Natural Resources and Environmental Law ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et

al are tenable.
1. Environmental degradation
It is the deterioration of the environment through HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA
depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; 9522, or UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or
the destruction of ecosystems; habitat destruction; the lose, territory. The treaty and the baseline law has nothing
extinction of wildlife; and pollution. to do with the acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of
the Philippine territory. What controls when it comes to
2. Legal Framework acquisition or loss of territory is the international law
A. Constitution principle on occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription and NOT the execution of multilateral
i. Article 1. National Territory treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting
The national territory comprises the Philippine statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced maritime zones and continental shelves
therein, and all other territories over which the .
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory.
its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its In fact it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, 9522 (RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines
and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, enclosing the Philippines. The area that it covered was
and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless 440,994 square nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under
of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal 9522, and with the inclusion of the exclusive economic
waters of the Philippines. zone, the extent of our maritime are increased to 586,210
sq. na. mi. (See image below for comparison)
Magallona vs Ermita
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international
FACTS: In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act community of the scope of the maritime space and
defining the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines was submarine areas within which States parties exercise
enacted – the law is also known as the Baselines Law. This treaty-based rights.
law was meant to comply with the terms of the third
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines in February
1984.

Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity

of RA 9522 as they contend, among others, that the law
decreased the national territory of the Philippines hence
the law is unconstitutional. Some of their particular
arguments are as follows:

a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of

Paris and other ancillary treaties – this also resulted to the
exclusion of our claim over Sabah;
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, terms the Philippine
waters a “archipelagic” waters which, in international law,
opens our waters landward of the baselines to maritime
passage by all vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts
(overflight), undermining Philippine sovereignty and
national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free
policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of
relevant constitutional provisions;
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG),
as well as the Scarborough Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a
“regime of islands” pursuant to UNCLOS results in the
loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the
livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
 the baselines law, since they are regimes of islands, they
generate their own maritime zones – in short, they are not
to be enclosed within the baselines of the main
archipelago (which is the Philippine Island group). This is
because if we do that, then we will be enclosing a larger
area which would already depart from the provisions of
UNCLOS – that the demarcation should follow the
natural contour of the archipelago.
Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG
and the Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.

NOTES:
Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three
levels of maritime zones where we exercise treaty-based
rights:
a. territorial waters – 12 nautical miles from the baselines;
where we exercise sovereignty
b. contiguous zone – 24 nautical miles from the baselines;
jurisdiction where we can enforce customs, fiscal,
immigration, and sanitation laws (CFIS).
c. exclusive economic zone – 200 nautical miles from the
baselines; where we have the right to exploit the living and
non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone

- a fourth zone may be added which is the continental shelf –

this is covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.

ii. Article 2 (Declaration of State Principles and

Policies)
1. Section 15. The State shall protect and promote
the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.
Anent their particular contentions: Henares v LTFRB
a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is GR No. 158290
evident on the provision of Section 2 of RA 9522: October 23, 2006
Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the
Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without FACTS:
prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the
Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of
territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated mandamus commanding respondents Land
in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and
b. UNCLOS may term our waters as “archipelagic Communications (DOTC) to require public utility
waters” and that we may term it as our “internal waters”, vehicles (PUVs) to use compressed natural gas(CNG) as
but the bottom line is that our country exercises alternative fuel.
sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS itself
recognizes that. However, due to our observance of ISSUES:
international law, we allow the exercise of others of their
right of innocent passage. No modern State can validly (1) Do petitioners have legal personality to bring this
petition before us?
invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent
(2) Should mandamus issue against respondents to
passage that is exercised in accordance with customary
compel PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel?
international law without risking retaliatory measures
from the international community. APPLICABLE LAWS:
c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratly’s), as well
as the Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did not • Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution
diminish our maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under
The State shall protect and advance the right of the coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord inferior to the other.
with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
It appears that more properly, the legislature should
• Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise provide first the specific statutory remedy to the
known as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." SEC. complex environmental problems bared by herein
4. Recognition of Rights. – Pursuant to the above- petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is
declared principles, the following rights of citizens are taken.
hereby sought to be recognized and the State shall seek
to guarantee their enjoyment:
a) The right to breathe clean air; 2. Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources right of the people to a balanced and healthful
according to the principle of sustainable development; ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning, nature.
implementation and monitoring of environmental
policies and programs and in the decision-making Oposa vs Factoran
process; Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional
d) The right to participate in the decision-making Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
process concerning development policies, plans and GR No. 101083; July 30 1993
programs, projects or activities that may have adverse
impact on the environment and public health; FACTS:
e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of
the potential hazard of any activity, undertaking or A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio
project and to be served timely notice of any significant Oposa, et al., representing their generation and
rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents
deliberate release into the atmosphere of harmful or against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They
hazardous substances;
prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant,
f) The right of access to public records which a citizen
his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his
may need to exercise his or her rights effectively under
this Act; behalf to:
g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial 1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing
bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of Agreements (TLA) in the country;
environmental laws and regulations, to compel the
rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to seek 2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;
environmental laws; and
h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and
personal damages resulting from the adverse equitable under the premises.” They alleged that they have
environmental and public health impact of a project or a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
activity. ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that
RULING: the act of the defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut
and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
(1) YES. There is no dispute that petitioners have
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
standing to bring their case before this Court. Moreover,
as held previously, a party's standing before this Court is resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the
a procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this issue
the following grounds:
of technicality under the principle of the transcendental
importance to the public, especially so if these cases 1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against
demand that they be settled promptly. him;
(2) NO. plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein 2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political
sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus question which properly pertains to the legislative or
commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use executive branches of the government.
CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is available only to
compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law ISSUE: Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action
as a duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the in filing a class suit to “prevent the misappropriation or
respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of impairment of Philippine rainforests?”
motor vehicles to use CNG. Mandamus will not
generally lie from one branch of government to a
HELD: Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent Ferdinand Marcos which sought reconsideration of the
their generation as well as generations to come. The Bureau's directive, citing in support thereof its
Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for contributions to forest conservation and alleging that it
others of their generation, and for the succeeding was not given the opportunity to be heard prior to the
generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in cancellation of its logging operations, but no favorable
behalf of succeeding generations is based on the concept action was taken on his letter;
of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right Barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half of the
area formerly covered by petitioner’s TLA was re-
considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which
awarded to Twin Peaks Development and Realty
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, Corporation under a new TLA which was set to expire on
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the July 31, 2009, while the other half was allowed to be
country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, logged by Filipinas Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a
offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that formal award or license. The latter entities were controlled
their exploration, development, and utilization be or owned by relatives or cronies of deposed President
equitably accessible to the present as well as the future Ferdinand Marcos.
generations.
Soon after the change of government in February 1986,
Every generation has a responsibility to the next to petitioner sent a letter dated March 17, 1986 to the Office
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of the President, and another letter dated April 2, 1986 to
of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural
the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound Resources [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of its
environment constitutes at the same time, the timber license agreement which was cancelled in August
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection 1983 during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation
of that right for the generations to come. of TLA No. 356 which was issued to Twin Peaks
Development and Realty Corporation without public
FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner, bidding and in violation of forestry laws, rules
and regulations; and, (3) the issuance of an order allowing
petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the
vs.
concession area. However, petitioner's request was
denied. Petitioner moved for reconsideration reiterating,
THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE among others, its request that the timber license
SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND agreement issued to private respondent be declared null
NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF and void. The MNR however denied this motion.
THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT Petitioner subsequently appealed from the orders of the
and TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND MNR to the Office of the President. The Office of the
REALTY CORPORATION, respondents. President, acting through then Deputy Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig, denied petitioner's appeal for
FACTS: lack of merit. Petitioner filed with the Court a petition for
certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order
On October 12, 1965, petitioner entered into a timber or writ of preliminary injunction,
license agreement with the Department of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, represented by then Secretary ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has the right to seek
Jose Feliciano, wherein it was issued an exclusive license the nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling his timber
to cut, collect and remove timber except prohibited license agreement and the granting of TLA to private
species within a specified portion of public forest land respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and
with an area of 54,920 hectares located in the municipality 1984, respectively.
of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya from October 12,
1965 until June 30, 1990. HELD:

