A.

THE CONSITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES “This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose
DE LEON VS. ESGUERRA and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.”
(G.R. NO. 78059. AUGUST 31, 1987)
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987.
FACTS: By that date, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been
In the May 17, 1982 Barangay elections, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon superseded. Having become inoperative, Section 2, Article III of the Provisional
was elected Barangay Captain and the other petitioners Angel S. Salamat, et al., as Constitution could not be relied on by the respondent OIC Governor. The
Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. memorandum dated February 8, 1987 by the respondent OIC Governor could no
On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo M, de Leon received a longer have any legal force and effect.
Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by respondent OIC The act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. The canvass of the
Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating respondent votes thereafter is merely the mathematical confirmation of what was done during
Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. the date of the plebiscite, and the proclamation of the President is merely the
The designation made by the OIC Governor was "by authority of the Minister of official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done by the Filipino
Local Government." people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the
Also on February 8, 1987, Esguerra signed a Memorandum, antedated plebiscite.
December 1, 1986 designating respondents Remigio M. Tigas, et al., as members
of the Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality. GONZALES VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Petitioners maintain that with the ratification of the 1987 (GR. NO L-28196, NOVEMBER 9, 1967)
Constitution, Esguerra no longer has the authority to replace them and to CONCEPCION, C.J.:
designate their successors. FACTS:
However, respondents rely on Section 2, Article III of the Provisional The Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously. The first,
Constitution, which provided: proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to increase the membership
SECTION 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees under the of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the
1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by present Constitution, to a maximum of 180. The second, calling a convention to
proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be composed of
and qualification of their successors, if such appointment is made within a two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be elected in the
period of one year from February 25, 1986. general elections. And the third, proposing that the same Constitution be
amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of
ISSUE: Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional
Whether the designation of the respondents to replace petitioners was validly convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. Subsequently,
made during the one-year period which ended on February 25, 1987. Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, became Republic
Act No. 4913 providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
HELD: aforementioned resolutions be submitted, for approval by the people, at the
NO. While February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still within the one year deadline under general elections. The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said law
the Provisional Constitution, the same must be deemed to have been overtaken by contending that the Congress cannot simultaneously propose amendments to
Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution reading: the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention.
ISSUES: prejudices their rights as candidates.
(1) Is Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional? Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No.2 which
(2) WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to the called for the Constitutional Convention to propose Constitutional amendments.
Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention? After its adoption, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 4914
implementing said resolution, restating entirely the provisions of said
HELD: resolution.
YES as to both issues. The constituent power or the power to amend or Thereafter, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution
revise the Constitution, is different from the law-making power of Congress. No. 4 amending the Resolution No. 2 by providing that “xxx any other details
Congress can directly propose amendments to the Constitution and at the same relating to the specific apportionment of delegates, election of delegates to, and
time call for a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. the holding of the Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an
Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments implementing legislation xxx”
thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132, implementing
part of the inherent powers of the people — as the repository of sovereignty in Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A.4914.
a republican state, such as ours— to make, and, hence, to amend their own
Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution ISSUE:
merely because the same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising May Congress in acting as a legislative body enact R.A.6132 to implement the
the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives resolution passed by it in its capacity as a Constituent Assembly?
act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a constituent
assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority HELD:
from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, for YES. The Court declared that while the authority to call a Constitutional
their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the very Convention is vested by the Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting
source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself. as a constitutional assembly, the power to enact the implementing details or
Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the specifics of the general law does not exclusively pertain to Congress, the Congress
Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the in exercising its comprehensive legislative power (not as a Constitutional
Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on Assembly) may pass the necessary implementing law providing for the details of
whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, the Constitutional Conventions, such as the number, qualification, and
they could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet compensation of its member.
that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our The reasons cited by the Court in upholding the constitutionality of the
Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that, the Constitution expressly enactment of R.A. 6132 are as follows:
confers upon the Supreme Court, the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional, 1. Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Article XV of the
despite the eminently political character of treaty-making power. Constitution, has authority to propose constitutional amendments or call a
IMBONG VS. COMELEC convention for the purpose by ¾ votes of each house in joint session assembled
35 SCRA 28 (1970) but voting separately.
FACTS: 2. Such grant includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the
Petitioners Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, both interested in running principal power by necessary implication.
as candidates in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, filed separate petitions for 3. Implementing details are within the authority of the Congress not only as a
declaratory relief, impugning the constitutionality of RA 6132, claiming that it Constituent Assembly but also in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative
power which encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication of the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to
withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for instability was removed. The
so long as it does not contravene any provision of the Constitution; and Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate. In declaring what the law is, it may
4. Congress as a legislative body may thus enact necessary implementing not only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity.
legislation to fill in the gaps which Congress as a Constituent Assembly has In the latter case, there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized
omitted. as constitutionally deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices.
OCCENA VS. COMELEC That is the meaning of the concluding statement in Javellana. Since then, this Court
G.R. NO. L-56350, APRIL 2, 1981 has invariably applied the present Constitution. The latest case in point is People v.
FERNANDO, C.J.: Sola, promulgated barely two weeks ago. During the first year alone of the
FACTS: effectivity of the present Constitution, at least ten cases may be cited.
The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings is against the 2. Yes. The existence of the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa is
validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional indubitable. The applicable provision in the 1976 Amendments is quite explicit.
amendments. Petitioners urged that the amendments proposed are so extensive Insofar as pertinent it reads thus: "The Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have
in character that they go far beyond the limits of the authority conferred on the the same powers and its Members shall have the same functions, responsibilities,
Interim Batasang Pambansa as successor of the Interim National Assembly. For rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the
them, what was done was to revise and not to amend. regular National Assembly and the Members thereof." One of such powers is
Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of the precisely that of proposing amendments. Article XVII, Section 15 of the 1973
Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention Constitution in its Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National Assembly with
that framed the present Constitution, are suing as taxpayers. The rather the power to propose amendments upon special call by the Prime Minister by a
unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the 1973 Constitution is vote of the majority of its members to be ratified in accordance with the Article on
not the fundamental law. Amendments. When, therefore, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon the call of
The suits for prohibition were filed respectively on March 6 and March 12,1981. the President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos, met as a constituent body
it acted by virtue Of such impotence Its authority to do so is clearly beyond doubt.
