consti law review digest 1

7/26/2019 Consti Law Review Digest 1

1/49

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGEST 1

1. PEOPLE V.PERFECTO

2. MACARIOLA V.ASUNCION

3. MANILA PRINCE

HOTEL V. GSIS4. CHAVEZ V.JUDICIAL & BARCOUNCIL

5. PERFECTO V.MEER

6. ENDENCIA V.DAVID

. NITAFAN V. CIR!. REPUBLIC V. SB". A#UINO$ JR. V.

ENRILE1%. JAVELLANAV. EEC.SECRETAR'

11. OCCENA V.COMELEC

12. PHIL. BARASSOC. V.COMELEC

13. LAW'ERSLEAGUE FOR A

BETTERPHILIPPINES V.A#UINO

14. IN RE(BERMUDEZ

15. IN RE(LETTER OFASSOCIATEJUSTICE PUNO OFTHE CA

16. DE LEON V.ESGUERRA

1. GONZALESV. COMELEC

1!. DEFENSOR)SANTIAGO V.COMELEC

1". LAMBINO V.COMELEC


2/49


1.PEOPLE V PERFECTO

G.R. N*. L)1!463$ O+,*-/ 4$ 1"22

FACTS(

The issue started when the Secretary of the Philippine Senate, Fernando Guerrero,

discovered that the documents regarding the testimony of the witnesses in an

investigation of oil companies had disappeared from his oce. Then, the day

following the convening of Senate, the newspaper La Nacion edited !y herein

respondent Gregorio Perfecto pu!lished an article against the Philippine Senate.

"ere, #r. Perfecto was alleged to have violated $rticle %&' of the Spanish Penal

(ode provision that punishes those who insults the #inisters of the (rown. "ence,

the issue.

ISSUE( )hether or not $rticle %&' of the Spanish Penal (ode *SP(+ is still in forceand can !e applied in the case at !ar

HELD(No.

REASONING(The (ourt stated that during the Spanish Government, $rticle %&' of

the SP( was enacted to protect Spanish ocials as representatives of the -ing."owever, the (ourt eplains that in the present case, we no longer have -ings nor

its representatives for the provision to protect. $lso, with the change of sovereignty

over the Philippines from Spanish to $merican, it means that the invo/ed provision

of the SP( had !een automatically a!rogated. The (ourt determined $rticle %&' of

the SP( to !e 0political1 in nature for it is a!out the relation of the State to its

inha!itants, thus, the (ourt emphasi2ed that 0it is a general principle of the public

law that on acquisition of territory, the previous political relations of the ceded

region are totally abrogated."ence, $rticle %&' of the SP( is considered no longer

in force and cannot !e applied to the present case. Therefore, respondent was

ac3uitted.


3/49


2. MACARIOLA V ASUNCION

445 S(6$ 77, #ay 84, 49:%

F0+,(

)hen the decision in (ivil (ase No. 8;4; rendered !y respondent "on. . $suncion of (ourt of First ?nstance of Leyte !ecame @nal on ernardita 6. #acariola.

Bne of the properties mentioned in the proAect of partition was Lot 44:5. This lot

according to the decision rendered !y


4/49


#arch %7, 4974 that


5/49


3.MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V GSISG.6. No. 4%%4&', Fe!ruary 8, 4997

I.THE FACTS

Pursuant to the privati2ation program of the Philippine Government, the GS?S

sold in pu!lic auction its sta/e in #anila "otel (orporation *#"(+. Bnly % !idders

participatedK petitioner #anila Prince "otel (orporation, a Filipino corporation, which

oCered to !uy &4 of the #"( or 4&,8;;,;;; shares atP54.&: per share, and

6enong >erhad, a #alaysian @rm, with ?TTDSheraton as its hotel operator, which !id

for the same num!er of shares atP55.;; per share, orP%.5% more than the !id of

petitioner.

Petitioner @led a petition !efore the Supreme (ourt to compel the GS?S to

allow it to match the !id of 6enong >erhad. ?t invo/ed the Filipino First

Policyenshrined in M4;, paragraph %, $rticle H?? of the 49:7 (onstitution,which

provides that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the

national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualied

Filipinos.

II.THE ISSUES

4.)hether M4;, paragraph %, $rticle H?? of the 49:7 (onstitution is a selfDeecuting provision and does not need implementing legislation to carry itinto eCectO

%.$ssuming M4;, paragraph %, $rticle H?? is selfDeecuting, whether thecontrolling shares of the #anila "otel (orporation form part of ourpatrimony as a nationO


6/49


8.)hether GS?S is included in the term State, hence, mandated toimplement M4;, paragraph %, $rticle H?? of the (onstitutionO and

5.$ssuming GS?S is part of the State, whether it should give preference to thepetitioner, a Filipino corporation, over 6enong >erhad, a foreigncorporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the #anila "otel(orporation.

III.THE RULING

[he !ourt, voting ""#$, DISMISSEDthe petition.%

1.YES, 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Co!tit"tio i! a !elf#e$ec"tig pro%i!io a& &oe! ot ee& i'ple'etig legi!latio to carr( itito e)ect.

Sec. 4;, second par., of $rt H?? is couched in such a way as not to ma/e it

appear that it is nonDselfDeecuting !ut simply for purposes of style. >ut, certainly,the legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to enforce theconstitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute s3uares with the(onstitution. #inor details may !e left to the legislature without impairing the selfDeecuting nature of constitutional provisions.

6espondents . . . argue that the nonDselfDeecuting nature of Sec. 4;, secondpar., of $rt. H?? is implied from the tenor of the @rst and third paragraphs of thesame section which undou!tedly are not selfDeecuting. The argument is Qawed. ?fthe @rst and third paragraphs are not selfDeecuting !ecause (ongress is still toenact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fullyowned !y Filipinos, as in the @rst paragraph, and the State still needs legislation toregulate and eercise authority over foreign investments within its nationalAurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, thena fortiori, !y the same logic, the secondparagraph can only !e selfDeecuting as it does not !y its language re3uire anylegislation in order to give preference to 3uali@ed Filipinos in the grant of rights,privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. $constitutional provision may !e selfDeecuting in one part and nonDselfDeecuting inanother.

. Sec. 4;, second par., $rt. H?? of the 49:7 (onstitution is a mandatory,positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelinesor implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provisiondoes not re3uire any legislation to put it in operation. ?t isper seAudiciallyenforcea!le.)hen our (onstitution mandates that[i%n the grant of rights, privileges,and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give

preference to qualied Filipinos,it means Aust that D 3uali@ed Filipinos shall !epreferred. $nd when our (onstitution declares that a right eists in certain speci@edcircumstances an action may !e maintained to enforce such right notwithstandingthe a!sence of any legislation on the su!AectO conse3uently, if there is no statuteespecially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself !y


7/49


its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must ta/etheir !earings. )here there is a right there is a remedy. &bi 'us ibi remedium.

2.YES, the cotrollig !hare! of the Maila *otel Corporatio for'part of o"r patri'o( a! a atio.

?n its plain and ordinary meaning, the termpatrimonypertains toheritage.)hen the (onstitution spea/s ofnational patrimony,it refers not only to thenatural resources of the Philippines, as the (onstitution could have very well usedthe termnatural resources, !ut also to thecultural heritageof the Filipinos.