However, on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau NO. The failure of petitioner to file the petition for
of Forest Development (Bureau), Director Edmundo certiorari within a reasonable period of time renders the
Cortes, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal consequences
operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and of laches. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an
cancelling the logging concession of petitioner and nine unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that
other forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential which by exercising due diligence, could or should have
instructions and a memorandum order of the Minister of been done earlier, or to assert a right within a reasonable
Natural Resources Teodoro Pena. time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled
thereto has either abandoned it of declined to assert
Subsequently, petitioner’s timber license agreement was it. The rule is that unreasonable delay on the part of a
cancelled. He sent a letter addressed to then President
plaintiff in seeking to enforce an alleged right may, Cariño obtained a possessory title to the land under
depending upon the circumstances, be destructive of the the Spanish Mortgage Law. The North American
right itself. Verily, the laws did these who are vigilant, not colonial government, however, ignored his possessory
those who sleep upon their rights. In the case at bar, title and built a public road on the land prompting him
petitioner waited for at least three years before it finally to seek a Torrens title to his property in the land
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court attacking the registration court.
validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and
1984. Considering that petitioner, throughout the period Issue: W/N the petitioner is granted ownership of the
of its inaction, was not deprived of the opportunity to land.
seek relief from the courts which were normally operating Held: Yes. The petitioner is entitled to ownership of
at the time, its delay constitutes unreasonable and said land.
inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly,
the writ of certiorari requiring the reversal of these orders The petitioner's possession was not unlawful, and no
will not lie. There is a more significant factor which bars attempt at any such proceedings against him or his father
the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of petitioner and ever was made. And also under the Spanish
against public respondents herein. A long line of cases Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to
establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall
matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of show that ancient possession, as a valid title by
government agencies entrusted with the regulation of prescription." For cultivated land, 20 years,
activities coming under the special technical knowledge uninterrupted, is enough. For uncultivated, 30.
and training of such agencies. More so where, as in the Cruz vs Secretary of DENR
present case, the interests of a private logging company Natural Resources and Environmental Law;
are pitted against that of the public at large on the pressing Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine
public policy issue of forest conservation. For this Court GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
recognizes the wide latitude of discretion possessed by the
government in determining the appropriate actions to be FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed
taken to preserve and manage natural resources, and the a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and
proper parties who should enjoy the privilege of utilizing taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain
these resources. Timber licenses, permits and license provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known
agreements are the principal instruments by which the as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)
State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its
it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful
privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the
not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to public domain as well as minerals and other natural
the particular concession area and the forest products resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine
therein. They may be validly amended, modified, embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when
national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the
contracts within the purview of the due process of law Constitution?
clause. HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene
3. Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing
rights of indigenous cultural communities within the in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over
framework of national unity and development. the natural resources within their ancestral domain.
Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral
G.R. No. 2869 March 25, 1907 domains remains with the State and the rights granted by
MATEO CARIÑO vs. THE INSULAR the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in
GOVERNMENT their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners
Facts: Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, and occupants of the land on which the resources are
where the land lies filed for writ of error because the found, the right to the small scale utilization of these
CFI and SC dismissed his petition for application. For resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large
more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, scale development and exploitation.
1899, he and his ancestors had held the land as
recognized owners by the Igorots. Cariño inherited Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are
the land in accordance with Igorot custom. He tried to not part of the lands of the public domain. They are
have the land adjusted under the Spanish land laws, but private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
no document issued from the Spanish Crown. In 1901, which is a concept of private land title that existed
irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, In April 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture
the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs Agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private corporation, to
of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership develop the Freedom Islands. The JVA also required the
and does not include the right to alienate the same. reclamation of an additional 250 hectares of submerged
areas surrounding these islands to complete the
4. Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of configuration in the Master Development Plan of the
local governments. Southern Reclamation Project-Manila Cavite Coastal
Road Reclamation Project. The JVA was later amended
Social Justice Society, et. al. vs. Honorable Jose giving AMARI an option to reclaim an additional 350
Atienza, Jr. hectares of submerged area. Part of the consideration for
G.R. No. 156052 AMARI’s work is the conveyance of 70% of the total net
usable reclaimed area – equivalent to 367.5 hectares, title
Facts: Chevron is engaged in the business of importing, of which will be in AMARI’s name.
distributing and marketing of petroleum products in the
Philippines while Shell and Petron are engaged in the
business of manufacturing, refining and likewise Issue: Whether or not AMARI, a private corporation, can
importing and marketing of petroleum products. acquire and own under the Amended JVA 367.5 hectares
Petitioners sought to compel Mayor Tienza to enforce of reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas in Manila
Ordinance No. 8027 which was enacted by Sangguniang Bay
Panlungsod of Manila and became effective upon
approval by Mayor Atienza. This ordinance reclassifies
