7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

1/12

EN BANC

[G.R. NO. 127882 : February 1, 2005]

LA BUGAL-BLAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v.VICTOR O. RAMOS, ETAL., Respondents.

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO MORALES,J.

'Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of theirreal importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediateoverwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediateinterests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful,and before which even well settled principles of law will bend. (Dissenting Opinion of Justice OliverWendell Homes in Northern Securities Company v. U.S.,193 U.S. 197, 400-401 [1904])

The issue of the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942 (the Mining Act of 1995) and its

implementing rules - an issue which has proven to be of 'immediate overwhelming interest - is onceagain before this Court.

This time, petitioners seek a reconsideration of this Court's December 1, 2004 Resolution whichgranted the respondents' and intervenors' Motions for Reconsideration of its Decision of January 27,2004. The dispositive portion of the December 1, 2004 Resolution reads:1

WHEREFORE, the COURT RESOLVES to GRANTthe respondents' and the intervenors' Motions forReconsideration; to REVERSEand SET ASIDEthis Court's January 27, 2004 Decision; to DISMISSthePetition; and to issue this new judgment declaring CONSTITUTIONAL(1) Republic Act No. 7942 (thePhilippine Mining Law), (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations contained in DENR AdministrativeOrder (DAO) No. 9640 ' insofar as they relate to financial and technical assistance agreementsreferred to in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution; and (3) the Financial andTechnical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated March 30, 1995 executed by the Government andWestern Mining Corporation Philippines Inc. (WMCP), except Sections 7.8(e) and 7.9 of the subjectFTAA which are hereby INVALIDATED for being contrary to public policy and for being grosslydisadvantageous to the government. (Italics in the original)

Arguing that the Mining Act and its implementing rules violate the provisions of Section 2, Article XII ofthe Constitution regarding 'agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical orfinancial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleumand other mineral oils, petitioners pray that:

(a) Oral argumentation be set for the purpose of clarifying the new issues raised in the [Resolution] ofDecember 1, 2004;

(b) After notice and hearing:

1. the [Resolution] rendered on December 1, 2004 be set aside and vacated;

2. the WMCP FTAA deriving force and effect from it be declared unconstitutional, illegal andnull and void;

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn1

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

2/12

3. Republic Act No. 7942 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations be declaredunconstitutional and null and void.

Such other relief as are just and equitable under the premises.

Unfortunately, as noted in the majority Resolution on petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration at bar,'after a thorough deliberation on the Motion, none of the members of this Court have changed theiropinions or votes. Petitioners are thus not afforded the opportunity to fully discuss, through oralargument, the new issues which have arisen in this case.

However, at some future time, this Court may have the opportunity to re-examine and re-evaluatethe pronouncements and conclusions made by the majority. I am thus compelled to underscore thefollowing points in addition to those set forth in my Dissenting Opinion of December 1, 2004.

As petitioners point out, the Court's December 1, 2004 Resolution makes much of the government'sself-declared 'fiscal crisis' and ultimately concludes that the State will never be in a position to directly

explore, develop or utilize its own resources:

However, it is of common knowledge, and of judicial notice as well, that the government is and hasfor many many years been financially strapped, to the point that even the most essential serviceshave suffered serious curtailments -- education and health care, for instance, not to mention judicialservices -- have had to make do with inadequate budgetary allocations. Thus, government has hadto resort to build-operate-transfer and similar arrangements with the private sector, in order to getvital infrastructure projects built without any governmental outlay.

The very recent brouhaha over the gargantuan 'fiscal crisis' or 'budget deficit merely confirms whatthe ordinary citizen has suspected all along. After the reality check, one will have to admit theimplausibility of a direct undertaking -- by the State itself -- of large-scaleexploration, developmentand utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. Such an undertaking entailsnotonly humongous capital require me, but also the attendant risk of never finding and developingeconomically viable quantities of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils.2(Emphasis supplied)

At the same time, the ponenciaseems to have accepted the necessity of engaging in large scalemining activities in order to realize the projected riches, which are expected to materialize as a result:

Whether we consider the near term or take the longer view, we cannot overemphasize the need foran appropriate balancing of interests and needs -- the need to develop our stagnating miningindustry and extract what NEDA Secretary Romulo Neri estimates is some US$840 billion (approx.PhP47.04 trillion) worth of mineral wealth lying hidden in the ground, in order to jumpstart our

floundering economyon the one hand, and on the other, the need to enhance our nationalisticaspirations, protect our indigenous communities, and prevent irreversible ecologicaldamage.3(Emphasis supplied)

Indeed, the majority appears to have taken a liking to the mining industry as a whole, affordingeconomic woes a greater measure of sympathy than that accorded to the 'big three oil playersinTatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy4or local cement producers in Southern CrossCement Corp. v. Phil. Cement Manufacturers Corp.5'Thus, in abandoning his original finding ofmootness, the ponentestates:

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn2

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

3/12

But of equal if not greater significance is the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the mining industry,which is even now scaring away foreign investments. Attesting to this climate of anxiety is the factthat the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines saw the urgent need to intervene in the case and topresent its position during the Oral Argument; and that Secretary General Romulo Neri of the NationalEconomic Development Authority (NEDA) requested this Court to allow him to speak, during that OralArgument, on the economic consequences of the Decision of January 27, 2004.

We are convinced. We now agree that the Court must recognize the exceptional character of the

situation and the paramount public interest involved, as well as the necessity for a ruling to put anend to the uncertainties plaguing the mining industry and the affected communities as a result of

doubts cast upon the constitutionality and validity of the Mining Act, the subject FTAA and future

FTAAs, and the need to avert a multiplicity of suits. Paraphrasing Gonzales v. Commission onElections,it is evident that strong reasons of public policy demand that the constitutionality issue beresolved now.6(Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)

Not surprisingly, petitioners object to the foregoing economic considerations which are perceived tounderpin this Court's December 1, 2004 Resolution. Thus, they argue:

The main ponencia arrives at its conclusions with respect to determining what constitutes equitable

sharing as well as reasonable control through the following assumptions which may have taken theform of judicial notice:

First, in agreements with fully foreign owned corporations in the exploration, development andutilization of mineral resources, the government does not take any risk;

Second, increasing investments in the commercial extraction of mineral resources would contributepositively to economic growth;

Third, a more liberal investment friendly interpretation of the provisions of the constitution will result inincrease in beneficial investments.

These are assumptions expected of investors who are wishing to convince the state to makeregulations friendlier to their operations. However, they do not necessarily redound to the benefit ofthe many more members of communities directly or indirectly affected7

Instead, petitioners, advocate what they believe to be the better development paradigm:

The main opinion opens with a desire to arrive at an interpretation of the constitution that does not'strangulate economic growth to serve narrow parochial interests. It also assumes that encouragingthe exploitation of mineral resources would 'attract foreign investments and expertise and that itwould necessarily 'secure for our people and our posterity the blessings of prosperity and peace.

Besides simply asserting it to be a truism that restricting investments in extractive natural resourcesslows growth, the respondents have not presented any viable empirically proven causation betweenrestricted investments in extractive natural resource industries and slower growth. In fact, study afterstudy has shown that the opposite is empirically proven.

The natural resource curse is a phenomenon that is a demonstrable empirical fact. With fewexceptions, countries which rely heaviest on their natural resources sector are the ones that exhibitedthe slowest growth. Empirical and analytic studies cited by economists Sachs and Warner. .. showthat the natural resource curse is a demonstrable empirical fact, even after controlling for trends incommodity prices. There is little direct evidence that omitted geographical or climate variables

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn6

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

4/12

explain the curse, or that there is bias resulting from some other unobserved growth deterrent.Resource-abundant countries tended to be high-priced economies and, consequently, tended tomiss out on export-led growth. Natural resource abundance can crowd-out drivers of growth such astraded-manufacturing activities, education and even growth-promoting entrepreneurial activity.