For more than eight *:+ decades #anila "otel has !ore mute witness to thetriumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the FilipinosO its eistence isimpressed with pu!lic interestO its own historicity associated with our struggle forsovereignty, independence and nationhood. erily, #anila "otel has !ecome part of

our national economy and patrimony. For sure, &4 of the e3uity of the #"( comeswithin the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the maAority andcontrolling stoc/, so that anyone who ac3uires or owns the &4 will have actualcontrol and management of the hotel. ?n this instance, &4 of the #"( cannot !edisassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edi@ce stands.(onse3uently, we cannot sustain respondents1 claim that theFilipino FirstPolicyprovision is not applica!lesince what is being sold is only (") of theoutstanding shares of the corporation, not the *otel building nor the land uponwhich the building stands.

+.YES, SIS i! icl"&e& i the ter' -State, hece, it i! 'a&ate& toi'ple'et 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the Co!tit"tio.

?t is undisputed that the sale of &4 of the #"( could only !e carried outwith the prior approval of the State acting through respondent (ommittee onPrivati2ation. RThis fact alone ma/es the sale of the assets of respondents GS?S and#"( a state action.?n constitutional Aurisprudence, the acts of persons distinctfrom the government are considered state action covered !y the (onstitution *4+when the activity it engages in is a public function+ *%+ when the government is sosigni@cantly involved with the private actor as to ma/e the government responsi!lefor his actionO and, *8+ when the government has approved or authori2ed the action.?t is evident that the act of respondent GS?S in selling &4 of its share in respondent#"( comes under the second and third categories of state action. )ithout dou!ttherefore the transaction, although entered into !y respondent GS?S, is in fact atransaction of the State and therefore su!Aect to the constitutional command.

)hen the (onstitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people !utalso to the government as elements of the State. $fter all, government is composedof three *8+ divisions of power D legislative, eecutive and Audicial. $ccordingly, a


8/49


constitutional mandate directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the three*8+ !ranches of government. ?t is undenia!le that in this case the su!Aectconstitutional inAunction is addressed among others to the =ecutive Eepartmentand respondent GS?S, a government instrumentality deriving its authority from theState.

/.YES, SIS!ho"l& gi%e preferece to the petitioer i the !ale ofthe cotrollig !hare! of the Maila *otel Corporatio.

?t should !e stressed that while the #alaysian @rm oCered the higher !id it isnot yet the winning !idder. The !idding rules epressly provide that the highest!idder shall only !e declared the winning !idder after it has negotiated andeecuted the necessary contracts, and secured the re3uisite approvals. SincetheFilipino First Policyprovision of the (onstitution !estows preference onqualiedFilipinosthe mere tending of the highest !id is not an assurance that the highest!idder will !e declared the winning !idder. 6esultantly, respondents are not !ound

to ma/e the award yet, nor are they under o!ligation to enter into one with thehighest !idder. For in choosing the awardee respondents are mandated to a!ide !ythe dictates of the 49:7 (onstitution the provisions of which are presumed to !e/nown to all the !idders and other interested parties.

Paragraph .


9/49


4.CHAVEZ V JBC

G.6. No. %;%%5%


10/49


(ourt composed of the (hief (N*. The current practice of ( in admitting two mem!ers of the (ongress toperform the functions of the ( is violative of the 49:7 (onstitution. $s such, it isunconstitutional.

Bne of the primary and !asic rules in statutory construction is that where the wordsof a statute are clear, plain, and free from am!iguity, it must !e given its literalmeaning and applied without attempted interpretation. ?t is a wellDsettled principleof constitutional construction that the language employed in the (onstitution must!e given their ordinary meaning ecept where technical terms are employed.


11/49


$s such, it can !e clearly and unam!iguously discerned from Paragraph 4, Section:, $rticle ??? of the 49:7 (onstitution that in the phrase, a representative of(ongress, the use of the singular letter a preceding representative of (ongressis une3uivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. ?t is indicative of whatthe mem!ers of the (onstitutional (ommission had in mind, that is, (ongress maydesignate only one *4+ representative to the (. "ad it !een the intention that

more than one *4+ representative from the legislature would sit in the (, theFramers could have, in no uncertain terms, so provided.

#oreover, under the maim noscitur a sociis, where a particular word or phrase isam!iguous in itself or is e3ually suscepti!le of various meanings, its correctconstruction may !e made clear and speci@c !y considering the company of wordsin which it is founded or with which it is associated. =very meaning to !e given toeach word or phrase must !e ascertained from the contet of the !ody of thestatute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with otherwords or phrases and its meaning may !e modi@ed or restricted !y the latter.

$pplying the foregoing principle to this case, it !ecomes apparent that the word

(ongress used in $rticle ???, Section :*4+ of the (onstitution is used in its genericsense. No particular allusion whatsoever is made on whether the Senate or the"ouse of 6epresentatives is !eing referred to, !ut that, in either case, only asingular representative may !e allowed to sit in the (

(onsidering that the language of the su!Aect constitutional provision is plain andunam!iguous, there is no need to resort etrinsic aids such as records of the(onstitutional (ommission. Nevertheless, even if the (ourt should proceed to loo/into the minds of the mem!ers of the (onstitutional (ommission, it is undenia!lefrom the records thereof that it was intended that the ( !e composed of seven *7+mem!ers only. The underlying reason leads the (ourt to conclude that a single votemay not !e divided into half *4%+, !etween two representatives of (ongress, or

among any of the sitting mem!ers of the ( for that matter.)ith the respondents1 contention that each representative should !e admitted fromthe (ongress and "ouse of 6epresentatives, the Supreme (ourt, after the perusal ofthe records of (onstitutional (ommission, held that (ongress, in the contet of( representation, should !e considered as one !ody. )hile it is true that there arestill diCerences !etween the two houses and that an interDplay !etween the twohouses is necessary in the reali2ation of the legislative powers conferred to them !ythe (onstitution, the same cannot !e applied in the case of ( representation!ecause no liaison !etween the two houses eists in the wor/ings of the (. Nomechanism is re3uired !etween the Senate and the "ouse of 6epresentatives in thescreening and nomination of Audicial ocers. "ence, the term (ongress must !e

ta/en to mean the entire legislative department.The framers of (onstitution, in creating (, hoped that the private sector and thethree !ranches of government would have an active role and e3ual voice in theselection of the mem!ers of the


12/49


?t is clear, therefore, that the (onstitution mandates that the ( !e composed ofseven *7+ mem!ers only. Thus, any inclusion of another mem!er, whether with onewhole vote or half *4%+ of it, goes against that mandate. Section :*4+, $rticle ??? ofthe (onstitution, providing (ongress with an e3ual voice with other mem!ers of the( in recommending appointees to the


13/49


5.PERFECTO V MEER

F0+,(?n $pril, 4957 the (ollector of ?nternal 6evenue re3uired #r.


14/49


fundamental charter.


15/49


salaries *=vans vs. GoreO #iles vs. Graham+. ?n this manner the rationali2ing

principle that will harmoni2e the allegedly discordant decision may !e condensed.

?n the recent case of =vans vs. Gore the Supreme (ourt of the Jnited States decided

that !y taing the salary of a federal Audge as a part of his income, (ongress was in

eCect reducing his salary and thus violating $rt. ???, sec. 4, of the (onstitution.

$nyhow the BI#alley case declares no more than that (ongress may validly enact a

lawtaing the salaries of Audges appointed after its passage. "ere in the Philippines

no such law has !een approved. The BI#alley ruling does not cover the situation in

which Audges already in oce are made to pay ta !y eecutive interpretation,

without epress legislative declaration.