ISSUES: It could and did propose the amendments embodied in the resolutions now being
Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is already in effect. assailed.
Whether or not the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose 3. Yes.The question of whether the proposed resolutions constitute amendments
amendments. or revision is of no relevance. It suffices to quote from the opinion of Justice
Whether or not the three resolutions are valid. Makasiar, speaking for the Court, in Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections to
dispose of this contention. Whether the Constitutional Convention will only
HELD: propose amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul the present
1.Yes. it is much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution and propose an entirely new Constitution based on an Ideology
Constitution. In the dispositive portion of Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, foreign to the democratic system, is of no moment; because the same will be
dismissing petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its submitted to the people for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people,
ratification, this Court stated that it did so by a vote of six to four. It then there can be no debate about the validity of the new Constitution. The fact that the
concluded: "This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle present Constitution may be revised and replaced with a new one ... is no
to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect." argument against the validity of the law because 'amendment' includes the
With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition 'revision' or total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any rate, whether the
Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally changed would plebiscite for the ratification of all the amendments the Convention may
become immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign propose. We are not denying any right of the people to vote on the proposed
people." amendment; We are only holding that under Section 1, Article XV of the
TOLENTINO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Constitution, the same should be submitted to them not separately from but
(GR. NO. L-34150, OCTOBER 16, 1971) together with all the other amendments to be proposed by this present
Convention.
FATCS: Prescinding already from the fact that under Section 3 of the questioned
A Constitutional Convention was called upon to propose amendments to resolution, it is evident that no fixed frame of reference is provided the voter,
the Constitution of the Philippines, in which, the delegates to the said Convention as to what finally will be concomitant qualifications that will be required by the
were all elected under and by virtue of resolutions and the implementing final draft of the constitution to be formulated by the Convention of a voter to be
legislation thereof, Republic Act 6132. The Convention approved Organic able to enjoy the right of suffrage, there are other considerations which make it
Resolution No. 1, amending section one of article 5 of the Constitution of the impossible to vote intelligently on the proposed amendment. No one knows what
Philippines so as to lower the voting age to 18. Said resolution also provided in its changes in the fundamental principles of the constitution the Convention will be
Section 3 that the partial amendment, which refers only to the age qualification minded to approve. To be more specific, we do not have any means of foreseeing
for the exercise of suffrage shall be without prejudice to other amendments that whether the right to vote would be of any significant value at all. Who can say
will be proposed in the future by the 1971 Constitutional Convention on other whether or not later on the Convention may decide to provide for varying types of
portions of the amended Section or on other portions of the entire Constitution. voters for each level of the political units it may divide the country into. The root of
The main thrust of the petition is that Organic Resolution No.1 and the the difficulty in other words, lies in that the Convention is precisely on the verge
other implementing resolutions thereof subsequently approved by the Convention of introducing substantial changes, if not radical ones, in almost every part and
have no force and effect as laws in so far as they are in contravention to Section 1 aspect of the existing social and political order enshrined in the present
Article XV of the Constitution. Under the said provision, the proposed amendment Constitution. How can a voter in the proposed plebiscite intelligently determine
in question cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from the effect of the reduction of the voting age upon the different institutions which
each and all of the other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the the Convention may establish and of which presently he is not given any idea?
Convention. Clearly, there is improper submission.
ISSUE:
Is the Resolution approved by the 1971 ConstitutionalConvention SANIDAD VS. COMELEC
constitutional? 73 SCRA 333 (1976)
HELD: FACTS:
NO. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 President Marcos issued P.D. 991 calling for a national referendum on
and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies (“Barangay”) to resolve, among
provide for the holding of a plebiscite, as well as the resolution of the respondent other things, the issues of martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the
Comelec complying therewith are null and void. powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period
The Court is of the opinion that in providing for the questioned for the exercise by the President of his present powers.
plebiscite before it has finished, and separately from, the whole draft of the Thereafter, P.D.1031 was issued, amending P.D. 991 by declaring the
constitution it has been called to formulate, the Convention's Organic Resolution provisions of P.D. 229 applicable as to the manner of voting and canvassing of
No. 1 and all subsequent acts of the Convention implementing the same violate votes in barangays for the national referendum- plebiscite of October 16, 1976.
the condition in Section 1, Article XV that there should only be one "election" or P.D. 1033 was also issued, declaring therein that the question of the
continuance of martial law will be submitted for referendum at the same time 1. Is the question of the constitutionality of the Presidential Decrees 991,
as the submission of his (President) proposed amendments to the Constitution 1031, and 1033 political or judicial?
through a plebiscite on October 16, 1976. 2. Does the President possess the power to propose amendments to the
Petitioner Sanidad filed suit for Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction, Constitution as well as set up the required machinery and prescribe the
seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting said Referendum- procedure for the ratification of his proposal, in the absence of an interim National
Plebiscite on the basis that under the 1935 and 1973Constitution, there is no Assembly?
grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose 3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within
amendments to the new Constitution, hence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on the time frame allowed therefore a sufficient and proper submission?
October 16 has no legal basis. HELD:
Petitioner Guzman filed another action asserting that the power to 1. YES. At the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of
propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution during the transition period public funds may be enjoined upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds
is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly under sec.16, Art. XVII of by the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a
the Constitution. misapplication of such funds.
A similar action was instituted by petitioners Gonzales and Salapantan 2. It is a judicial question.
arguing that: 3. YES. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions
1. Even granting him legislative powers under the martial law, the incumbent of the Interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the
President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the function of that assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but
Constitution, adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. This is not to say that the
2. A referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973, President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature
3. The submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time normally constituted by the legislature. Rather, with the Interim Assembly not
for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity, convened and only the Presidency and Supreme Court in operation, the urges of
4. To lift martial law, the President need not consult the people via referendum, absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and
and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.