If, as the ponencia admonishes, we are to read the Constitution in broad, life-giving strokes - in amanner that does not strangulate economic growth and gives justice to all, present and futuregenerations - we cannot close our eyes to this empirical reality: that dependence on our natural

resources can ultimately lead to slower growth, if not a growth collapse. It should be cautious ratherthan embracing of very large investments into the exploration, development and utilization of naturaresources. The fear expressed by the ponencia that our growth will stagnate has no empirical leg tostand on and therefore should not be the basis of any form of judicial assumption or judicialnotice.8(Italics in the original; citations omitted)

To my mind, both approaches, which articulate a desired economic result, are inappropriate andinapplicable to the determination of the constitutionality of the Mining Act. In my view, judicialdecision making should not be influenced by a desired economic outcome, but should be theproduct of the application of established neutral legal principles to the facts and the law of the caseIf, in deciding a question of constitutionality, a judicial decision should reflect a particular economic

perspective, it should only be that adopted by the Constitution itself.

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

As Aristotle put it, 'Law is reason free from passion. And, since the authority of this Court - possessed ofneither the purse nor the sword - ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moralsanction,9it must ultimately depend on the power of reason, its sole currency to paraphrase JusticeThurgood Marshall,10for sustained public confidence in the justness of its decisions.11

It should be plain that judges do not engage in reason giving or opinion writing merely as anintellectual performance A judicial justification is offered in order tojustify to someone the decision orconclusion; a justification is directed to an audience. Perhaps the first person to whom the

justification is directed is the losing litigant; and to this may be added all other people whose interestsmight be adversely affected by the result. These persons need to be assured that the administrationof the law is not just a bald exercise of coercion, that it is not the might of the judge (the power ofenforcement) that makes the decision right. Reasoned decisions, therefore, can be viewed asattempts atrational persuasion; and by means of such decisions, losing parties may be brought toaccept the result as a legitimate exercise of authority. If this acceptance is achieved, the cause ofsocial peace is also promoted, since every case has a loser. The system of administering justicethrough the courts is not likely to survive for very long if half the people whose disputes are resolvedare convinced that judges arbitrarily decide questions of law.12(Italics in the original; emphasis andunderscoring supplied)

Judicial decisions, however, do not merely serve the purpose of convincing people that judges donot act arbitrarily. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. correctly viewed case law as a prediction ofwhat courts will do.13Judicial decisions supply guidance to other individuals on what the law is andon how their cases are likely to be decided should they end up in court, so that those individuals canadjust their conduct accordingly.14

. .. But a decision can serve this function only if reasons are given, otherwise, all one has is anunconnected series of raw facts. One has to know which facts are legally significant - which is whatthe reasons indicate. (The fact that the man who went through the red light was named Smith is notlegally significant, but the fact that he was on his way to a hospital may be crucial.)Second,appellate courts are supposed to supply legal guidance to lower courts, and because of

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn8

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

5/12

considerations similar to those just mentioned, their decisions will not be very helpful unless they layout the reasons for their rulings. And third, in the American system many decisions are justified byreference to precedent ' the decisions made in prior cases. Again, it is only because explicit reasonswere given for these earlier decisions that they are of any use for later cases. Plainly, many of thefunctions that courts serve require reasoned decisions.15(Emphasis supplied)

It goes without saying that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives ofthe legal system, and judicial decisions serve the important purpose of providing stability to the law

and to the society governed by that law. Hence, the doctrine ofstare decisis16which Justice SandraDay O Connor described in State Oil Co. v. Khan17as 'the preferred course because it promotes theevenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judiciadecisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.18Thissentiment is echoed by Justice Benjamin Cardozo:

I must be logical, just as I must be impartial, and upon like grounds. It will not do to decide the samequestion one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another. If a group ofcases involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It would be a gross injustice todecide alternate cases on opposite principles. If a case was decided against me yesterday when Iwas defendant, I shall look for the same judgment today if I am plaintiff. To decide differently would

raise a feeling of resentment and wrong in my breast; it would be an infringement, material andmoral, of my rights. Everyone feels the force of this sentiment when two cases are thesame. Adherence to precedent must then be the rule rather than the exception if litigants are to havefaith in the even-handed administration of justice in the courts.19(Citations omitted; emphasissupplied)

And these desired objectives of certainty, predictability and stability can only be achieved if courtsrender decisions based on legal principles. The determination of the correctness of a judicial decisionturns on far more than its outcome.20Rather, it turns primarily on whether its outcome evolved fromprinciples of judicial methodology[21since the Judiciary's function is not to bring about somedesirable state of affairs but to find objectively the right decision by adhering to the establishedgeneral system of rules.22The philosophy of 'the end justifies the means' espoused by NiccoloMachiavelli simply has no place in decision making. As one judge puts it:

These methodological constraints do mean that we judges sometimes sustain actions we think makelittle sense, invalidate programs we like, or apply precedents we believe were wrongly decided In allthese cases, though, we may have been troubled by the outcomes, we knew that vindicating therule of law was far more important to our constitutional system than the issues at stake in anyparticular case. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it this way: 'It has given me great pleasure to sustainthe Constitutionality of laws that I believe to be as bad as possible, because I thereby helped to markthe difference between what I would forbid and what the Constitution permits.23(Citation omitted;emphasis and underscoring supplied).

In his seminal article entitled Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law,24Columbia law professorHerbert Wechsler popularized the phrase 'principled decision which he defined as 'one that rests onreasons with respect to all the issues in the case, reasons that in their generality and their neutralitytranscend any immediate result that is involved.25Consequently, to adopt a strained interpretation ofa rule to achieve desired results is not a 'neutral principle, and decisions that apply it are notgenuinely principled decisions because they do not rest on analysis and reasons quite transcendingthe immediate result.26Wechsler further elaborates:

When no sufficient reasons of this kind can be assigned for overturning value choices of the otherbranches of the Government those choices must, of course, survive.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn15

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

6/12

x x x

The virtue or demerit of a judgment turns, therefore, entirely on the reasons that support it and theiradequacy to maintain any choice of values it decrees, or, it is vital that we add, to maintain therejection of a claim that any given choice should be decreed.27rll

That said, it is readily apparent that this Court should not heed the apprehension of some foreignbusinessmen that this Court's January 27, 2004 Decision in La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. v.

Ramos28might hamper the government's efforts of resuscitating the mining industry and ultimatelyresult in 'the possible loss of billions of dollars of investments and exports and tens of thousands of

jobs29

Nor should this Court be swayed by moves to fault Justices whose decisions are not to a party'sliking.30As observed by Professor Aharon Barak, the President of the Supreme Court of Israel, criticismof the judiciary is unavoidable:

.. . In performing [its] duty, the court must, inevitably, be in conflict with the other branches, especiallyso in modern times where more and more political questions present themselves as legal questions,and are brought to be adjudicated before the courts, and especially so where the scope of judicial

review over the other branches is wider than in the past. A wider judicial review carries with it widerinterest in the courts, and widening tension between the court and the other branches ofgovernment. If there will be no conflict and no tension, the court will not be fulfilling its constitutionalrole. Thus, criticism there will always be.31

In Tatad v. Secretary of Department of Energy,32this Court, speaking through Justice (now SeniorAssociate Justice) Reynato S. Puno, put aside all consideration of the possible impact the invalidationof the Oil Deregularization Law might have on the profitability of the petroleum industry in favor of aprincipled interpretation of the Constitution:

With this Decision, some circles will chide the Court for interfering with an economic decision ofCongress. Such criticism is charmless for the Court is annulling R.A. No. 8180 not because it disagreeswith deregulation as an economic policy but because as cobbled by Congress in its present form,the law violates the Constitution. The right call therefor should be for Congress to write a new oilderegulation law that conforms with the Constitution and not for this Court to shirk its duty of strikingdown a law that offends the Constitution. Striking down R.A. No. 8180 may cost losses in quantifiableterms to the oil oligopolists. But the loss in tolerating the tampering of our Constitution is notquantifiable in pesos and centavos. More worthy of protection than the supra-normal profits of privatecorporations is the sanctity of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Indeed when confrontedby a law violating the Constitution, the Court has no option but to strike it down dead. Lest it is missed,the Constitution is a covenant that grants and guarantees both the political and economic rights ofthe people. The Constitution mandates this Court to be the guardian not only of the people's politicalrights but their economic rights as well. The protection of the economic rights of the poor and the

powerless is of greater importance to them for they are concerned more with the esoterics of livingand less with the esoterics of liberty.Hence, for as long as the Constitution reigns supreme so long willthis Court be vigilant in upholding the economic rights of our people especially from the onslaught ofthe powerful. Our defense of the people's economic rights may appear heartless because it cannotbe half-hearted.33(Italics in the original; emphasis supplied)