?t is hard to see, appellants asserts, how the imposition of the income ta may

imperil the independence of the Audicial department. The danger may !e

demonstrated. Suppose there is power to ta the salary of Audges, and the Audiciary

incurs the displeasure of the Legislature and the =ecutive. ?n retaliation the incometa law is amended so as to levy a 8; per cent on all salaries of government ocials

on the level of Audges. This naturally reduces the salary of the Audges !y 8; per

cent, !ut they may not grum!le !ecause the ta is general on all receiving the

same amount of earning, and aCects the =ecutive and the Legislative !ranches in

e3ual measure. "owever, means are provided thereafter in other laws, for the

increase of salaries of the =ecutive and the Legislative !ranches, or their

per3uisites such as allowances, per diems, 3uarters, etc. that actually compensate

for the 8; per cent reduction on their salaries. 6esultK


16/49


6. ENDENCIA V DAVID

?C Phil. D?? E Political :aw E he 9udiciary E e :egislature E Separation of Powers

Statutory !onstruction E 2ho ay /nterpret :aws

Saturnino Eavid, the then (ollector of ?nternal 6evenue, ordered the taing of


17/49


"ere, (ongress is already saying that imposing taes upon Audges is not adiminution of their salary. This is a clear eample of interpretation or ascertainmentof the meaning of the phrase which shall not !e diminished during theircontinuance in oce, found in Section 9, $rticle ??? of the (onstitution, referring tothe salaries of Audicial ocers. This act of interpreting the (onstitution or any partthereof !y the Legislature is an invasion of the wellDde@ned and esta!lished

province and Aurisdiction of the


18/49


Ues. The (ongress may pass a law increasing the salary of the mem!ers of theAudiciary and such increase will immediately ta/e eCect thus the incum!entmem!ers of the Audiciary *at the time of the passing of the law increasing theirsalary+ shall !ene@t immediately.

(ongress can also pass a law decreasing the salary of the mem!ers of the Audiciary

!ut such will only !e applica!le to mem!ers of the Audiciary which were appointed$FT=6 the eCectivity of such law.

7oteI his case abandoned the ruling in Perfecto vs eer and in 3ndencia vs 8avid.

!. REPUBLIC V SBGR NO. 1%46!$ 2%%3$ SEPARATE OPINION PUNO J.

>ill of 6ights

=Cect of the 49:' Fe!ruary 6evolution on the 4978 (onstitution.

The 49:' Fe!ruary 6evolution was done in de@ance of the provisions of the 4978(onstitution. The resulting government was indisputa!ly a revolutionarygovernment !ound !y no constitution or legal limitations ecept treaty o!ligationsthat the revolutionary government, as the de Aure government, assumed underinternational law. The >ill of 6ights under the 4978 (onstitution was inoperativeduring that period, as it was a!rogated !y the 6evolutionary government. >ut sincethe Philippines is a signatory to the ?nternational (ovenant on (ivil and Political6ights and the "uman Eeclaration of "uman 6ights, the protection accorded toindividuals under the same remained in eCect even without the 4978 (onstitution.


19/49


*6epu!lic vs. S>, #aA. Gen.


20/49


the country has not yet disappeared, therefore, there is a clear and imminentdanger against the state. The arrest is then a valid eercise pursuant to thePresident1s order.

1%. JAVELLANA V EECUTIVE SECRETAR'

(J S!46 CJ E Political law E !onstitutional :aw E Political 1uestion E >alidity of the"?@C !onstitution E 4estriction to 9udicial Power

?n 4978, #arcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 4978

(onstitution.


21/49


HELD(The S( ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at !ar. #aAority of the S(Austices epressed the view that they were concluded !y the ascertainment made!y the president of the Philippines, in the eercise of his political prerogatives.Further, there !eing no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidationduring the election, it is to !e assumed that the people had ac3uiesced in oraccepted the 4978 (onstitution. The 3uestion of the validity of the 4978

(onstitution is a political 3uestion which was left to the people in their sovereigncapacity to answer. Their rati@cation of the same had shown such ac3uiescence.

11. OCCENA V. COMELEC

G.6. No. LD&'8&; $pril %, 49:4

Fernando, (.ar and former delegates to the 4974 (onstitutional (onvention thatframed the present (onstitution, are suing as tapayers. The rather unorthodo


22/49


aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the 4978 (onstitution is not thefundamental law, the atasang Pam!ansa to proposeamendments and how may it !e eercised #ore speci@cally as to the latter, what isthe etent of the changes that may !e introduced, the num!er of votes necessaryfor the validity of a proposal, and the standard re3uired for a proper su!mission

H>(

The applica!le provision in the 497' $mendments is 3uite eplicit. ?nsofaras pertinent it reads thusK The /nterim >atasang Pam!ansa shall have the samepowers and its #em!ers shall have the same functions, responsi!ilities, rights,privileges, and dis3uali@cations as the interim National $ssem!ly and the regularNational $ssem!ly and the #em!ers thereof. Bne of such powers is precisely thatof proposing amendments. The 4978 (onstitution in its Transitory Provisions vestedthe /nterim National $ssem!ly with the power to propose amendments upon specialcall !y the Prime #inister !y a vote of the maAority of its mem!ers to !e rati@ed inaccordance with the $rticle on $mendments. )hen, therefore, the /nterim>atasangPam!ansa, upon the call of the President and Prime #inister Ferdinand =. #arcos,met as a constituent !ody its authority to do so is clearly !eyond dou!t. ?t could anddid propose the amendments em!odied in the resolutions now !eing assailed. ?tmay !e o!served parenthetically that as far as petitioner Bccena is concerned, the3uestion of the authority of the /nterim >atasang Pam!ansa to proposeamendments is not new. (onsidering that the proposed amendment of Section 7 of$rticle H of the (onstitution etending the retirement of mem!ers of the Supreme

(ourt and Audges of inferior courts from sityD@ve *'&+ to seventy *7;+ years is !ut arestoration of the age of retirement provided in the 498& (onstitution and has !eenintensively and etensively discussed at the /nterim >atasang Pam!ansa, as well asthrough the mass media, it cannot, therefore, !e said that our people are unawareof the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendment.

I(

)ere the amendments proposed are so etensive in character that theygo far !eyond the limits of the authority conferred on the ?nterim >atasangPam!ansa as Successor of the ?nterim National $ssem!ly )as there revision rather

than amendment

H>(

)hether the (onstitutional (onvention will only propose amendments tothe (onstitution or entirely overhaul the present (onstitution and propose an


23/49


entirely new (onstitution !ased on an ?deology foreign to the democratic system, isof no momentO !ecause the same will !e su!mitted to the people for [email protected] rati@ed !y the sovereign people, there can !e no de!ate a!out the validity ofthe new (onstitution. The fact that the present (onstitution may !e revised andreplaced with a new one is no argument against the validity of the law !ecause

0amendment1 includes the 0revision1 or total overhaul of the entire (onstitution. $tany rate, whether the (onstitution is merely amended in part or revised or totallychanged would !ecome immaterial the moment the same is rati@ed !y thesovereign people.