5. Allowing 15-year-olds to vote would amount to an amendment of the Parenthetically, by its very constitution, the Supreme Court possesses no capacity
Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the to propose amendments without constitutional infractions. For the President to
Philippines 18 years of age and above. shy away from that actuality and decline to undertake the amending process
The Solicitor General, in his comment for respondent COMELEC, would leave the governmental machinery at a stalemate or create in the powers of
maintains that: the State a destructive vacuum. After all, the constituent assemblies or
1. Petitioners have no standing to sue constitutional conventions, like the President now, are mere agents of the people.
2. The issue raised is political in nature, beyond judicial cognizance 4. YES. Art. XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date
of the court when the plebiscite shall be held, but simply states that “it shall be held not later
3. At this state of the transition period, only the incumbent President than 3 months after the approval of such amendment or revision.” The period
has the authority to exercise constituent power from September 21 to October 16, or a period of three weeks is not too short for
4. The referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization. free debates or discussions on the referendum-plebiscite issues. The issues are
not new. They are the issues of the day, and the people have been living with
ISSUES: them since the proclamation of martial law four years ago. The referendums of
Do the petitioners have the standing to sue? 1973 and 1975 carried the same issue of martial law. That notwithstanding, the
contested brief period for discussion is not without counterparts in previous to amend the Constitution. Only the Congress is authorized by the
plebiscites for constitutional amendments. Constitution to pass the implementing law.
4. The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, to
SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC the revision thereof. Extending or lifting of the term limits constitutes a
270 SCRA 106, MARCH 19, 1997 revision and is therefore outside the power of the people’s initiative.
FACTS: 5. Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative,
Private respondent Delfin filed with the COMELEC a “Petition to neither the COMELEC nor any other department, agency or office of the
Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s government has realigned funds for the purpose.
amendments to the Constitution granted under Section 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 The Supreme Court gave due course to this petition and granted the
Constitution. R.A. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. The proposed Motions for Intervention filed by Petitioners-Intervenors DIK, MABINI, IBP,
amendments consist of the submission of this proposition to the people—“Do LABAN, and Senator Roco.
you approve the lifting of the term limits of all elective officials, amending for the ISSUES:
purpose section 4 and 7 of Art.VI, Section 4 of Art.VII, and Section 8 of Art. X of 1. Whether Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision?
the Philippine Constitution?” The COMELEC issued an order directing the 2. Whether R.A.6735 is a sufficient statutory implementation of the
publication of the petition and the notice of hearing and thereafter set the said constitutional provision?
case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Raul Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya- 3. Whether the COMELEC resolution is valid?
Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK), Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng 4. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials as
Demokratikong Pilipino (LABAN) appeared as intervenors- oppositors. Senator proposed would constitute a revision, or an amendment to the Constitution?
Roco moved to dismiss the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory HELD:
party cognizable by the COMELEC. NO. Although the mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in
Petitioners filed a special civil action directing respondents COMELEC and the last analysis, it is still dependent on congressional action. While the
Delfin’s Petition to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise
system of initiative under sec.2 of Art. XVII of the it if the Congress for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.
1987 Constitution. Petitioners raise the following arguments: 1. NO. R.A. 6735 is insufficient and incomplete to fully comply with the power
1. The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the and duty of the Congress to enact the statutory implementation of sec.2, Art.XVII
Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No of the Constitution. Although said Act intended to include the system of
such law has been passed. initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it is deemed inadequate to cover
2. R.A. 6735 failed to provide subtitle initiative on the that system and accordingly provide for a local initiative required for proposing
Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative. It only provides for the Constitutional changes.
effectivity of the law after the publication in print media indicating that 2. NO. The COMELEC Resolution insofar as it prescribes rules and
the Act covers only laws and not constitutional amendments because the regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
latter takes effect only upon ratification and not after publication. void, as expressedin the Latin maxim “Potestas delegate non delegari potest. In
3. COMELEC Resolution No.2300, adopted on January 16, every case of permissible delegation, it must be shown that the
1991 to govern the “conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative delegation itself is valid.
and referendum on national and local laws”, is ultra vires insofar as initiative 3. The resolution of this issue is held to be unnecessary, if not academic, as
or amendments to the Constitution are concerned, since the COMELEC has no the proposal to lift the term limits of elective local and national officials is an
power to provide rules and regulation for the exercise of the right of initiative amendment to the Constitution and not a revision. Thus, the petition was
granted, and the COMELEC is permanently enjoined from taking cognizance of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are
any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficiently imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or
law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the authority of prescribing them" (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil., 332). This institution, when
system. referring to the national government, has reference to what our Constitution
BACANI V. NACOCO has established composed of three great departments, the legislative, executive,
[G.R. L-9657 NOVEMBER 29, 1956] and the judicial, through which the powers and functions of government are
exercised. These functions are twofold: constitute and ministrant. The former are
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: those which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature;
FACTS: the latter are those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general
The plaintiffs are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of interests of society, and are merely optional.
First Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, To this latter class belongs the organization of those corporations owned
entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate or controlled by the government to promote certain aspects of the economic life of
Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for defendant, requested said stenographers our people such as the National Coconut Corporation. These are what we call
for copies, of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during government-owned or controlled corporations which may take on the form of a
the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala private enterprise or one organized with powers and formal characteristics of a
the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their private corporation under the Corporation Law.
bills for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the But while NACOCO was organized for the ministrant function of promoting
amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate and
transcript at the rate of P1 per page. distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our
Upon inspecting the books of this corporation, the Auditor General disallowed Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may
the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the amounts paid. The exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518).
respondents argue that National Coconut Corporation may be considered as “Government of the Republic of the Philippines" used in section 2 of
included in the term "Government of the Republic of the Philippines" for the the Revised Administrative Code refers only to that government. entity
purposes of the exemption of the legal fees provided for in Rule 1-30 of the Rules through which the functions of the government are exercised as an
of Court. attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which
political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or
ISSUE: other form of local government. These are what we call municipal
Whether or not NACOCO is a part of the Government of thePhilippines by corporations. They do not include government entities which are given a
virtue of its performance of government functions. corporate personality. separate and distinct from the government and 'which
are governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, duties and liabilities
HELD: have to be determined in the light of that law and of their corporate charters.