In reversing this Court's January 27, 2004 Decision, I fear that the majority has retreated from its resolvein Tatadand, unwittingly, has been swayed by peripheral and ultimately irrelevant economicarguments in its well-intentioned desire to arrive at a result which it believes would encourageeconomic recovery and prop up the floundering mining industry.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn27

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

7/12

By doing so, however, the majority has given its imprimatur to an interpretation and application ofthe concepts of 'verba legis, 'full control and supervision, and 'permissible legislative delegation,which are inconsistent with established 'neutral principles' and incompatible with the letter and intentof the Constitution,34thus undermining the stability of our jurisprudence and making theadministration of justice a constant subject of speculation.

In both the questioned Resolution of December 1, 2004 and in the present Resolution denyingpetitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, the majority has continuously expressed its trust in the faithful

exercise of discretion by both the President and her alter-ego, the Secretary of Environment andNatural Resources, in order to secure for all Filipinos, present and future, their just share in the nation'smineral resources:

x x x The issue of how much 'profit the nation should or could derive from the exploration,development and utilization of the country's mineral resources is a policy matter, over which we 'mustallow the President and Congress maximum discretion in using the resources of our country and insecuring the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grinding poverty of our people and answetheir cry for viable employment opportunities in the country, (pp. 240-241, Resolution datedDecember 1, 2004). That the aforementioned law, executive issuance and contract had beendeclared constitutional will not prevent Congress or the President or the parties to the FTAA from

amending or modifying them, if indeed, in their opinion they are unwise or wanting in any respect.

While there can be no doubt that the political branches of government enjoy a wide discretion inenacting and implementing programs and policies for the common good, still the exercise of thisdiscretion is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Thus, in my view, respect for theother co-equal branches of government can, and should, go hand-in-hand with a criticalinvestigation of those limits.

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Indeed, behind every constitution is the premise of mistrust. Consider the insight of James Madison,widely regarded as the Father of the American Constitution:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angelsno government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internalcontrols on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administeredby men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control thegoverned; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt,the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliaryprecautions.35(Emphasis supplied)

Our present Constitution is no exception. The 1987 is the product of our experience during martial lawas elucidated by Justice Puno:rbl rl l lbrr

. .. The serendipity of the 1935 Constitution was tested by the tumult of the 60's and the 70's. The writof habeas corpuswas suspended and when that remedy proved inadequate, President Marcoswielded the state's ultimate weapon by declaring martial law. The President's exercise of hiscommander-in-chief powers distorted the distribution and balance of state powers. The legislaturewas shut down; the executive became the dominant branch of government; and the exercise ofcertain political and civil rights was diminished. The rearrangement of powers and its effects onindividual rights brought to the limelight the judiciary and its power of judicial review. Demand wasmade for the Highest Court of the land to exercise its power of review, to set aside the presidentialproclamation of martial law, and to void the 1973 Constitution's ratification [T]he High Court decidedthese cases by following the traditional and prudential path in constitutional litigations. It declined to

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn34

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

8/12

strike down the acts of the Chief Executive and the ratification by the people of the 1973 Constitutionon the ground that they constitute political questions.

Thus, the President continued to be the dominant force in the legal landscape. Under AmendmentNo. 1 of the 1973 Constitution, the president was further given the unusual power to make laws.Congress abdicated its lawmaking powers, the first time legislative power was surrendered to theexecutive. With the legislative and executive powers concentrated in the presidency, the judiciarybecame more passive in the exercise of its power of review. There was more resort to the doctrine of

political question to justify non-interference in acts of government.

Soon, the volume and velocity of the problems that confronted the Marcos government reached adisturbing level [J]udicial control of government wrongdoings weakened, proving to be critical to theadministration's fate. The passivity with which the power of judicial review was wielded by the courtsdrove those who sought grievance for their complaints to take to the streets. Street sovereigntyreigned over the sovereignty of the parliament; the people's tribunal determined what the rule of lawought to be and not the courts of justice. In the end, people power settled the issues which the courtsdeclined to resolve36rll

And 'born out of the trauma of martial law, the 1987 Constitution relies on a strengthened judiciary

not only to safeguard the liberties of the people but also to prevent the unwarranted assumption ofpower by the other two departments of government.37rll