I(

)hat is the vote necessary to propose amendments as well as thestandard for proper su!mission

H>(

The /nterim >atasang Pam!ansa, sitting as a constituent !ody, can

propose amendments. ?n that capacity, only a maAority vote is needed. ?t would !e

an indefensi!le proposition to assert that the threeDfourth votes re3uired when it

sits as a legislative !ody applies as well when it has !een convened as the agency

through which amendments could !e proposed. That is not a re3uirement as far as

a constitutional convention is concerned. ?t is not a re3uirement either when, as in

this case, the /nterim >atasang Pam!ansa eercises its constituent power to

propose amendments. #oreover, even on the assumption that the re3uirement of

threeD fourth votes applies, such etraordinary maAority was o!tained. ?t is not

disputed that 6esolution No. 4 proposing an amendment allowing a naturalD!orn

citi2en of the Philippines naturali2ed in a foreign country to own a limited area ofland for residential purposes was approved !y the vote of 4%% to &O 6esolution No. %

dealing with the Presidency, the Prime #inister and the (a!inet, and the National

$ssem!ly !y a vote of 457 to & with 4 a!stentionO and 6esolution No. 8 on the

amendment to the $rticle on the (ommission on =lections !y a vote of 45: to % with

4 a!stention. )here then is the alleged in@rmity $s to the re3uisite standard for a

proper su!mission, the 3uestion may !e viewed not only from the standpoint of the

period that must elapse !efore the holding of the ple!iscite !ut also from the

standpoint of such amendments having !een called to the attention of the people

so that it could not plausi!ly !e maintained that they were properly informed as to

the proposed changes. $s to the period, the (onstitution indicates the way the

matter should !e resolved. There is no am!iguity to the applica!le provisionK $ny

amendment to, or revision of, this (onstitution shall !e valid when rati@ed !y a

maAority of the votes cast in a ple!iscite which shall !e held not later than three

months after the approval of such amendment or revision. The three resolutions

were approved !y the/nterim >atasang Pam!ansa sitting as a constituent assem!ly

on Fe!ruary & and %7, 49:4. ?n the >atasang Pam!ansa >lg. %%, the date of the


24/49


ple!iscite is set for $pril 7, 49:4. ?t is thus within the 9;Dday period provided !y the

(onstitution.

12. PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION VS. COMELEC

45; S(6$ 5&&

P ::8 in conQict with the

constitution in that it allows the President to continue holding oce after the callingof the special election.

Senator Pelae2 su!mits that President #arcos1 letter of conditional resignation did

not create the actual vacancy re3uired in Section 9, $rticle 7 of the (onstitution

which could !e the !asis of the holding of a special election for President and ice

President earlier than the regular elections for such positions in 49:7. The letter

states that the President isK irrevoca!ly vacat*ing+ the position of President

eCective only when the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and

3uali@ed as President !y ta/ing his oath oce ten *4;+ days after his proclamation.

The uni@ed opposition, rather than insist on strict compliance with the cited

constitutional provision that the incum!ent President actually resign, vacate his

oce and turn it over to the Spea/er of the >atasang Pam!ansa as acting President,

their standard !earers have not @led any suit or petition in intervention for the

purpose nor repudiated the scheduled election. They have not insisted that

President #arcos vacate his oce, so long as the election is clean, fair and honest.

ISSUE(

?s >P ::8 unconstitutional, and should the Supreme (ourt therefore stop and

prohi!it the holding of the elections

HELD(

The petitions in these cases are dismissed and the prayer for the issuance of an

inAunction restraining respondents from holding the election on Fe!ruary 7, 49:', in

as much as there are less than the re3uired 4; votes to declare >P ::8


25/49


26/49


13. LAW'ERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES ;. A#UINO

*G.6. No. 7875: D #ay %%, 49:'+

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

*There is no FullDTet of this case. This is a #inute 6esolution made !y the S(.+

#inute 6esolutions

=N >$N(

RG.6. No. 7875:, #ay %%, 49:'

L$)U=6S L=$GJ= FB6 $ >=TT=6 P"?L?PP?N=S $NEB6 BL?=6 $. LBW$NB S.

P6=S?E=NT (B6$WBN (. $XJ?NB, =T $L.

S?6S#=SE$#=SK

Xuoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this (ourt #$U %%, 49:'.

?n G.6. No. 7875:, Lawyers League for a >etter Philippines vs. President (ora2on (.

$3uino, et al.O G.6. No. 7897%, PeopleIs (rusade for Supremacy of the (onstitutionvs. #rs. (ory $3uino, et al., and G.6. No. 7899;, (ouncilor (lifton J. Ganay vs.

(ora2on (. $3uino, et al., the legitimacy of the government of President $3uino is

3uestioned. ?t is claimed that her government is illegal !ecause it was not

esta!lished pursuant to the 4978 (onstitution.

$s early as $pril 4;, 49:', this (ourtY had already voted to dismiss the petitions for

the reasons to !e stated !elow. Bn $pril 47, 49:', $tty. Lo2ano as counsel for the

petitioners in G.6. Nos. 7875: and 7897% withdrew the petitions and manifested

that they would pursue the 3uestion !y etraDAudicial methods. The withdrawal is

functus o@cio.

The three petitions o!viously are not impressed with merit. Petitioners have no

personality to sue and their petitions state no cause of action. For the legitimacy of

the $3uino government is not a Austicia!le matter. ?t !elongs to the realm of politics

where only the people of the Philippines are the Audge. $nd the people have made

the AudgmentO they have accepted the government of President (ora2on (. $3uino

which is in eCective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de


27/49


factogovernment !ut is in fact and law a de Aure government. #oreover, the

community of nations has recogni2ed the legitimacy of the present government. $ll

the eleven mem!ers of this (ourt, as reorgani2ed, have sworn to uphold the

fundamental law of the 6epu!lic under her government.

?n view of the foregoing, the petitions are here!y dismissed.

ery truly yours,

*Sgd.+ GLB6?$ (. P$6$S

(ler/ of (ourt

Y The (ourt was then composed of Teehan/ee, (.


28/49


29/49


The (ourt held that the (ourt of $ppeals and ?ntermediate $ppellate (ourt eistingprior to =.B. No. 88 phased out as part of the legal system a!olished !y the 49:76evolution. The (ourt of $ppeals that was esta!lished under =.B. No. 88 isconsidered as an entirely new court.

The present (ourt of $ppeals is a new entity, diCerent and distinct from the courts

eisting !efore =.B. No. 88. ?t was created in the wa/e of the massive reorgani2ationlaunched !y the revolutionary government of (ora2on $3uino in the aftermath ofthe people power in 49:'.

6evolution is de@ned as the complete overthrow of the esta!lished government inany country or state !y those who were previously su!Aect to it. or as sudden.radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usuallyeCected with violence or at least some acts of violence.

16. DE LEON V. ESGUERRA

D L* ;. E//0$ 153 SCRA 6%2$ A,$ 31$ 1"!?E B0+@$ J. M+*)H///0

F0+,(Bn #ay 47, 49:%, petitioner $lfredo #. Ee Leon was elected >arangay(aptain together with the other petitioners as >arangay (ouncilmen of >arangayEolores, #uncipality of Taytay, Province of 6i2al in a >arangay election held under>atas Pam!ansa >lg. %%%, otherwise /nown as >arangay =lection $ct of 49:%.

Bn Fe!ruary 9, 49:7, petitioner Ee Leon received a #emorandum antedatedEecem!er 4, 49:' !ut signed !y respondent B?( Governor >enAamin =sguerra onFe!ruary :, 49:7 designating respondent Florentino G. #agno as >arangay (aptainof >arangay Eolores and the other respondents as mem!ers of >arangay (ouncil ofthe same >arangay and #unicipality.