No, NACOCO does not acquire that status for the simple reason that it does As this Court has aptly said, "The mere fact that the Government happens to be a
not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. To resolve the majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation" (National Coal Co.
issue in this case requires a little digression on the nature and functions of vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, (46 Phil., 586-597). "By becoming a stockholder
our government as instituted in our Constitution. To begin with, we state that in the National Coal Company, the Government divested itself of its sovereign
the term "Government" may be defined as "that institution or aggregate of character so far as respects the transactions of the corporation. Unlike the
institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of Government, the corporation may be sued without its consent, and is subject
to taxation. Yet the National Coal Company remains an agency or instrumentality of functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which
government." (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Springer, 50 Phil., 288.) used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government
was called upon to enter optionally, and only 'because it was better equipped
PVTA VS.CIR to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of
[G.R. L-32052 JULY 25, 1975] individuals,' continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed
within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it
FACTS: is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost
everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of
Private respondents filed with the CIR a petition, alleging their
economic forces. Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed
employment relationship, the overtime services in excess of the regular eight
adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of
hours a day rendered by them, and the failure to pay them overtime compensation
principle concerning the promotion of social justice."
in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444. Their prayer was for the
Thus was laid to rest the doctrine in Bacani v. National Coconut
differential between the amount actually paid to them and the amount allegedly
Corporation, based on the Wilsonian classification of the tasks incumbent on
due them. Petitioner Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration denied the
government into constituent and ministrant in accordance with the laissez faire
allegations. The then Presiding Judge Arsenio T. Martinez of respondent Court
principle.
sustained the claims of private respondents for overtime services from December
WHEREFORE, the appealed Order of March 21, 1970 and the Resolution of
23, 1963 up to the date the decision was rendered on March 21, 1970, and
respondent Court, denying a motion for reconsideration are hereby affirmed.
directing petitioner to pay the same, minus what it had already paid. Petitioner
claims that the matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the CIR as it is GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS V. MONTE DE PIEDAD
exercising governmental functions and that it is exempt from the operation of (G.R. NO. L-9959, DECEMBER 13, 1916)
C.A. 444, invoking the doctrine announced in the leading Agricultural Credit and
Cooperative Financing Administration decision, and the distinction between TRENT, J.:
constituent and ministrant functions of governments as set forth in Bacani v. FACTS:
National Coconut Corporation. About $400,000, were subscribed and paid into the treasury of the
Philippine Islands by the inhabitants of the Spanish Dominions of the relief of
ISSUE:
those damaged by the earthquake which took place in the Philippine Islands on
Whether or not the traditional classification of function of government as
June 3, 1863. Subsequent thereto a central relief board was appointed to
ministrant and constituent applicable in this case.
distribute the moneys thus voluntarily contributed and allotted $365,703.50 to
the various sufferers named in its resolution. By order of the Governor-General
HELD:
of the Philippine Islands, a list of these allotments, together with the names of
No. The irrelevance of such a distinction considering the needs of the
those entitled thereto, was published in the Official Gazette of Manila. These
times was clearly pointed out by the present Chief Justice. Under this
were later distributed up to the sum of $30,299.65, leaving a balance of
traditional classification, such constituent functions are exercised by the
$365,403.85.
State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare,
Upon the petition of the governing body of the Monte de Piedad, the
progress and prosperity of the people - these latter functions being ministrant,
Philippine Government, by order, directed its treasurer to turn over to the former
the exercise of which is optional on the part of the government."
the sum of $80,000 of the relief fund in installments of $20,000 each and were
Nonetheless, as he explained so persuasively: "The growing complexities
received on the following dates: February 15, March 12, April 14, and June 2,
of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional classification of the
1883, and are still in the possession of the Monte de Piedad. On account of recognized and considered as late as March 31, 1902, that it received the $80,000
various petitions of the persons, and heirs of others to whom the above- "as a returnable loan, and without interest." Thus, there cannot be the slightest
mentioned allotments were made, the Philippine Islands filed a suit against the doubt the fact that the Monte de Piedad received the $80,000 as a mere loan or
Monte de Piedad a recover, "through the Attorney-General and in deposit and not as a donation.
representation of the Government of the Philippine Islands," the $80.000, 2.No. Court ruled that if legal provisions are in conflict with the political character,
together with interest. After due trial, judgment was entered in favor of the constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, they became inoperative or lost
plaintiff. Defendant appealed and made the following contentions:that the their force upon the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States, but if
$80,000, given to the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros, were so given as a they are among "that great body of municipal law which regulates private and
donation, and that said donation had been cleared; that the Government of the domestic rights," they continued in force and are still in force unless they have
Philippine Islands has not subrogated the Spanish Government in its rights, as been repealed by the present Government.
regards an important sum of money abovementioned; that the only persons who From the nature and class of the subject matter, it is clear that it falls within
could claim to be damaged by this payment to the Monte, if it was unlawful, are the latter class. They are laws which are not political in any sense of the word.
the donors or the cestuis que trustent, thus, the plaintiff is not the proper party They conferred upon the Spanish Government the right and duty to supervise,
to bring the action; that the court erred in holding in its decision that there is no regulate, and to some extent control charities and charitable institutions. The
title for the prescription of this suit brought by the Insular Government present sovereign, in exempting "provident institutions, savings banks, etc.," all of
against the defendant appellant. which are in the nature of charitable institutions, from taxation, placed such
ISSUES: institutions, in so far as the investment in securities are concerned, under the
Whether or not the $80,000 received by Monte de Piedad was in form of general supervision of the Insular Treasurer.