With the words 'and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of theGovernment,38the scope of judicial inquiry broadened into areas which the Court under previousconstitutions would have normally left to the political departments to decide.39rll

Included in this new found strength is the Court's power-duty to review economic measuresimplementing policy as Dean Pacifico A. Agabin, counsel for intervenor, Chamber of Mines, morethan adequately explains:

The 1987 Constitution follows the modern trend. It is not made out of the same mold as the Americanfederal constitution. While the latter is almost silent on government intervention in the economy, ourconstitution is replete with provisions for regulation of the economy and of the state's positiveobligation to promote social justice. As its framers like to put it, our present constitution is 'pro-people,pro-poor, and pro-Filipino. This means that the Philippine Supreme Court, unlike the U.S. SupremeCourt, cannot promote the development of capitalist institutions at the expense of the people. Itcannot assume the function of protecting the market from various regulatory incursions if theseconflicts with the economic policies incorporated in the constitution.While the constitutional toolswhich may be used to protect free enterprise have been copied in the present constitution, like thedue process clause, the equal protection clause, the contracts clause, and the takings clause, thesehave been neutralized not only by the reversals by the Supreme Court but also by countervailing

policies in the constitution itself. Unless we reduce the constitution to a mere imitation of its Americancounterpart, the Supreme Court cannot behave like the U.S. Supreme Court during the Gilded Agewhen it tilted the balance in favor of free markets over the sovereignty of the people.

Of course, the basic understanding behind our politico-legal culture is that the function of ourelectorally accountable legislative branch is to make policy choices; the function of our electorallyaccountable executive branch is to administer policy choices; and the function of our electorallyunaccountable judicial branch is merely to enforce policy choices. Proceeding from this premise, itbecomes clear that it is the duty of our Supreme Court to enforce policy choices especially if theseare provided for in the fundamental law.While 'originalists' think that it is illegitimate for the judiciary togo beyond the enforcement of policy to the making of policy, and while it is illegitimate for the

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn36

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

9/12

judiciary to oppose itself to the democratic departments of government, it must now follow that it isthe legitimate duty of the judiciary to enforce policy which has been constitutionalized by thepeople. It must be granted that policies constitutionalized by the people constitute valid delegationsof power to the Supreme Court, which it cannot shirk to enforce if its members are to be true to theiroath to support the constitution. To draw an analogy from the U.S. Constitution, it is like the ideals ofliberty and equality which are enshrined in that constitution To paraphrase Justice Benjamin Cardozo,these 'are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the scorn and derision of those who haveno patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task

of their protection a body of defenders. Since the 'body of defenders' referred to is the SupremeCourt, it cannot shirk the defense of provisions embodied in the constitution without abdicating itsduty, not to mention that of the individual justices to uphold the constitution.To quote Justice FelixFrankfurter in another context, 'the course of constitutional history has cast responsibilities upon theSupreme Court which it would be 'stultification for it to evade.40

x x x

Critics of the Supreme Court are not really against judicial review of economic policy in principle.They are against judicial review only if the Court declares a law unconstitutional, or if it reversesadministrative agency action implementing economic policy as grave abuse of discretion. In short,

they are against the use of judicial review as a veto power, with the Supreme Court sitting as a superlegislature or as super executive. But this depends, as one wag puts it, on 'whose ox is being gored.

x x x

This attack against judicial 'intrusion in economic policy is off-tangent in the Philippine context. Thisview of the limited role of the Court uses the American constitution as its frame of reference, and seesthe Court as the counterpart of the American Supreme Court. Indeed, it is reminiscent of theAmerican cultural bias for non-intervention in economic affairs. Perhaps in our day and age, withglobalization and liberalization of trade and commerce as the pervasive buzzwords, this is the properperspective.41But the historical fact is that the Philippine constitution is not completely carved out ofthe pattern of the American constitution. 'The Philippine constitution is cast in the modern mold whichlists a number of economic, social, and

educational policies which the Court is bound to enforce. This enforcement of economic policy,which necessarily carries with it the interpretation of words and phrases used in the constitution, givesthe Court not only the opportunity but also the duty to review economic measures implementingpolicy.42(Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied).