Petitoners prayed to the Supreme (ourt that the su!Aect #emoranda of Fe!ruary :,49:7 !e declared null and void and that respondents !e prohi!ited !y ta/ing overtheir positions of >arangay (aptain and >arangay (ouncilmen.

Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 8 of the >arangay =lection $ct of 49:%*>P >lg. %%%+, their terms of oce shall !e si years which shall commence on


30/49


of Sec. %, $rt. 8 of the Provisional (onstitution and not !ecause their term of siyears had not yet epiredO and that the provision in the >arangay =lection $ct @ingthe term of oce of >arangay ocials to si years must !e deemed to have !eenrepealed for !eing inconsistent with Sec. %, $rt. 8 of the Provisional (onstitution.

I()hether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners wasvalidly made during the oneDyear period which ended on Fe! %&, 49:7.

R(Supreme (ourt declared that the #emoranda issued !y respondent B?(Gov on Fe! :, 49:7 designating respondents as >arangay (aptain and >arangay(ouncilmen of >arangay Eolores, Taytay, 6i2al has no legal force and eCect.The 49:7 (onstitution was rati@ed in a ple!iscite on Fe! %, 49:7, therefore, theProvisional (onstitution must !e deemed to have superseded. "aving !ecomeinoperative, respondent B?( Gov could no longer rely on Sec %, $rt 8, thereof todesignate respondents to the elective positions occupied !y petitioners. 6elevantly,Sec :, $rt 4 of the 49:7 (onstitution further provides in partK

Sec. :. The term of oce of elective local ocials, ecept !arangay ocials, which

shall !e determined !y law, shall !e three years .

Jntil the term of oce of !arangay ocials has !een determined !y aw, therefore,the term of oce of ' years provided for in the >arangay =lection $ct of 49:%should still govern.1. GONZALES V. COMELEC

G" S!46 @@$ E Political :aw E 6mendment to the !onstitution E Political 1uestion vs

9usticiable 1uestion

FACTS( ?n


31/49


32/49


Petition. Santiago argues that 1.@the constitutional provision on people1s initiativeto amend the constitution can only !e implemented !y law to !e passed !y

(ongress and no such law has yet !een passed !y (ongress, 2.@6$ '78& indeedprovides for three systems of initiative namely, initiative on the !onstitution, on

statues and on local legislation.The two latter forms of initiative were speci@cally

provided for in Su!titles ?? and ??? thereof !ut no provisions were speci@cally madefor initiatives on the (onstitution. This omission indicates that the matter of

people1s initiative to amend the (onstitution was left to some future law as

pointed out !y former Senator $rturo Tolentino.

ISSUE( )hether or not 6$ '78& was intended to include initiative on amendmentsto the constitution and if so whether the act, as worded, ade3uately covers such

initiative.

HELD( 6$ '78& is intended to include the system of initiative on amendments tothe constitution !ut is unfortunately inade3uate to cover that system. Sec % of

$rticle 47 of the (onstitution providesK $mendments to this constitution may

li/ewise !e directly proposed !y the people through initiative upon a petition of at

least twelve per centum of the total num!er of registered voters, of which every

legislative district must !e represented !y at least there per centum of the

registered voters therein. . . The (ongress shall provide for the implementation of

the eercise of this right This provision is o!viously not selfDeecutory as it needs

an ena!ling law to !e passed !y (ongress. ernas, a mem!er of the 49:'

(onD(on stated without implementing legislation Section %, $rt 47 cannot operate.

Thus, although this mode of amending the constitution is a mode of amendment

which !ypasses (ongressional action in the last analysis is still dependent on

(ongressional action. >luntly stated, the right of the people to directly proposeamendments to the (onstitution through the system of inititative would remain

entom!ed in the cold niche of the constitution until (ongress provides for its

implementation. The people cannot eercise such right, though constitutionally

guaranteed, if (ongress for whatever reason does not provide for its

implementation.

YYYNote that this ruling has !een reversed on Novem!er %;, %;;' when ten

Austices of the S( ruled that 6$ '78& is ade3uate enough to ena!le such initiative."B)==6, this was a mere minute resolution which reads in partK

Ten *4;+ #em!ers of the (ourt reiterate their position, as shown !y their various

opinions already given when the Eecision herein was promulgated, that 6epu!lic

$ct No. '78& is sucient and ade3uate to amend the (onstitution thru a people1s

initiative.


33/49


1". LAMBINO V. COMELEC

6mendment vs 4evision

FACTS(Lam!ino was a!le to gather the signatures of ',8%7,9&% individuals for an

initiative petition to amend the 49:7 (onstitution. That said num!er of votescomprises at least 4% per centum of all registered voters with each legislative

district at least represented !y at least 8 per centum of its registered voters. This

has !een veri@ed !y local (B#=L=( registrars as well. The proposed amendment to

the constitution see/s to modify Secs 4D7 of $rt ? and Sec 4D5 of $rt ?? and !y

adding $rt H??? entitled Transitory Provisions. These proposed changes will shift

the president !icameralDpresidential system to a JnicameralDParliamentary form of

government. The (B#=L=(, on 84 $ug %;;', denied the petition of the Lam!ino

group due to the lac/ of an ena!ling law governing initiative petitions to amend the

(onstitution this is in pursuant to the ruling in Santiago vs (B#=L=(. Lam!ino et

al contended that the decision in the aforementioned case is only !inding to the

parties within that case.

ISSUE()hether or not the petition for initiative met the re3uirements of Sec %$rtH?? of the 49:7 (onstitution.

HELD(The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. Theproponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as pu!lic

ocials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially eplain

the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people.

The proponents present favora!ly their proposal to the people and do not present

the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, oftenpay those who gather the signatures. Thus, there is no presumption that the

proponents o!served the constitutional re3uirements in gathering the signatures.

The proponents !ear the !urden of proving that they complied with the

constitutional re3uirements in gathering the signatures that the petition

contained, or incorporated !y attachment, the full tet of the proposed

amendments. The proponents failed to prove that all the signatories to the

proposed amendments were a!le to read and understand what the petition

contains. Petitioners merely handed out the sheet where people can sign !ut they

did not attach thereto the full tet of the proposed amendments.

Lam!ino et al are also actually proposing a revisionof the constitution and not amere amendment. This is also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed

amendment should only contain one issue. The proposed amendments !y

petitioners even includes a transitory provision which would ena!le the wouldD!e

parliament to enact more rules.


34/49


There is no need to revisit the Santiago case since the issue at hand can !e decided

upon other facts. The rule is, the (ourt avoids 3uestions of constitutionality so long

as there are other means to resolve an issue at !ar.

YYYNBT=K Bn Novem!er %;, %;;' in a petition for reconsideration su!mitted !y the

Lam!ino Group 4; *ten+


35/49


21. JAVELLANA V. EECUTIVE SECRETAR' ?SAME WITH NO. 1%@22. SANIDAD V. COMELEC@C S!46 CCC E Political :aw E !onstitutional :aw E 6mendment to the !onstitution

FACTS(Bn % Sept 497', #arcos issued PE No. 994 calling for a national referendumon 4' Bct 497' for the (iti2ens $ssem!lies *!arangays+ to resolve, among other

things, the issues of martial law, the interim assem!ly, its replacement, the powers

of such replacement, the period of its eistence, the length of the period for the

eercise !y the President of his present powers. Twenty days after, the President

issued another related decree, PE No. 4;84, amending the previous PE No. 994, !y

declaring the provisions of PE No. %%9 providing for the manner of voting andcanvass of votes in !arangays applica!le to the national referendumDple!iscite of

Bct 4', 497'. Xuite relevantly, PE No. 4;84 repealed inter alia, Sec 5, of PE No.