the area described from industrial to commercial and Held: No. AMARI as a private corporation cannot
directed the owners to cease and desist from operating acquire the reclaimed Freedom Islands, though alienable
their business within 6 months. Among the business is lands of the public domain, except by lease, as provided
the Pandacan Terminal of the Oil companies. Oil under Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution. The still
companies intervened in the issue attacking the validity submerged areas (i.e., the more or less additional 250 and
of the ordinance. 350 hectares of submerged areas) in Manila Bay are
inalienable lands of the public domain; as such, they are
beyond the commerce of man, as provided under Section
Issue: Whether the ordinance approved by respondent
2, Article XII of the Constitution.
is valid or not
The reclaimed Freedom Islands: The assignment to PEA
Held: Valid. Because the tremendous event happened of the ownership and administration of the reclaimed
near the area which many were put into danger, the areas in Manila Bay, coupled with President
Manila Municipal Office shall do its ministerial duty to Aquino’s actual issuance of a special patent covering the
protect all property and health of those people who lived Freedom Islands, is equivalent to an official proclamation
in the vicinity and nearby cities. The court ordered the classifying the Freedom Islands as alienable or disposable
transfer of Pandacan Terminal within a non-extendible lands of the public domain. They also constitute a
period of 90 days. The life of the people shall be the declaration that the Freedom Islands are no longer needed
utmost priority of the government in terms of its for public service. The Freedom Islands are thus
security, though the business will lose billions of monies, alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open
the municipality cannot sacrifice its people. to disposition or concession to qualified parties.
iii. Article 3 (Bill of Rights). The submerged areas: The mere reclamation of foreshore
and submerged areas by PEA does not convert these
1. Chavez vs PEA and Amari Coastal Bay
inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable or
Development Corporation
disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a
G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002
law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these
reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to
Facts: Public Estates Authority (PEA) is a wholly
disposition or concession. Moreover, these reclaimed
government-owned and –controlled corporation which is
lands cannot be classified as alienable or disposable if the
the primary implementing agency of the National
law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public
Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands
use.
of the public domain. By virtue of a Special Patent issued
by President Corazon Aquino, the Register of Deeds of
PEA’s authority to sell: In order for PEA to sell its
the Paranaque, in April 1988, issued certificates of title, in
reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the
the name of PEA, covering three reclaimed islands known
public domain, there must be legislative authority
as the Freedom Islands located at the southern portion of
empowering PEA to sell these lands, in view of the
the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Paranaque City. The
requirement under CA No. 141. Without such legislative
Freedom Islands have a total land area of 157.841
authority, PEA could not sell but only lease its reclaimed
hectares.
foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public
domain. PEA’s Charter grants it such express legislative
authority to sell its lands, whether patrimonial or alienable FACTS: Petitioner Ricardo Valmonte wrote a letter to
lands of the public domain. Nevertheless, any legislative Hon. Feliciano Belmonte, GSIS General Manager,
authority granted to PEA to sell its reclaimed alienable requesting that he be furnished with the list of names of
lands of the public domain would be subject to the the opposition members of (the) Batasang Pambansa
constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring who were able to secure a clean loan. Belmonte replied
alienable lands of the public domain. Hence, such through the Deputy General Counsel of the GSIS whose
legislative authority could only benefit private individuals. opinion is that is that a confidential relationship exists
between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it; and
Registration of alienable lands of the public domain: that it would not be proper for the GSIS to breach this
Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 confidentiality unless so ordered by the courts.
does not vest in the registrant private or public ownership
of the land. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ISSUE: Whether or not they are entitled to the
ownership but is merely evidence of ownership previously documents sought, by virtue of their constitutional right
conferred by any of the recognized modes of acquiring to information
ownership. Registration does not give the registrant a
better right than what the registrant had prior to the HELD: The information sought by petitioners is the
registration. The registration of lands of the public truth of reports that certain Members of the Batasang
domain under the Torrens system, by itself, cannot Pambansa belonging to the opposition were able to
convert public lands into private lands. Jurisprudence secure "clean" loans from the GSIS. The GSIS is a
holding that upon the grant of the patent or issuance of trustee of contributions from the government and its
the certificate of title the alienable land of the public employees and the administrator of various insurance
domain automatically becomes private land cannot apply programs for the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its
to government units and entities like PEA. funds assume a public character. It is therefore the
legitimate concern of the public to ensure that these
Lands registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 are funds are managed properly with the end in view of
not exclusively private or patrimonial lands. Lands of the maximizing the benefits that accrue to the insured
public domain may also be registered pursuant to existing government employees. The public nature of the
laws. Several laws authorize lands of the public domain loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by
to be registered under the Torrens System or Act No. 496, the alleged borrowers make the information sought
now PD No. 1529, without losing their character as public clearly a matter of public interest and concern.
lands. For instance,
The Court is convinced that transactions entered into by
- Under the Revised Administrative Code of the GSIS, a government-controlled corporation created
1987, private property purchased by the by special legislation are within the ambit of the people's
National Government for expansion of an right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional
airport may be titled in the name of the policy of transparency in government dealings. However,
government agency tasked to administer the although citizens are afforded the right to information
airport. Private property donated to a and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to "access to official
municipality for use as a town plaza or public records," the Constitution does not accord them a right
school site may likewise be titled in the name to compel custodians of official records to prepare lists,
of the municipality. All these properties abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to
become properties of the public domain, and acquire information on matters of public concern.
if already registered under Act No. 496 or
PD No. 1529, remain registered land. There 3. Legaspi VS. Civil Service Commission
is no requirement or provision in any existing G.R. no. 72119
law for the de-registration of land from the
Torrens System. Facts:

- Private lands taken by the Government for Civil Service Commission denied Valentin Legaspi’s
public use under its power of eminent (petitioner) request for information on the civil service
domain become unquestionably part of the eligibilities of 2 people employed as sanitarians, Julian
public domain. Nevertheless, Section 85 of Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, in the Health
PD No. 1529 authorizes the Register of Department in Cebu. Petitioner claims that his right to
Deeds to issue in the name of the National information is guaranteed by the Constitution prays for
Government new certificates of title the issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus to
covering such expropriated lands. compel the respondent Commission to disclose said
information. The Solicitor General challenges the
2. Valmonte vs Belmonte petitioner’s standing to sue upon the ground that the
G.R. No. 74930 latter does not possess any legal right to be informed of
February 13, 1989 the civil services eligibilities of the government
employees concerned. SolGen further argues that there
is no ministerial duty on the part of the Commission to 2. Section 15. Political and Corporate Nature of Local
furnish the petitioner with the information he seeks. Government Units. - Every local government unit
created or recognized under this Code is a body politic
Issue: WON the petitioner has legal to access and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by
government records to validate the civil service it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise
eligibilities of the Health Department employees. powers as a political subdivision of the national
government and as a corporate entity representing the
Held: Civil Service Commission is ordered to open its inhabitants of its territory.
register of eligible for the position of sanitarian, and to
confirm or deny, the civil service eligibility of Julian a. Congressman Chiongbian v. Exec. Secretary
Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, for said position in the Orbos (1992)
Health Department of Cebu City, as requested by the
petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi. FACTS: Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress passed
a law creating the ARMM composed of the 4 provinces
which through a plebiscite expressed their votes that
iv. Article 10 (Local Government)
they wanted to be included in the said region. A total of
13 provinces and 9 cities participated in the plebiscite.
1. Section 4. Scope of Application. - This Code shall As the said law that created ARMM also allowed the
apply to all provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays, President (Aquino) to merge the provinces who voted
and other political subdivisions as may be created by law, NOT to be included in the ARMM to be merged into
and, to the extent herein provided, to officials, offices, or existing regions, EO 429 was issued transferring certain
agencies of the national government. provinces to other regions.
a. Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 The transfer of these provinces was questioned, they
alleged that Art. XIX, §13 of R.A. No. 6734 is
Facts: The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princessa unconstitutional because
enacted ordinance no. 15-92 banning the shipment of 1) it unduly delegates legislative power to the President
live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princessa City for a by authorizing him to "merge [by administrative
period of 5 years. In the same light, the Sangguniang determination] the existing regions" or at any rate
Panlalawigan of Palawan also enacted a resolution that provides no standard for the exercise of the power
prohibits the catching, gathering, buying, selling and delegated and
possessing and shipment of live marine coral dwelling
aquatic organisms for a period of 5 ye ars within the 2) the power granted is not expressed in the title of the
Palawan waters. The petitioners Airline Shippers law.
Association of Palawan together with marine merchants
were charged for violating the above ordinance and ISSUES:
resolution by the city and provincial governments. The
 whether the power to "merge" administrative
petitioners now allege that they have the preferential
regions is legislative or executive in character? -
rights as marginal fishermen granted with privileges
EXECUTIVE
provided in Section 149 of the Local Government Code,
invoking the invalidity of the above-stated enactments  whether Art. XIX, §13 is invalid because it
as violative of their preferential rights. contains no standard to guide the President's
discretion - to promote simplicity, economy and
efficiency in the government to enable it to
ISSUE: Whether or not the enacted resolutions and
pursue programs consistent with national goals
ordinances by the local government units violative of the
for accelerated social and economic
preferential rights of the marginal fishermen?
development and to improve the service in the
transaction of the public business.
RULING: No, the enacted resolution and ordinance of
the LGU were not violative of their preferential rights.
The enactment of these laws was a valid exercise of the HELD:
police power of the LGU to protect public interests and
the public right to a balanced and healthier ecology. The First issue:
rights and privileges invoked by the petitioners are not  Congress merely followed the pattern set in
absolute. The general welfare clause of the local previous legislation dating back to the initial
government code mandates for the liberal interpretation organization of administrative regions in 1972.
in giving the LGU s more power to accelerate economic
development and to upgrade the life of the people in the  PD 742 restructured the regional
community. The LGUs are endowed with the power to organization of Mindanao, Basilan, Sulu and
enact fishery laws in its municipal waters which Tawi-Tawi
necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances in  PD. No. 773 further restructured the
order to effectively carry out the enforcement of fishery regional organization of Mindanao
laws in their local community.
  PD1555 transferred the regional center of Petitioners Sultan Mohammad that Nurhussein
Region IX from Jolo to Zamboanga City. Ututalum were the official candidates of the United
 The choice of the President as delegate is logical Opposition ("KBL-NP") coalition party for Regional
 division of the country into intended to facilitate Governor and Regional Vice-Governor, respectively, in
administration of local governments, direction that election. Private respondents Zacaria Candao and
of executive departments which the law requires Benjamin T. Loong were the official candidates for
should have regional offices. Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor,
respectively, of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
 In Abbas, we said that power to merge
("LDP") party.
administrative regions is not expressly provided
for in the Constitution
I
o BUT it is a power traditionally been
1. G.R. Nos. 93201-04
lodged with the President to facilitate
the exercise of the power of general
During the canvass by the Provincial Board of
supervision over local governments [see