donation 3.Yes.The ground upon which the right of the Government to maintain the action
Whether or not the obligation on the part of the Monte de Piedad to return the rests on the fact that the money, being given to a charity became a public
$80,000 to the Government, even considering it a loan, was wiped out on the property, only applicable to the specific purposes to which it was intended to be
change of sovereignty. devoted. It is but within those limits consecrated to the public use, and became
Whether or not the Government is a proper party to the case under the doctrine part of the public resources for promoting the happiness and welfare of the
of parens patriae. Philippine Government. To deny the Government's right to maintain this action
Whether or not the Philippine Government is bound by the statute of would be contrary to sound public policy.
limitations. The Supreme Court of the United States in Sohier vs. Mass. General Hospital,
HELD: ruled that: “insane persons and person not known, or not in being, apply to the
1.No.Documentary evidence shows that Monte de Piedad, after setting forth in beneficiaries of charities, who are often in capable of vindicating their rights,
its petition to the Governor-General its financial condition and its absolute and justly look for protection to the sovereign authority, acting as parens patriae.
necessity for more working capital, asked that out of the sum of$100,000 held in They show that this beneficient functions has not ceased to exist under the change
the Treasury of the Philippine Islands, there be transferred to it the sum of of government from a monarchy to a republic; but that it now resides in the
$80,000. The Monte de Piedad agreed that if the transfer of these funds should legislative department, ready to be called into exercise whenever required for the
not be approved by the Government of Spain, the same would be returned purposes of justice and right, and is a clearly capable of being exercised in cases of
forthwith. It did not ask that the$80,000 be given to it as a donation. charities as in any other cases whatever.”
The Department of Finance, acting under the orders of the Governor-General, Chancelor Kent says: In this country, the legislature or government of the
understood that the $80,000 was transferred to the Monte de Piedad well knew State, as parens patriae, has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by
that it received this sum as a loan interest." Furthermore, the Monte de Piedad virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no
other person is entrusted with it. (4 Kent Com., 508, note.) 2. Whether the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts existing in the
4.No. In 25 Cyc., 1006, the rule, supported by numerous authorities, is stated as Philippines under the Phil. Executive Commission and the Republic of the
follows: Philippines were good and valid and remained so even after the liberation or
In the absence of express statutory provision to the contrary, statute of reoccupation of the Philippines by the US and Filipino forces.
limitations do not as a general rule run against the sovereign or government, 3. Whether the proclamation issued by Gen. Mac Arthur declaring “all
whether state or federal. But the rule is otherwise where the mischief to be laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than
remedied are of such a nature that the state must necessarily be included, that of the Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of
where the state goes into business in concert or in competition with her citizens, the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control” has invalidated al
or where a party seeks to enforces his private rights by suit in the name of the judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the said courts.
state or government, so that the latter is only a nominal party. 4. Whether the courts of Commonwealth, which were the same courts
In the instant case the Philippine Government is not a mere nominal party existing prior to and continue during the Japanese military occupation of the
because it, in bringing and prosecuting this action, is exercising its sovereign Philippines may continue those proceedings in said courts at the time the
functions or powers and is seeking to carry out a trust developed upon it when the Philippines were reoccupied and liberated by the US and Filipino forces and the
Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States. Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
HELD:
CO KIM CHAN V. VALDEZ TAN KEH 1. YES. The government established under the names of Philippine
75 PHIL 113, SEPTEMBER 17, 1945 Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese
FERIA, J: occupation was a civil government and a de facto government of the second kind:
FACTS: that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and
Petitioner filed a motion for mandamus praying that the respondent judge occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war. The distinguishing
be ordered to continue the proceedings in civil case no.3012 which was initiated characteristics of this kind of de facto government are; (1) that its existence is
under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established during maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful
the Japanese military occupation of the islands. The respondent judge refused authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while it exists it
to take cognizance of and continue the proceedings on the following grounds: must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of
(1) the proclamation issued on October 23, 1944 by Gen. Mac Arthur had the obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as
effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of the wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful
courts of the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the government.
Republic established during the Japanese occupation;(2) the lower courts have no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the 2. YES. Being a de facto government, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts
courts of the defunct Republic in the absence of enabling law granting such and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are not of a
authority; (3) the government established in the Philippines during the Japanese political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well known
occupation was not a de facto government. principle of postliminy in international law, remained good and valid after the
liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the government established during the Japanese occupation was a 3. NO. The phrase “processes of any other government” is broad and
de facto government. may refer not only to judicial processes, but also to administrative or legislative,
as well as constitutional processes of the Republic of the Philippines or other the City Mayor of Olangapo City. The City Court of Olangapo found her guilty of
governmental agencies established in the Islands during the Japanese violating a municipal ordinance that requires permit from the municipal mayor for
occupation. Taking into consideration the fact that, according to the well- construction of building as well as any modification, repairs or demolition thereof.
known principles of international law, all judgments and judicial proceedings, On appeal with the Court of Appeals, Gozo put in issue the validity of such
which are not of a political complexion, of the de facto government during the ordinance by invoking due process. She likewise questioned the applicability of
Japanese occupation were good and valid before and remained so after the the ordinance to her in view of the location of her dwelling within the naval
occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereign, it base leased to the American Armed Forces; she contended that the municipal
should be presumed that it was not, and could not have been, the intention of the government cannot exercise therein administrative jurisdiction.