994. Bn the same date of %% Sept 497', #arcos issued PE No. 4;88, stating the

3uestions to he su!mitted to the people in the referendumDple!iscite on Bcto!er 4',

497'. The Eecree recites in its whereas clauses that the people1s continued

opposition to the convening of the interim National $ssem!ly evinces their desire to

have such !ody a!olished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing

for a new interim legislative !ody, which will !e su!mitted directly to the people in

the referendumDple!iscite of Bcto!er 4'.

Bn Septem!er %7, 497', Sanidad @led a Prohi!ition with Preliminary ?nAunction

see/ing to enAoin the (ommission on =lections from holding and conducting the

6eferendum Ple!iscite on Bcto!er 4'O to declare without force and eCect

Presidential Eecree Nos. 994 and 4;88, insofar as they propose amendments to the

(onstitution, as well as Presidential Eecree No. 4;84, insofar as it directs the

(ommission on =lections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the 6eferendumD

Ple!iscite scheduled on Bcto!er 4', 497'.Petitioners contend that under the 498&


36/49


and 4978 (onstitutions there is no grant to the incum!ent President to eercise the

constituent power to propose amendments to the new (onstitution. $s a

conse3uence, the 6eferendumDPle!iscite on Bcto!er 4' has no constitutional or

legal !asis. The SocDGen contended that the 3uestion is political in nature hence the

court cannot ta/e cogni2ance of it.

ISSUE( )hether or not #arcos can validly propose amendments to the (onstitution.

HELD(Ues.The amending process !oth as to proposal and rati@cation raises aAudicial 3uestion. This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency

to initiate the amending process !y proposals of amendments, a function normally

eercised !y the legislature, is seriously dou!ted. Jnder the terms of the 4978

(onstitution, the power to propose amendments to the (onstitution resides in the

interim National $ssem!ly during the period of transition *Sec. 4&, Transitory

Provisions+. $fter that period, and the regular National $ssem!ly in its active

session, the power to propose amendments !ecomes ipso facto the prerogative of

the regular National $ssem!ly *Sec. 4, pars. 4 and % of $rt. H?, 4978 (onstitution+.

The normal course has not !een followed. 6ather than calling the interim National

$ssem!ly to constitute itself into a constituent assem!ly, the incum!ent President

undertoo/ the proposal of amendments and su!mitted the proposed amendments

thru Presidential Eecree 4;88 to the people in a 6eferendumDPle!iscite on Bcto!er

4'. Jnavoida!ly, the regularity of the procedure for amendments, written in

lam!ent words in the very (onstitution sought to !e amended, raises a contesta!le

issue. The implementing Presidential Eecree Nos. 994, 4;84, and 4;88, which

commonly purport to have the force and eCect of legislation are assailed as invalid,

thus the issue of the validity of said Eecrees is plainly a Austicia!le one, within the

competence of this (ourt to pass upon. Section % *%+ $rticle H of the new(onstitution providesK $ll cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, eecutive

agreement, or law shall !e heard and decided !y the Supreme (ourt en !anc and no

treaty, eecutive agreement, or law may !e declared unconstitutional without the

concurrence of at least ten #em!ers. . . .. The Supreme (ourt has the last word in

the construction not only of treaties and statutes, !ut also of the (onstitution itself.

The amending, li/e all other powers organi2ed in the (onstitution, is in form a

delegated and hence a limited power, so that the Supreme (ourt is vested with that

authority to determine whether that power has !een discharged within its limits.

This petition is however dismissed. The President can propose amendments to the(onstitution and he was a!le to present those proposals to the people in sucient

time. The President at that time also sits as the legislature.

@C S!46 CCC E Political :aw E !onstitutional :aw E 8enition of Political 1uestion
http://www.uberdigests.info/2011/09/political-question-vs-justiciable-question/http://www.uberdigests.info/2011/09/political-question-vs-justiciable-question/


37/49


FACTS(?n Septem!er 497', then President Ferdinand #arcos issued PE 994 callingfor a national referendum on 4' Bct 497' for the (iti2ens $ssem!lies *!arangays+

to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the interim assem!ly, its

replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of its eistence, the

length of the period for the eercise !y the President of his present powers. %; days

after, the President issued another related decree, PE 4;84, amending the previousPE 994, !y declaring the provisions of PE %%9 providing for the manner of voting

and canvass of votes in !arangays applica!le to the national referendumD

ple!iscite of Bct 4', 497'. Xuite relevantly, PE 4;84 repealed inter alia, Sec 5, of

PE. 994. Bn the same date of %% Sept 497', #arcos issued PE. 4;88, stating the

3uestions to he su!mitted to the people in the referendumDple!iscite on Bct 4',

497'. The PE recites in its whereas clauses that the people1s continued opposition

to the convening of the interim N$ evinces their desire to have such !ody a!olished

and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a new interim

legislative !ody, which will !e su!mitted directly to the people in the referendumD

ple!iscite of Bct 4'.

Bn Septem!er %7, 497', $tty. Pa!lito Sanidad @led a Prohi!ition with Preliminary

?nAunction see/ing to enAoin the (B#=L=( from holding and conducting the

6eferendum Ple!iscite on Bct 4'O to declare without force and eCect PE Nos. 994

and 4;88, insofar as they propose amendments to the (onstitution, as well as PE

4;84, insofar as it directs the (B#=L=( to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the

6eferendumDPle!iscite scheduled on Bct 4', 497'.Petitioners contend that under

the 498& and 4978 (onstitutions there is no grant to the incum!ent President to

eercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new (onstitution. $s

a conse3uence, the 6eferendumDPle!iscite on Bct 4' has no constitutional or legal

!asis. The SolDGen contended that the 3uestion is political in nature hence the courtcannot ta/e cogni2ance of it. The SolDGen principally maintains that petitioners have

no standing to sueO the issue raised is political in nature, !eyond Audicial cogni2ance

of the S(O at this state of the transition period, only the incum!ent President has the

authority to eercise constituent powerO the referendumDple!iscite is a step towards

normali2ation.

ISSUE( )hether or not the issue is a political 3uestion.

HELD(The S( ruled that the issue is not a political 3uestion !ut rather a Austicia!le

one. This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate theamending process !y proposals of amendments, a function normally eercised !y

the legislature, is seriously dou!ted. olitical "e!tio! are eatl( a!!ociate&

ith the i!&o', ot the legalit( of a partic"lar act. 3here the %orte$ of

the cotro%er!( refer! to the legalit( or %ali&it( of the cote!te& act, that

'atter i! &e4itel( 5"!ticia6le or o#political. 3hat i! cofrotig the SC

i! ot the i!&o' of the act of the ic"'6et re!i&et i propo!ig

a'e&'et! to the Co!tit"tio, 6"t hi! co!tit"tioal a"thorit( to


38/49


perfor' !"ch act or to a!!"'e the poer of a co!tit"et a!!e'6l(.

3hether the a'e&ig proce!! cofer! o the re!i&et that poer to

propo!e a'e&'et! i! therefore a &oright 5"!ticia6le "e!tio. Sho"l&

the cotrar( 6e fo"&, the act"atio of the re!i&et o"l& 'erel( 6e a

6r"t"' f"l'e. If the Co!tit"tio pro%i&e! ho it 'a( 6e a'e&e&, the

5"&iciar( a! the iterpreter of that Co!tit"tio, ca &eclare hether theproce&"re folloe& or the a"thorit( a!!"'e& a! %ali& or ot.