Canvassers of the Province of Sulu of the election
Art. X, §4 of the Constitution]."
returns from the First and Second Congressional
o Regions not territorial and political
Districts of Sulu, petitioners raised objections to the
divisions like provinces, cities,
inclusion in the canvass of certain election returns. From
municipalities and barangays
adverse rulings of the Sulu Provincial Board of
 but a "mere groupings of
Canvassers, petitioners appealed to the Commission on
contiguous provinces for
Elections ("Comelec") where the appeals were docketed
administrative purposes."
as SPC Nos. 90-002, 90-004 and 90-017. During the
 "administrative in nature" canvass of certificates of canvass conducted by the
Second issue: Regional Board of Canvassers, petitioners raised the
 Legislative standard may be expressed or same objections. From an adverse ruling of the Regional
implied Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed once more to
the Comelec, this appeal being docketed as SPC No.
 Need not be found in the law challenged
90019.
because it may be embodied in other statutes on
the same subject as that of the challenged
The contested election returns are from certain precincts
legislation
of the following municipalities in the Province of Sulu:
 As regards the questioned law, the standard is
found in another law - R.A. No. 5435 of the 1. Municipality of Parang = 50 precincts
power to reorganize the Executive Department, 2. Municipality of Maimbung = 34 precincts
 The standard is "to promote simplicity, 3. Municipality of Lugus = 20 precincts
economy and efficiency in the government to 4. Municipality of Luuk = 20 precincts
enable it to pursue programs consistent with 5. Municipality of Panamao = 51 precincts
national goals for accelerated social and 6. Municipality of Panglima Estino
economic development and to improve the (also known as New Panamao) = 36 precincts
service in the transaction of the public 7. Municipality of Pandami = 18 precincts
business." 8. Municipality of Tongkil = 16 precincts
 Hence, while non-assenting provinces and cities 9. Municipality of Kalinggalan = 14 precincts
are to remain in the regions as designated upon
the creation of the Autonomous Region, they Caluag Total = 259 precincts.
may nevertheless be regrouped with contiguous
provinces forming other regions as the exigency The common ground for the three (3) appeals from the
of administration may require Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu was that the
questioned election returns were "spurious, obviously
b. SULTAN MOHAMAD ALI B. DIMAPORO and manufactured and/or statistically improbable." The
NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM, petitioners, vs. ground for the appeal from the Regional Board of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ZACARIA Canvassers was that the certificates of canvass (from the
CANDAO and BENJAMIN T. LOONG, Sulu Provincial Board of Canvassers) were "falsified"
respondents. since they included the same election returns disputed
before the Provincial Board and appealed to the
FELICIANO, J.: Comelec, and that the Regional Board of Canvassers had
proceeded with the canvass despite perfection of
On 17 February 1990, an election for Regional petitioners' appeals.
Governor, Regional Vice-Governor and members of the
Regional of Muslim Mindanao Assembly for the All appeals involving the questioned election returns and
Autonomous Regio of Muslim, Mindanao was certificates of canvass from the Province of Sulu were
conducted pursuant to Republic Act No. 6734, the consolidated before the Comelec. By a Resolution dated
Organic Act creating that Autonomous Region. 21 March 1990, the First Division of the Comelec
dismissed all the appeals for lack of merit and for lack of SPC No. 90-005.
jurisdiction. The principal grounds on which the First
Division rested its Resolution were: (a) the objections In its Decision dated 17 April 1990, the Second Division
raised against the election returns were "merely of the Comelec reversed the Tawi-Tawi Provincial Board
generalizations"; (b) petitioners had failed to adduce of Canvassers by ordering the exclusion of fifteen (15)
before the Provincial Board of Canvassers substantial election returns under the authority of the Lagumbay
evidence to establish the factual basis of their objections; doctrine of "statistical improbability". The inclusion of
and (c) that petitioners had not filed a written intent to the remaining election returns from twenty-one (21 )
appeal from the rulings of the Provincial Board of other precincts was in effect sustained as falling outside
Canvassers. the ambit of the Lagumbay doctrine, since not all the
candidates of the LDP had received exactly the same
Petitioners appealed to the Comelec En Banc. On 10 number of votes. Other candidates including those
May 1990, the Comelec En Banc issued a Resolution belonging to petitioners' party, in many but not in all
which modified the Resolution of its First Division by cases, got zero votes. There were other precincts where
ordering the exclusion from the canvass of the election candidates other than the official LDP candidates were
returns from eighty-eight (88) precincts in the credited with differing numbers of votes.
municipalities listed above for being "statistically
improbable." The same Resolution dismissed the appeals Petitioners appealed to the Comelec En Banc which
insofar as the other election returns are concerned. appeal (or "Motion for Partial Reconsideration") was
denied by its Resolution dated 10 May 1990.
In reaching this conclusion, the Comelec En Banc
applied Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections 17 where Petitioners are now before the Court on Petition for
the Supreme Court dealt with election returns showing Certiorari in both G.R. Nos. 93201-04 (concerning the
the unique uniformity of all votes (being equal to the election returns in the Province of Sulu) and 93205
total number of registered voters) being cast in favor of (concerning the election returns in the Province of Tawi-
all the candidates belonging to one party, while all the Tawi. By a Resolution of the Court dated 17 May 1990,
candidates of the opposing party were uniformly G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205 were consolidated.
reflected as getting zero votes; that is, all the candidates
of one party garnering all the votes, each of them In the same Resolution, the Court issued a Temporary
receiving exactly the same number of votes, while all the Restraining Order requiring the respondent Comelec to
candidates of the opposing party getting uniformly and refrain from proclaiming the winning candidates for
precisely nothing. In Lagumbay, the Court held such Governor and Vice-Governor of the Autonomous
returns to be "statistically improbable" and "obviously Region of Muslim Mindanao until further orders from
manufactured", the fraud being so palpable from the the Court, while leaving the Comelec free to proceed
return itself that there was no reason to give the return with the canvassing of the election returns from the
prima facie value and that consequently, evidence remaining precincts of the areas covered by the
aliunde to show fraud was entirely unnecessary. Autonomous Region.