Gen. Mac Arthur, in using the phrase “processes of any government” to refer ISSUES:
to judicial processes, in violation of said principles of international law. The only 1. Whether municipal ordinance is valid?
reasonable construction of the said phrase is that it refers to governmental 2. Whether the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over
processes other than judicial processes, or court proceedings, for according to a the area where Gozo’s house was located?
well-known statutory construction, statute ought never to be construed to HELD:
violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. 1. YES, the municipal ordinance is valid. The authority to require building
permits is predicated upon the general welfare clause. Its scope is wide, well-nigh
4. YES. Although in theory, the authority of the local civil and judicial all embracing, covering every aspect of public health, public morals, public safety,
administration is suspended as a matter of course as soon as military occupation and the well being and good order of the community.
takes place, in practice, the invader does not usually take the administration
of justice into his own hands, but continues the ordinary courts or tribunals to 2. YES, the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the
administer the laws of the country to which he is enjoined, unless absolutely said area. By the agreement, the Philippine Government merely consents that
prevented. If the proceedings pending in the different courts of the Islands prior to the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. This consent was given
the Japanese military occupation had been continued during the Japanese military purely as a matter of comity, courtesy or expediency. The Philippine Government
administration, the Philippine Executive Commission and the so-called Republic of has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine
the Philippines, it stands to reason the same courts, which become reestablished territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed
and conceived of as having been in continued existence upon the reoccupation therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or
and liberation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminy, may preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine
continue the proceedings in cases then pending in said courts, without necessity of jurisdiction retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also such ceded
enacting laws conferring jurisdiction upon them to continue said proceedings. rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to
make use of.
PEOPLE V. GOZO Moreover, the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, is the property of a
53 SCRA 476, OCTOBER 26, 1973 state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-
determination and self-restriction. x x x A state is not precluded from allowing
FERNANDO, J: another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain
FACTS: portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas
Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil.
Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of Olangapo City. She demolished the They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be dimished, but it does
house and built another one in its place without securing a building permit from not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces
by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. they are not and cannot be cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended
foreign territory. without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least
during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the
LAUREL V. MISA exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and government of
77 PHIL 856, JANUARY 30, 1947 the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant; x x x and
that as a corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended
PER CURIAM: and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to
FACTS: their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no
Sometime in May 1945, Anastacio Laurel, herein petitioner, a Filipino such thing as suspended allegiance.
citizen, was arrested by the US Army and was interned, under a commitment order
“for his active collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation”. 2. YES. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was applicable to treason
He was charged with treason as defined and penalized by Art. 114 of the Penal committed against the national security of the legitimate government because the
Code. But in September 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to the
government and since then he has been under the custody of the Director of latter during the enemy’s occupation. Just as a citizen or subject of a
Prisons. government or
Petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus mainly asserting that he cannot sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign
be prosecuted for the crime of treason for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of country, in the same way a inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces
the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate or sovereign if he
allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort.
a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine
Republic. RUFFY VS. CHIEF OF STAFF
ISSUES: 75 PHIL 875, AUGUST 20, 1946
1. Whether the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines
and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens were suspended TUASON, J:
during the Japanese occupation. FACTS:
2. Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the crime of treason by During the Japanese occupation, herein petitioner, Ramon Ruffy, a
giving aid and support to the enemy during the Japanese occupation. Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary, retreated in the
mountains instead of surrendering to the enemy. He organized and led a guerrilla
HELD: outfit known as Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area. The said Bolo Area was a
1. NO. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a contingent of the 6th Military District, which has been recognized and placed
territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is under the operational control of the US Army in the South Pacific.
not abrogated or severed by the enemy’s occupation, because the sovereignty Sometime later, Col. Jurado effected a change of command in the Bolo
of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier Area. Major Ruffy who was then acting as Commanding Officer for the Bolo Area
and if its is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in was relieved of his position. Later on or on October 19,
the legitimate government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular 1944, Lieut. Col Jurado was slain allegedly by the petitioners. It was this murder
government must be distinguished from the exercise of the rights inherent which gave rise to petitioner’s trial.
thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed and transferred to another, but it The trial court convicted petitioner and he now filed this instant petition with
the contention that he was not subject to military law at the time the offense for United States Army and thus covered by Article 2 of the Articles of War
which he had been placed on trial was committed. Petitioners contended that by which provides for perso2. YES, 93d of the Articles of War was constitutional. It
the enemy occupation of the Philippines, the National Defense Act and all laws and does not violate Article VII, section 2 of the Constitution which provides that “the
regulations creating and governing the existence of the Philippine Army including National Assembly may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original
the Articles of War, were suspended and in abeyance during such belligerent jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life
occupation. He also assailed the constitutionality of 93d Article of War which imprisonment”. Court Martial are agencies of executive character, and one of the
provides that “any person subject to military law who commits murder in the authorities “for ordering of courts martial has been held to be attached to the
time of war should suffer death or imprisonment for life, as the court martial may constitutional functions of the President as Commander in Chief, independently of
direct.” Petitioner argued that the said law was in violation of Article VII, section 2 legislation”. Unlike courts of law, they are not a portion of the judiciary.
of the Constitution since 93d of Article of War fails to allow a review by the x x x court martial are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power,
Supreme Court of judgments of courts martial imposing death or life provided by Congress for the President as Commander in Chief, to aid him in
imprisonment. properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein, and
ISSUES: utilized under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives.ns
1. Whether petitioner was subject to military law at the time the alleged subject to military law.
offense was committed. Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh (1945)
2. Whether 93d of Articles of War was constitutional.
HELD: Co Kim Cham has a civil case in CFI Manila instituted under the Republic of the
1. YES, petitioner was subject to military law at the time the alleged offense Philippines during the period of Japanese occupation. Judge Dizon alleges that the
was committed. The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political case shouldn’t be continued because:
relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the military
occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied The PEC and RP under Japanese military occupation were not de facto
territory. It is not intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms. governments.
By the occupation of the Philippines by Japanese forces, the officers and men of McArthur’s proclamation invalidated all judicial proceedings and judgments of
the Philippine army did not cease to be fully in the service, though, in a measure, Philippine Courts under the PEC and the RP.
only in measure, they were not subject to the military jurisdiction, if they were not 3. Lower courts have no jurisdiction to continue pending judicial proceedings
in active duty. In the latter case, like officers and soldiers on leave of absence with the absence of an enabling law to grant such authority.
or held as prisoners of war, they could not be held guilty of breach of the
discipline of the command or of a neglect of duty x x x; but for an act unbecoming A writ of mandamus was issued to the judge ordering him to take cognizance and
of a gentleman or an act which constitutes an offense of the class specified in the render final judgment of the case. The first issue involved was whether or not the
95th Article of War, they may in general be legally held subject to military PEC and the RP were de facto governments. And the SC held that they were by
jurisdiction and trial. expounding on the different kinds of de facto governments (which are listed
Moreover, petitioners, by their acceptance of appointments as officers in the Bolo below) and pointing out that all acts and proceedings of the PEC/RP (which was
Area from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military District, they became classified as a de facto government of the second form) are good and valid.
members of the Philippine Army amenable to the Articles of War. x x x As
Government that USURPS by FORCE or BY THE VOICE OF THE MAJORITY the
officers in the Bolo Area and the 6th Military District, the petitioners operated
rightful legal government.
under the orders of a duly established and duly appointed commanders of the
Government of PARAMOUNT FORCE.
