictive application of tate immunity is properonly when the proceedings arise out of commercialtransactions of the foreign sovereign+ its commercialactivities or economic affairs) tated differently+ a statemay be said to have descended to the level of anindividual and can this be deemed to have actually givenits consent to be sued only when it enters into businesscontracts)

&t does not apply where the contracts relates to thee6ercise of its sovereign functions) &n this case theprojects are an integral part of the naval base which isdevoted to the defense of both the Bnited tates and thePhilippines+ indisputably a function of the government ofthe highest order> they are not utili,ed for not dedicatedto commercial or business purposes)

Set 2 Case Digest Consti

Documents

Transcript of Set 2 Case Digest Consti