The Comelec En Banc applied the Lagumbay doctrine 3. G.R. No. 93602
by ordering the exclusion from the canvass of election
returns which fell precisely within the factual situation During the canvassing by the Provincial Board of
dealt with in Lagumbay, and permitting the inclusion of Canvassers for the Province of Maguindanao, petitioners
election returns showing results differing in varying objected to the election returns from certain precincts in
degrees from the Lagumbay factual situation. six (6) municipalities (Pagalunggan, Maganoy, Ampatuan,
Sultan sa Barokis, Buluan, and Talayan) in Maguindanao.
2. G.R. No. 93205 From adverse rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial
Board of Canvassers, petitioners appealed on 26
During the canvass of election returns from the February 1990 to the Comelec, the appeal being
Municipality of Languyan in the Province of Tawi-Tawi, docketed as SPC No. 90-016. One day later, on 27
petitioners objected to the inclusion of the election February 1990, petitioners filed an "Amended Appear'
returns from thirty-six (36) precincts in said which included objections to returns from three (3)
Municipality, upon the same ground that those returns additional municipalities (Datu Piang, Datu Paglas and
were "obviously manufactured" because the results South Upi). This "amended" pleading, however, did not
reflected therein were "statistically improbable". specify the precincts returns from which were being
Petitioners contended that in the questioned precincts, assailed; neither did it set out the grounds for petitioners'
100% or 99% of registered voters are recorded to have objections thereto. On 13 March 1990, eighteen (18)
cast their votes, and that private respondents obtained all days from service of the written rulings of the
the votes cast while petitioners got a uniform zero vote. Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers,
The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Tawi-Tawi petitioners filed with the Comelec another document
overruled the objections of petitioners for failure to purporting to list the specific election returns from Datu
present evidence aliunde of the fraud alleged. Petitioners Piang, Datu Paglas and South Upi, which petitioners
appealed to the Comelec, their appeal being docketed as wished to contest.
 disregarding other evidence (evidence aliunde) submitted
The grounds alleged by petitioners for contesting these by petitioners in their effort to show that the contested
election returns were various and included: that an election returns were "obviously manufactured".
unusually high proportion of registered voters in certain
precincts were recorded as having votes; that the Boards Petitioners now ask the Court to set aside the En Banc
of Election Inspectors in certain precincts in some of Decision of the Comelec dated 10 May 1990 insofar as
the municipalities involved did not prepare the election that Decision had refused to reject and exclude the other
returns simultaneously with the counting of the ballots election returns assailed by petitioners as "statistically
but, on the contrary, prepared them elsewhere than at improbable".
the election precincts, e.g., in the offices of the On 21 May 1990, private respondents Candao and
Municipal Mayors; that in certain precincts, the members Loong filed an "Urgent Motion to Lift the Temporary
of the Board of Election Inspectors did not report to Restraining Order" arguing that even if their votes
their respective polling places so that no elections were embraced in the contested election returns from the
conducted in said precincts; that in some precincts, the provinces of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi are nullified as
"number of votes counted" exceeded the number of requested by petitioners, such nullification will not affect
registered voters; that in other precincts, the number "of the vote of the private respondents. In this Urgent
votes counted" exceeded the number "of voters who Motion to Lift, private respondents set out the following
allegedly voted"; that in several precincts, the residents table of numbers of votes credited to petitioners an
of the constituents barangays evacuated their homes private respondents, in the official certificates of canvass
because of "a shooting war between the MNLF and of the provinces of Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Lanao del Sur and
MILF" so that no elections were conducted in such Maguindanao, which certificates were annexed to the
barangays, but notwithstanding such circumstances, the Urgent Motion to Lift:
returns from those barangays showed "a very high
percentage of voting"; and that the returns from certain "Table I 18
precincts showed that such returns were all prepared by
only one person. Petitioners asked Comelec to order the Province Candao Dimaporo Loong Ututalum.
voter's affidavits and of voters in the contested precincts
to be subjected to expert examination of the signatures Tawi-Tawi 36,543 31,391 33,253 28,945
and thumbmarks of the registered voters therein.
Sulu:
By a Decision dated 7 May 1990, the Comelec Second a. 1st district 57,814 441,875 53,850 45,011
Division, after ruling on each objection to election b. 2nd district 57,376 38,820 90,170 26,910
returns contested, dismissed petitioner's appeal, save
only appeal with respect to the election returns from Lanao del Sur
Precincts 9 and 10 of the Municipality of Talayan, a. 1st district 32,920 59,757 11,183 5,521
Maguindanao, which returns were objected to as b. 2nd district 43,486 56,203 19,872 15,690
incomplete, and which the Comelec Second Division
excluded from the canvas, it appearing from the Minutes Maguindanao
of the Provincial Board of Canvassers that the Boards of a. 1st district 59,197 24,777 41,708 7,855
Election Inspectors of Talayan had not been summoned b. 2nd district 105,699 16,301 55,189 3,238
to explain the omission of material data in those returns.
T o t a l s = 415,035 269,106 305,225 133,170
Petitioners moved to consider the Decision of the
Comelec Second Division. In a Decision dated 4 June Total Vote-Lead = 415,929 172,106"
1990, the Comelec En Banc denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and sustained the Decision of the Close examination of the respective certificates of
Second Division of the Comelec. canvass shows some clerical errors in the original Table I
presented by private respondents. In substantially
II reproducing Table I above, we have corrected the
1. G.R. Nos. 93201-04 and 93205: The Issues Raised clerical errors as indicated in footnotes below.
Petitioners raised the following principal issues in these
consolidated cases: Private respondents also set out a second table showing
the number of contested votes of private respondents
1. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in Candao and Loong. Again, Table II below reflects the
not excluding the returns from the remaining 21 election corrections we have made in the original Table made in
returns from the remaining 171 contested precincts in the original Table I in the Motion to Lift, after study and
Sulu and the remaining 21 election returns in Tawi-Tawi, consideration of the "Opposition to the Motion to Lift
inclusion of which was allowed pursuant to the Restraining Order" filed on 4 June 1990 by petitioners -
Comelec's strict and restrictive application of the
doctrine of "statistical improbability"; and "Table II 19

2. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in Number of Contested Votes
Candao Loong which the election was held should be filled as promptly
Tawi-Tawi (as per Annex 'A' of as possible, even if the proclamation of the winning
Annex 'D' of the Petition) 13,464 13,464 candidates be provisional in nature, in the sense that
Sulu (as per page 2 and Annexes such would be subject to the results of the election
'G' to 'O' of the Petition) 80,560 80,349 protest or protests that may be expected to be filed. The
Total votes contested by the petitioners Court is bound by high duty and responsibility to give
from the Provinces of Tawi-Tawi and Sulu 94,024 effect to this public policy which is enshrined in
93,813" statutory norms (infra). Petitioners' principal remedy is
to file election protests before the appropriate agency of
On Table III below, the number of contested votes of government - i.e., the Comelec (Article IX [C] [2] [2],
private respondents Candao and Loong are subtracted 1987 Constitution) - and there to litigate all the issues
from their respective total votes per official certificates raised by them in as much detail as they might deem
of canvass: necessary or appropriate. Another remedy open to
petitioners is the filing of criminal charges for election
"Table III 20 offenses against those who, petitioners believe, are
responsible for the frauds and assorted trickery alleged
Candao Dimaporo Loong Ututalum to have been committed.
Total votes obtained as
per Table I 415,035 269,016 305,255 133,170 2. G.R. Nos. 93502; The Issues Raised In this third
Less: Petition for Certiorari, petitioners raised the following
Contested votes in issues:
Tawi-Tawi as per Table II (13,464) (13,464)
Contested votes 1. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion
in Sulu as per Table II (80,560) (80,349) when it refused to order the expert technical
Totals after deductions 321,011 269,106 211,412 133,170 examination of the signatures and thumbmarks of the
Remaining vote- registered voters affixed to their voter's affidavits and to
lead after deductions 51,905 78,242" the lists of voters in the voting records in the contested
precincts;
From the foregoing tables, the substantial correctness of
the data therein not having been successfully contested 2. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion
by petitioners, it appears to the Court that there is no when it rejected as filed out of time petitioners' appeal
need to pass upon and resolve the central issue raised by from adverse rulings of the Maguindanao Provincial
petitioners - whether or not the doctrine of "statistical Board of Canvassers relating to certain assailed election
improbability" adopted in Lagumbay v. Commission on returns from the Municipalities of Datu Piang, Datu
Elections (supra) should be re-examined with a view to Paglas and South Upi; and
expanding the scope thereof, i.e., with a view to
characterizing election returns differing, in varying 3. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in
degrees, from the specific fact situation dealt with by the holding that petitioners' failure to present evidence
Court in Lagumbay as "statistically improbable" and before the Maguindanao Provincial Board of Canvassers
hence excludable from canvass as "obviously was fatal.
manufactured" without need of evidence aliunde. In the
specific circumstances of the cases at bar, whatever In respect of the first issue raised by petitioners, the
conclusion the Court might have reached on this issue Comelec En Banc in its 4 June 1990 Decision said:
would, strictly speaking, merely constitute dictum,
considering that even if the Court were to nullify all the "On the first point, it should be pointed out that since
returns objected to by petitioners on grounds of Dianalan vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 79712,
"statistical improbability", private respondents Candao November 12, 1987, the examination of voter's
and Loong would still show a very substantial margin affidavits and voting records on the ground that there
over the total votes of petitioners. 5 Such nullification was massive substitute voting or that no elections were
will not, in other words, materially affect the results of held, has been definitely ruled out by the Supreme
the election per the official certificates of canvass. Court. For to accept the grounds cited, and to allow the
procedure suggested, is to expand the narrow and
In resolving upon this course of action, the Court has exclusive grounds defined by law for initiating and
also taken particular account of the need for speedy sustaining pre-proclamation controversies. As explained
resolution of these cases, considering the length of time in Dianalan supra.
which has gone by since the election was held last 17
February 1990 without the winning candidates for 'In truth, the defects alleged by private respondent and
Regional Governor and Regional Vice-Governor being intervenors are not pre-proclamation matters within the
proclaimed. The public policy involved in the rule that contemplation of Section 243 of the Election Code, but
pre-proclamation controversies shall be resolved in fall under the jurisdiction of the electoral tribunals as
summary proceedings, is very real and insistent. The sole judges of all contests relating to the elections,
public interest requires that the position for the filing of returns and qualifications of the members of Congress.
The cases cited by the respondents and intervenors, in Elections, 153 SCRA 67 [1987] and that such challenges
traverse of the petition were decided at a time when our should relate to particular election returns to which
election law did not specifically provide for the petitioner should have made specific verbal objection
settlement of the pre-proclamation controversy or subsequently confirmed in writing (Section 245,
specify the matters coming thereunder. Diaz v. Omnibus Election Code; Pausing v. Yorac, et al., G.R.
Commission on Elections, 24 SCRA 426; Estaniel v. No. 82700, 4 August 1988; Endique v. Commission on
Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA 436; and Usman v. Elections, G.R. Nos. 82020-21, 22 November 1988). In
Commission on Elections, 42 SCRA 667, were decided a pre-proclamation controversy, it is axiomatic that the
in 1971, and Lagumbay v. Climaco and Comelec, 16 Comelec is not to look beyond or behind election
SCRA 175, even earlier, in 1966. All these cases ruled returns which are on their face regular and authentic
that the Commission on Elections could investigate returns. A party seeking to raise issues resolution of
charges of irregularities in the conduct of the elections as which would compel the Comelec to pierce the veil, so
an incident of its power to canvass the votes and to speak, of election returns prima facie regular, has his
proclaim the winners; and this was possible because its proper remedy in a regular election protest. By their
jurisdiction over pre-proclamation questions was not nature, and given the obvious public interest in the
limited then and subject to Comelec abuse. Now it is speedy determination of the results of elections, pre-
expressly limited to, under Section 243 of the Omnibus proclamation controversies are to be resolved in
Election Code passed on November 28, 1985 with these summary proceedings (Section 246, Omnibus Election
safeguards extracted by the substantial opposition in the Code; Espaldon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
Batasan, and cannot extend beyond the matters 78987, 25 August 1987; Pasion v. Commission on
exclusively enumerated therein. A reading of this section Elections, 109 SCRA 238 [1981]; Bautista v.
will readily show that it applies only to the specific Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78994,10 March
deficiencies therein enumerated and that questions 1988). The delicate policy equilibrium here involved was
relating to alleged irregularities in the voting such as explained by the Court in the following terms in Alonto
fraud, substitution or vote-buying and terrorism are v. Commission on Elections (22 SCRA 878, 884-886
proper matters for election protests.' (1968):