Government established by the native inhabitants who rise in INSURRECTION unless repealed. This reduces the harm done to the people of the occupied
against the parent state. territory, and reversing judicial processes strips parties, without due process,
of vested rights acquired under these processes.
The second issue revolved around McArthur’s proclamation. It did not have the
effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of Only legislative, constitutional and administrative processes are affected, and
Philippine Courts under the PEC and the RP by virtue of the principle of these are the “processes” MacArthur’s proclamation was construed to refer to.
POSTLIMINY in international law.
Motion for reconsideration denied.
Postliminium is a principle in international law which considers valid, except in a
very few cases, the acts done by an invader, which for one reason or another it is VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN
within his competence to do so, notwithstanding the fact that the territory which (39 PHIL 778)
has been occupied by him comes again in the power of its legitimate government
or sovereignty. FACTS:Respondent Justo Lukban, Mayor of the city of Manila, for the best of all
reasons, to exterminate vise, ordered the segregated district for women of ill
The last issue was the question of whether or not an enabling law was required. It repute, which had been permitted for a number of years in the City of Manila,
isn’t. Conquest or colonization is impotent to amend laws. Laws remain unchanged closed. The women were kept confined to their houses in the district by the police.
until the new sovereign by a legislative act creates such change. At about midnight of October 25, the police, acting pursuant to the orders from
the chief of the police and Justo Lukban, descended upon the houses, hustled
CO KIM CHAN vs VALDEZ TAN KEH, 75 Phil 113, 1945 some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the steamers
November 16 “Corregidor” and “Negros”. They had no knowledge that they were destined for a
life in Mindanao. The two steamers with their unwilling passengers sailed for
FACTS: Davao during the night of October 25, 1918.
Plaintiff Co filed motions in a Japanese-controlled court in Manila to recover
property from the defendant. Although Manila was still under Japanese ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the Mayor of the City of Manila is
control, the Commonwealth government had been reestablished a month ago, constitutional.
and plaintiff was surely aware that the liberation of Manila was imminent.
HELD:
ISSUE: The Supreme Court condemned the mayor’s act. Respondent’s intention to
WON judicial processes during the Japanese occupation are valid after the suppress the social evil was commutable. But his methods were unlawfull.
Commonwealth government was already reinstated. Alien prostitutes can be expelled from the Philippines in conformity with an act of
Congress. The Governor-General can order the eviction of undesirable aliens after
HELD: Yes. a hearing from the Islands. One can search in vain for any law, order, or
regulation, which even hints at the right of the Mayor of the City of Manila or the
RATIO: Chief of Police of that City to force citizens of the Philippine Islands, and these
Under international law, specifically the Hague Conventions, the functioning of women despite their being in a sense, lepers of society are nevertheless not
courts and municipal laws remain valid during occupation. The acts of a de chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same constitutional guarantees
facto government are valid and civil laws continue even during occupation as other citizens.
Law defines power. The law is the only supreme power in our system of code of the conquering state, or through the ordinary courts and authorities of the
government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is occupied district." (Taylor, International Public Law, p. 598.)
only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the
limitations which gives itself and imposes upon the exercise of the authority which REAGAN V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
it gives. FERNANDO; December 27, 1969
The fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, considered as
individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which FACTS
are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals
the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the Petitioner: William Reagan –civilian employee of an American corporation
famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the providing technical assistance to the United States Air Force in the Philippines
commonwealth may be “government of laws and not of men”. Respondent: Commissioner of Internal Revenue
July 7, 1959 –Reagan was assigned at the Clark Field Air Base
Peralta v. Director of Prisons (1945) April 22, 1960 –He imported a tax-free Cadillac with accessories valued at
$6,443.83
Petitioner, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary, was prosecuted for the July 11, 1960 –petitioner asked Base Commander for permit to sell the car which
crime of robbery as defined by the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of was granted provided that he sell it to a member of the US Armed Forces or a US
the Philippines. He was found guilty and sentenced to serve time by the Court of citizen employed in the Philippine military bases. On the same date, he sold his car
Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created in sec. 1 of Ordinance no. 7 for $6,600.00 to Willie Johnson, Jr. of the US Marine Corps.
promulgated by the President of the Republic. The petition for habeas corpus is - As a result of the transaction, respondent, after deducting the landed cost of the
based on the ground that the Court’s existence was void ab initio because it was car as well as petitioner’s personal exemption, fixed his net taxable income arising
created as a political instrumentality under the command of the Japanese Imperial from the sale at P17,912.34 rendering him liable for P2,979.00 income tax. After
Army; that the provisions of said ordinance violate his constitutional rights; that paying the sum, petitioner sought a refund claiming that he was exempt, but
the penalties provided for are much more severe than the RPC. SolGen is of the pending action on his request, he filed the case with the Court of Tax Appeals
opinion that the petition should be granted because the Ordinance mentioned in which denied his petition.
creating said court is “tinged with political complexion”, that the procedure does - Petitioner asserts that he is exempt from paying the income tax. He contends that
not afford a fair trial and violates constitutional right of accused persons under a in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore
legitimate Constitution. The court is of the opinion that: beyond its jurisdiction to tax.