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Thus, I do not believe that the issue of whether the State receives a just share of the proceeds fromthe country's mineral wealth under the Mining Act and its implementing rules can be lightly rebuffed

as a 'policy question. Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides that agreements with foreign-owned corporations 'for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum,and other mineral oils' be, among other considerations, 'based on real contributions to the economicgrowth and general welfare of the country. Thus, the discretion of the legislative and executivebranches is clearly circumscribed by this constitutional limitation.43rll

As discussed in my Dissenting Opinion of December 1, 2004, I do not believe that the Mining Act andits implementing rules comply with this constitutional requirement. Instead, I find that the Mining Actand its implementing rules provide for the unconstitutional transfer of the beneficial ownership ofPhilippine mineral resources to foreign hands.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftn40

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

10/12

In light of the foregoing, and for the specific reasons discussed fully in my Dissenting Opinion ofDecember 1, 2004, I vote to grant petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, qualified by this Court'sDecision of January 27, 2004.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

Endnotes:

1As clarified and amended by this Court's Resolution dated January 25, 2005.

2La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004.

3Ibid.

4281 SCRA 330 (1997).

5G.R. No. 158540, July 8, 2004.

6La Bugal-BLaan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos,supra.

7Motion for Reconsideration at 19.

8Id. at 23-24.

9

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 267 (1962) (Frankfurter,J., dissenting).10Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 844 (1991) (Marshall,J., dissenting).

11People v. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384, 393 (1997).

12M. Gerhardt, T. Rowe, Jr., R. Brown & G. Spann, Constitutional Theory: Arguments and Perspectives26 (2nded., 2000).

13Vide: O. W. Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457 (1897).

14

M. Gerhardt, T. Rowe, Jr., R. Brown,supra at 27 (2nd

ed., 2000).15Ibid.

16Stare decisis et non quieta movere. To adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which areestablished. [Black's Law Dictionary 1406 (1990 6thed.)]

17522 U.S. 3 (1997).

18Id. at 20.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref1http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref18http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref17http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref16http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref15http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref14http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref13http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref12http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref8http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref7http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref6http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref5http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref4http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref3http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref2http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref1

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

11/12

19B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 33-34 (1921).

20D. Tatel,Judicial Methodology, Southern School Desegregation, and the Rule of Law, 79 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1071, 1074 (2004).

21Ibid.

22N. Barry, The Classical Theory of Law, 73 Cornell L. Rev. 283, 285-286 (1988).

23Videnote 20,supra at 1075-1076.

24H. Wechsler, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1959).

25Id. at 19.

26Id. at 15.

27Id. at 19-20.

28421 SCRA 148 (2004).

29Vide : www.manilatimes.net/national/ 2004/feb/05/yehey/business/20040205bus10.php

30www.mindanews.com/2004/12/03nws-impeach.php

31R. Puno,Judicial Review: Quo Vaids?,79 Phil. L. J. 249, 263 (2004).

32Supra.

33Id. at 370.

34As discussed fully in my Dissenting Opinion of December 1, 2004.

35http://federalistpatriot.us/fedpapers/fed_51.php.

36R. Puno,supra at 258-259.

37P. Agabin,Judicial Review of Economic Policy under the 1987 Constitution, 72 Phil. L. J. 176, 189(1997).

38In its entirety, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads:

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as maybe established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rightswhich are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the Government.

39Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, 695 (1989).

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref19http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref39http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref38http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref37http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref36http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref35http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref34http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref33http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref32http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref31http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref30http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref29http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref28http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref27http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref26http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref25http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref24http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref23http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref22http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref21http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref20http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref19

7/24/2019 La Bugal 3

12/12

40P. Agabin,supra at 183-184.

41En passant, Dean Agabin has written an article regarding the judicial function in the Philippines inthe midst of globalization. Vide: P. Agabin, Globalization and the Judicial Function in the Philippines,Soka L. Rev. Nov. 1999, p. 1.

42P. Agabin,supra at 193-194.

43Vide: La-Bugal Blaan Tribal Assoc., Inc. v. Ramos, 421 SCRA 148, 207-208 (2004).

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref40http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref43http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref42http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref41http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005februarydecisions.php?id=111#_ftnref40