The policy consideration underlying the delimitation '[P]re-proclamation controversies should be summarily
both of substantive ground and procedure is the policy decided, consistent with the law's desire that the canvass
to determine as quickly as possible the result of the and proclamation be delayed as little as possible . . . [and
election on the basis of canvass. Espaldon vs. that the Comelec and the courts should guard both]
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78987, August 25, against proclamation grabbing through tampered returns
1987; Bautista vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. as well as against attempts to paralyze canvassing and
78994, March 10, 1988; Alonto v. Commission on proclamation in order to prolong hold-overs.'"
Elections, G.R. No. L-28490, February 28, 1968, 22
SCRA 878. To uphold the position of the appellant is to Petitioners ask the Court to re-examine its decision in
allow the prolonged and indefinite suspension of Dianalan v. Commission on Elections, 8 so as to permit
resolutions on pre-proclamation controversies by the petitioners to subject to handwriting and fingerprint
simple expedient of resorting to the examination of examination the voter's affidavits and voting lists and
voluminous documents. This process can be used in a other voting records in the contested precincts. We are
full-blown judicial inquiry incident to an election protest. not persuaded by petitioners' arguments on this point. It
This rule has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in is important to bear in mind that the nature, scope and
Dipatuan vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 86117, ambit of a pre-proclamation controversy as set out in
May 8, 1990." 6 Dianalan and Dipatuan and the other cases there cited
are determined by statutory provisions: Sections 243
We agree with the Comelec's view of the law on this (entitled "Issues that may be Raised in Pre-Proclamation
matter; we see no abuse, and much less a grave abuse of Controversy"), 245 (Contested Election Returns") and
discretion on the part of the Comelec in so ruling. In the 246 ("Summary Proceedings before the Commission) of
very recent case of Dipatuan v. Commission on the Omnibus Election Code. As pointed out above in
Elections, et al., 7 this Court said in a unanimous Dipatuan, these statutory provisions reflect a very
decision: definite view of what public policy requires on the
matter. It may well be true that public policy may
"1. We start by noting that the Comelec (both Second occasionally permit the occurrence of "grab the
Division and that Commission En Banc) correctly proclamation and prolong the protest" situations; that
emphasized that, under the regime of the Omnibus public policy, however, balances the possibility of such
Election Code, pre-proclamation controversies are situations against the shortening of the period during
properly limited to challenges directed against the Board which no winners are proclaimed, a period commonly
of Canvassers and proceedings before such Board of fraught with tension and danger for the public at large.
Canvassers, and not the Board of Election inspectors For those who disagree with that public policy, the
nor proceedings before such latter Board (Grand appropriate recourse is not to ask this Court to abandon
Alliance for Democracy v. Commission on Elections, case law which merely interprets faithfully existing
150 SCRA 665 [1987]; Sanchez v. Commission on statutory norms, to engage in judicial legislation and in
effect to rewrite portions of the Omnibus Election same massive defiance of law which initially led to the
Code. The appropriate recourse is, of course, to the statistical improbability ruling. The election anomalies
Legislative Department of the Government and to ask are committed in such a crude and flaunting manner as
that Department to strike a new and different to insult the intelligence.
equilibrium in the balancing of the public interests at
stake. It is disturbing when case after case comes to this Court
presenting unbelievable election returns. In this petition,
On the second and third issues raised by petitioners, the for instance, in mine (9) towns of Sulu, candidates
Comelec En Banc Decision of 4 June 1990 said: Candao and Loong received exactly the same number of
votes in each of 197 precincts for a total of 65,402 votes
"[The second and third issues raised by petitioners] are each while candidates Dimaporo and Ututalum each
related to each other. They refer to the procedure to be received zero votes in all 197 precincts of those nine (9)
observed in the registration of objections at the board of municipalities. As stated in Lagumbay, if the watchers of
canvassers level and the bringing of adverse rulings on Dimaporo and Ututalum betrayed their party, the voting
appeal to the Commission. We reiterate the mandatory and counting of ballots in each precinct was a sham and
requirement to comply with procedure for pre- a mockery. It is reported that in some precincts, the
proclamation controversies in view of the public policy Board of Inspectors never reported for work. How
to have a quick determination of the result of the could the elections be conducted and the returns
election. By [their] nature, pre-proclamation prepared if there were no boards of inspectors? In some
controversies already delay proclamation. To allow the cases, more than the number of registered voters cast
deviation from procedural requirements is to open cases their ballots or only one person prepared all the ballots.
of this nature to protracted uncertainty because new Yet, the returns appear genuine.
grounds and new issues can be raised at the different
levels of jurisdiction. Even ordinary cases not impressed The COMELEC suggests an expansion of the
with public policy considerations are not allowed to be parameters of statistical improbability to avoid obviously
litigated this way." 9 manufactured, spurious, unnatural, and unbelievable
returns. The problem is, as stated in Pacis v. COMELEC
Once more, we agree with the above ruling of the (25 SCRA 377 [1968]), electoral frauds are diverse and
Comelec since that ruling simply flows from the beyond anticipation. Since COMELEC decisions
character and scope of a pre-proclamation controversy invariably come up to us, we would be treading into the
under the Omnibus Election Code. quicksand of thousands of conceivable situations,
something which we, obviously, should not undertake.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the
Petitions for Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 93201-04, 93205 I believe that the remedy is in a better supervision of the
and 93502 for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining handling of the elections at the precinct level. The
Order dated 17 May 1990 issued in G.R. Nos. 93201-04 problem cannot be solved once the returns have been
and 93205 is hereby LIFTED. In G.R. No. 93502, the submitted. It seems that when our brothers and sisters in
Court also Resolved to DISPENSE with the Comments Mindanao complain of indifference to their plight and
of public and private respondents. This Resolution is neglect of their needs, they are not referring to the
immediately executory. infrastructure and economy alone. Equally important is
the development of democratic and political processes.
Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Implied in the allegations of massive fraud is that
Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño- government officials either participated in or were
Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. indifferent to the cheating. Neither the COMELEC nor
this Court can do much if certain officials who should
Separate Opinions guard the polls with zeal take advantage of the situation
or condone the perpetration of anomalies.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring:
In suggesting that Congress should strike a new and
I agree with the conclusion of the Court that there is no different equilibrium in the balancing of the public
need to go into the issue of whether or not certain interests at stake, we may not be going into the heart of
"statistically improbable" results should be nullified if the problem. Statistically improbable results may flatter
any such nullification will not materially affect the the ego of incumbent officials but they insult the
overall election results. We would be engaging in an intelligence and reflect a failure to help the voters
academic exercise. express their free and genuine will. What is needed is a
system which makes public officers and political leaders
However, I would like to go on record that I found it lead the way towards political maturity.
difficult to concur in this case because there are indeed
glaring anomalies in the conduct of the regional elections
for the autonomous government of Muslim Mindanao.
Inspite of the 24 year old doctrine in Lagumbay v.
COMELEC (16 SCRA 175 [1966]), there is exactly the