This petition is however dismissed. The President, who was also the legislature, can

propose amendments to the (onstitution and he was a!le to present those

proposals to the people in sucient time.

23. REPUBLIC ; CA


39/49


G.R. N*. "32 N*;:-/ !$ 1""3

The 6epu!lic of the Philippines has sought the epropriation of certain portions of

land owned !y the private respondents for the widening and concreting of theNa!uaD>atoD$gos Section, PhilippineD=FB6= (BJ6T6 1&5.

??

)"=T"=6 B6 NBT T"= E=(?S?BN BF T"?S*57546:3 !5&4 /7 3PL6

>S. *57. 8&:6N, 3!., 3 6:. *G.6. NB. &9';8, $P6?L %9, 49:7+

E=(L$6?NG PE 4&88 JN(BNST?TJT?BN$L $NE B?E, >= $PPL?=E ?N

T"?S ($S=.

???


40/49


)"=T"=6 B6 NBT $LJ$T?BN BF L$NE SBJG"T FB6 =HP6BP6?$T?BN

$S $PP=$6?NG BN T"= T$H E=(L$6$T?BN >= JS=E $S P6=L?#?N$6U

>$S?S FB6 T"= T=N P=6 (=NT *4;+ E=PBS?T 6=XJ?6=E JNE=6 6JL=

'7 BF T"= 6=?S=E 6JL=S BF (BJ6T, $S $#=NE=E >=FB6= PL$?NT?FF

?S P=6#?TT=E =NT6U T"=6=BN.

The last item is not an issueO !eing merely provisional in character, the matter has

not !een 3uestioned !y the private respondents. 3)e will thus limit ourselves tothe @rst two issues which, in turn, really !oil down to whether the declaration of

nullity of the law in 3uestion should have prospective, not retroactive, application.

The petitioner proposes the armative.

?nstruction is the !rief treatise made !y #r.


41/49


The strict view considers a legislative enactment which is declared unconstitutional

as !eing, for all legal intents and purposes, a total nullity, and it is deemed as if had

never eisted. "ere, of course, we refer to the law itself !eing per se repugnant to

the (onstitution. ?t is not always the case, however, that a law is constitutionally

faultyper se. Thus, it may well !e valid in its general import. !ut invalid in its

application to certain factual situations. To eemplify, an otherwise valid law may !eheld unconstitutional only insofar as it is allowed to operate retrospectively such as,

in pertinent cases, when it vitiates contractually vested rights. To that etent, its

retroactive application may !e so declared invalid as impairing the o!ligations of

contracts. 5

$ Audicial declaration of invalidity, it is also true, may not necessarily o!literate all

the eCects and conse3uences of a void act occurring prior to such a declaration.

Thus, in our decisions on the moratorium laws,6we have !een constrained torecogni2e the interimeCects of said laws prior to their declaration of

unconstitutionality, !ut there we have li/ewise !een una!le to simply ignore strong

considerations of e3uity and fair play. So also, even as a practical matter, a situation

that may aptly !e descri!ed asfait accomplimay no longer !e open for further

in3uiry, let alone to !e unsettled !y a su!se3uent declaration of nullity of a

governing statute.

The instant controversy, however, is too far distant away from any of the a!ove

eceptional cases. To this day, the controversy !etween the petitioner and the

private respondents on the issue of Aust compensation is still unresolved, partly

attri!uta!le to the instant petition that has prevented the @nality of the decision

appealed from. The fact of the matter is that the epropriation cases, involved in

this instance, were still pending appeal when the =PW$ ruling was rendered andforthwith invo/ed !y said parties.

?n @ne, we hold that the appellate court in this particular case committed no error in

its appealed decision. )"=6=FB6=, the instant petition is dismissed. No costs.


42/49


24. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V. GSIS

G.R. N*. 122156$ F-/0/ 3$ 1""

BELLOSILLO$.(

I. THE FACTS

Pursuant to the privati2ation program of the Philippine Government, the GS?Ssold in pu!lic auction its sta/e in #anila "otel (orporation *#"(+. Bnly % !iddersparticipatedK petitioner #anila Prince "otel (orporation, a Filipino corporation, whichoCered to !uy &4 of the #"( or 4&,8;;,;;; shares at P54.&: per share, and6enong>erhad, a #alaysian @rm, with ?TTDSheraton as its hotel operator, which !id

for the same num!er of shares at P55.;; per share, or P%.5% more than the !id ofpetitioner.

Petitioner @led a petition !efore the Supreme (ourt to compel the GS?S toallow it to match the !id of 6enong>erhad. ?t invo/ed the Filipino FirstPolicyenshrined in M4;, paragraph %, $rticle H?? of the 49:7 (onstitution, whichprovides that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the


43/49


national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualiedFilipinos.O

II. THE ISSUES

4. )hether M4;, paragraph %, $rticle H?? of the 49:7 (onstitution is a selfDeecuting

provision and does not need implementing legislation to carry it into eCectO%. $ssuming M4;, paragraph %, $rticle H?? is selfDeecuting, whether the controlling

shares of the #anila "otel (orporation form part of our patrimony as a nationO8. )hether GS?S is included in the term State, hence, mandated to implement M4;,

paragraph %, $rticle H?? of the (onstitutionO and5. $ssuming GS?S is part of the State, whether it should give preference to the

petitioner, a Filipino corporation, over 6enong>erhad, a foreign corporation, in thesale of the controlling shares of the #anila "otel (orporation.

III. THE RULING

[he !ourt, voting ""#$, DISMISSEDthe petition.%

1. YES, 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Co!tit"tio i! a!elf#e$ec"tig pro%i!io a& &oe! ot ee& i'ple'etig legi!latio tocarr( it ito e)ect.

Sec. 4;, second par., of $rt H?? is couched in such a way as not to ma/e itappear that it is nonDselfDeecuting !ut simply for purposes of style. >ut, certainly,the legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to enforce theconstitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute s3uares with the(onstitution. #inor details may !e left to the legislature without impairing the selfDeecuting nature of constitutional provisions.

6espondents . . . argue that the nonDselfDeecuting nature of Sec. 4;, secondpar., of $rt. H?? is implied from the tenor of the @rst and third paragraphs of thesame section which undou!tedly are not selfDeecuting. The argument is Qawed. ?fthe @rst and third paragraphs are not selfDeecuting !ecause (ongress is still toenact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fullyowned !y Filipinos, as in the @rst paragraph, and the State still needs legislation toregulate and eercise authority over foreign investments within its nationalAurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, !y the same logic, the secondparagraph can only !e selfDeecuting as it does not !y its language re3uire anylegislation in order to give preference to 3uali@ed Filipinos in the grant of rights,privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. $constitutional provision may !e selfDeecuting in one part and nonDselfDeecuting inanother.

. Sec. 4;, second par., $rt. H?? of the 49:7 (onstitution is a mandatory,positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelinesor implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provisiondoes not re3uire any legislation to put it in operation. ?t isper seAudicially


44/49


enforcea!le. )hen our (onstitution mandates that[i%n the grant of rights,privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the Stateshall give preference to qualied Filipinos, it means Aust that D 3uali@ed Filipinosshall !e preferred. $nd when our (onstitution declares that a right eists in certainspeci@ed circumstances an action may !e maintained to enforce such rightnotwithstanding the a!sence of any legislation on the su!AectO conse3uently, if there

is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such rightenforces itself !y its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which alllegislations must ta/e their !earings. )here there is a right there is a remedy. &bi

'us ibiremedium.

2. YES, the cotrollig !hare! of the Maila *otel Corporatio for'part of o"r patri'o( a! a atio.

?n its plain and ordinary meaning, the termpatrimonypertains toheritage. )hen the (onstitution spea/s of national patrimony,it refers not only tothe natural resources of the Philippines, as the (onstitution could have very well

used the term natural resources, !ut also to the cultural heritageof the Filipinos.

For more than eight *:+ decades #anila "otel has !ore mute witness to thetriumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the FilipinosO its eistence isimpressed with pu!lic interestO its own historicity associated with our struggle forsovereignty, independence and nationhood. erily, #anila "otel has !ecome part ofour national economy and patrimony. For sure, &4 of the e3uity of the #"( comeswithin the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the maAority andcontrolling stoc/, so that anyone who ac3uires or owns the &4 will have actualcontrol and management of the hotel. ?n this instance, &4 of the #"( cannot !edisassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edi@cestands. (onse3uently, we cannot sustain respondents1 claim that the Filipino FirstPolicyprovision is not applica!le since what is being sold is only (") of theoutstanding shares of the corporation, not the *otel building nor the land uponwhich the building stands.

+. YES, SIS i! icl"&e& i the ter' -State, hece, it i! 'a&ate&to i'ple'et 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the Co!tit"tio.

?t is undisputed that the sale of &4 of the #"( could only !e carried outwith the prior approval of the State acting through respondent (ommittee onPrivati2ation. RThis fact alone ma/es the sale of the assets of respondents GS?Sand #"( a state action. ?n constitutional Aurisprudence, the acts of personsdistinct from the government are considered state action covered !y the(onstitution *4+ when the activity it engages in is a public function+ *%+ when thegovernment is so signi@cantly involved with the private actor as to ma/e thegovernment responsi!le for his actionO and, *8+ when the government has approvedor authori2ed the action. ?t is evident that the act of respondent GS?S in selling &4of its share in respondent #"( comes under the second and third categories ofstate action. )ithout dou!t therefore the transaction, although entered into !y


45/49


respondent GS?S, is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore su!Aect to theconstitutional command.

)hen the (onstitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people !utalso to the government as elements of the State. $fter all, government is composedof three *8+ divisions of power D legislative, eecutive and Audicial. $ccordingly, a

constitutional mandate directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the three*8+ !ranches of government. ?t is undenia!le that in this case the su!Aectconstitutional inAunction is addressed among others to the =ecutive Eepartmentand respondent GS?S, a government instrumentality deriving its authority from theState.

/. YES, SIS !ho"l& gi%e preferece to the petitioer i the !ale ofthe cotrollig !hare! of the Maila *otel Corporatio.

?t should !e stressed that while the #alaysian @rm oCered the higher !id it isnot yet the winning !idder. The !idding rules epressly provide that the highest

!idder shall only !e declared the winning !idder after it has negotiated andeecuted the necessary contracts, and secured the re3uisite approvals. Sincethe Filipino First Policyprovision of the (onstitution !estows preferenceon qualied Filipinosthe mere tending of the highest !id is not an assurance thatthe highest !idder will !e declared the winning !idder. 6esultantly, respondents arenot !ound to ma/e the award yet, nor are they under o!ligation to enter into onewith the highest !idder. For in choosing the awardee respondents are mandated toa!ide !y the dictates of the 49:7 (onstitution the provisions of which are presumedto !e /nown to all the !idders and other interested parties.

Paragraph .


46/49


26.TAADA V. ANGARA

G.6. No. 44:%9& Z #ay %, 4997

S::0/( Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Philippines acceding to the)orld Trade Brgani2ation for !eing violative of provisions which are supposed to


47/49


give preference to Filipino wor/ers and economy and on the ground that it infringes

legislative and Audicial power. The )TB, through it provisions on most favored

nation and national treatment, re3uire that nationals and other mem!er countries

are placed in the same footing in terms of products and services. "owever, the

(ourt !rushed oC these contentions and ruled that the )TB is constitutional.

Sections 4; and 4% of $rticle H?? *National =conomy and Patrimony+ should !e readin relation to Sections 4 and 48 *promoting the general welfare+. $lso, Section 4; is

selfDeecuting only to rights, privileges, and concessions covering national

economy and patrimony !ut not every aspect of trade and commerce.There are

!alancing provisions in the (onstitution allowing the Senate to ratify the )TB

agreement. $lso, the (onstitution doesn1t rule out foreign competition. States waive

certain amount of sovereignty when entering into treaties.

F0+,(

This case 3uestions the constitutionality of the Philippines !eing part of the

)orld Trade Brgani2ation, particularly when President Fidel 6amos signed the?nstrument of 6ati@cation and the Senate concurring in the said treaty.

Following )orld )ar %, glo!al @nancial leaders held a conference in >retton)oods to discuss glo!al economy. This led to the esta!lishment of three greatinstitutionsK ?nternational >an/ for 6econstruction and Eevelopment *)orld>an/+, ?nternational #onetary Fund and ?nternational Trade Brgani2ation.

"owever, the ?TB failed to materiali2ed. ?nstead, there was the General$greement on Trades and TariCs. ?t was on the Jruguay 6ound of the G$TTthat the )TB was then esta!lished.

The )TB is an institution regulating trade among nations, including thereduction of tariC and !arriers.

Petitioners @led a case assailing the )TB $greement for violating themandate of the 49:7 (onstitution to develop a selfDreliant and independentnational economy eCectively controlled !y Filipinos, to give preference to3uali@ed Filipinos and to promote the preferential use of Filipino la!or,domestic materials and locally produced goods.

?t is petitioners1 position that the national treatment and parity provisionsof the )TB $greement place nationals and products of mem!er countries onthe same footing as Filipinos and local products, in contravention of theFilipino First policy of the (onstitution. They allegedly render meaninglessthe phrase eCectively controlled !y Filipinos.

I 1(Eoes the petition present a Austicia!le controversy U=S[

?n see/ing to nullify the Senate1s act as !eing unconstitutional, the petition no dou!t

raises a Austicia!le controversy. ?t !ecomes not only the right !ut in fact the duty of

the Audiciary to settle the dispute


48/49


49/49


o =port su!sidy developed countries, 8' in ' yearsO developingcountries, 85ths of 8' in 4; years

C*,,,* D* N*, R O, F*/ C*:8,,*o =ncourages industries that are competitive in !oth domestic and

foreign mar/ets The (ourt will not pass upon the advantages and disadvantages of trade

li!erali2ation as an economic policy. ?t will only perform its constitutionalduty of determining whether the Senate committed grave a!use of discretion

I 3( Eoes the tet of the )TB and its $nnees limit, restrict or impair theeercise of legislative power !y (ongress NB[

$ portion of sovereignty may !e waived without violating the (onstitution.

)hile sovereignty has traditionally !een deemed a!solute and allDencompassing on the domestic level, it is however su!Aect to restrictions andlimitations voluntarily agreed to !y the Philippines, epressly or impliedly, as

a mem!er of the family of nations. The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality !e

considered a!solute. (ertain restrictions enter into the pictureK limitationsimposed !y the nature of mem!ership in the family of nations \ limitationsimposed !y treaty stipulations.

consti law review digest 1

Documents