- Petitioner relies on a statement of Justice Tuason in Co Po v. Collector of Internal
As to the validity of the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Revenue: “While in army bases or installations within the Philippines those goods
Jurisdiction by Ordinance No. 7, the only factor to be considered is the authority of were in contemplation of law on foreign soil.” The court resolved this by pointing
the legislative power which promulgated said law or ordinance. It is well out that the statement was merely obiter dictum in that case and therefore,
established in International Law that "The criminal jurisdiction established by the cannot be invoked in this case.
invader in the occupied territory finds its source neither in the laws of the
conquering or conquered state, — it is drawn entirely from the law martial as ISSUE
defined in the usages of nations. The authority thus derived can be asserted either WON the Clark Field Air Base is Philippine territory
through special tribunals, whose authority and procedure is defined in the military
HELD
Yes. Bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the Military It appears clear that it was within the power and competence of the belligerent
Bases Agreement of 1947 remain part of Philippine territory. occupant to promulgate, through the National Assembly of the so-called Republic
- The Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised of the Philippines, Act No. 65 of the said Assembly, which penalizes the crimes of
over its entire domain. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands robbery and other offenses by imprisonment ranging from the maximum period of
paramount. Likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a the imprisonment prescribed by the laws and ordinances promulgated by the
diminution of its sovereignty. President of the so-called Republic as minimum, to life imprisonment or death as
- Concept of auto-limitation: Any state may, by its consent, express or implied, maximum. Although these crimes are defined in the Revised Penal Code, they were
submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. It is not precluded from allowing altered and penalized by said Act No. 65 with different and heavier penalties, as
another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain new crimes and offenses demanded by military necessity, incident to a state of
portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas war, and necessary for the control of the country by the belligerent occupant, the
become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil. protection and safety of the army of occupation, its support and efficiency, and the
They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does success of its operations.
not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by
virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign The last question is the legal effect of the reoccupation of the Philippines and
territory. restoration of the Commonwealth Government; that is, whether or not, by the
- Therefore, the Philippines’ jurisdictional rights over the bases, certainly not principle of postliminy, the punitive sentence which petitioner is now serving fell
excluding the power to tax, have been preserved. As to certain tax matters, an through or ceased to be valid from that time.
appropriate exemption was provided for.
- Judgment (7 concur, 2 concur in the result, 1 did not take part) We have already held in our recent decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals denying the refund of P2,979.00 as the Tan Keh and Dizon, supra, that all judgment of political complexion of the courts
income tax paid by petitioner is affirmed. during the Japanese regime, ceased to be valid upon reoccupation of the islands by
virtue of the principle or right of postliminium. Applying that doctrine to the
The so-called Republic of the Philippines, being a governmental instrumentality of present case, the sentence which convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political
the belligerent occupant, had therefore the power or was competent to create the complexion must be considered as having ceased to be valid ipso facto upon the
Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction. No question may arise as to reoccupation or liberation of the Philippines by General Douglas MacArthur.
whether or not a court is of a political complexion, for it is mere governmental
agency charged with the duty of applying the law to cases falling within its G.R. No. 183591 October 14 2008
jurisdiction. Its judgments and sentences may be of a political complexion or not
Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the Republic of the Philippines
depending upon the nature or character of the law so applied. There is no room for
doubt, therefore, as to the validity of the creation of the court in question.

The validity of the sentence rendered by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal FACTS:
Jurisdiction which imposes life imprisonment upon the herein petitioner, depends
upon the competence or power of the belligerent occupant to promulgate Act No. On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the
65 which punishes the crime of which said petitioner was convicted. Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of
Agreement of the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP - MILF Tripoli Agreement on
Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Invoking the right to information on matters of public concern, the petitioners seek 1. Yes, the petitions are ripe for adjudication. The failure of the respondents to
to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and official consult the local government units or communities affected constitutes a
copies of the MA-AD and to prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD and the departure by respondents from their mandate under EO No. 3. Moreover, the
holding of public consultation thereon. They also pray that the MOA-AD be respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing
declared unconstitutional. The Court issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from signing amendments to the Constitution. Any alleged violation of the Constitution by any
the same. branch of government is a proper matter for judicial review.

As the petitions involve constitutional issues which are of paramount public

interest or of transcendental importance, the Court grants the petitioners,
ISSUES: petitioners-in-intervention and intervening respondents the requisite locus standi
in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in David v. Macapagal- Arroyo.
1. Whether or not the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for
adjudication; In Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre, this Court held:
2. Whether or not there is a violation of the people's right to information on x x x [B]y the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the
matters of public concern (Art 3 Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy
its transactions involving public interest (Art 2, Sec 28) including public even without any other overt act . Indeed, even a singular violation of the
consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty.x x x x
3. Whether or not the signing of the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the By the same token, when an act of the President, who in our constitutional scheme
Philippines would be binding itself is a coequal of Congress, is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution and
the laws x x x settling the dispute becomes the duty and the responsibility of the
a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state,
courts.
or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not recognized by law;
That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness.
b) to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the MOA;

c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front for
ancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 2. Yes. The Court finds that there is a grave violation of the Constitution involved in
RIGHTS ACT OF 1997), the matters of public concern (Sec 7 Art III) under a state policy of full disclosure of
all its transactions involving public interest (Art 2, Sec 28) including public
particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATION,
consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991).
RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS)
(Sec 7 ArtIII) The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand
information, while Sec 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information
even if nobody demands. The complete and effective exercise of the right to
RULINGS: information necessitates that its complementary provision on public disclosure
derive the same self-executory nature, subject only to reasonable safeguards or
limitations as may be provided by law.
The contents of the MOA-AD is a matter of paramount public concern involving The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region recognized in
public interest in the highest order. In declaring that the right to information the Constitution. It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of
contemplates steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the contract, its relationship with the national government being fundamentally different from
jurisprudence finds no distinction as to the executory nature or commercial that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a
character of the agreement. state laid down in the Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a
defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other
E.O. No. 3 itself is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both states.
national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building. In fact, it
is the duty of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process to conduct regular
dialogues to seek relevant information, comments, advice, and recommendations
from peace partners and concerned sectors of society. Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any portion
of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it – which has betrayed itself by its use
of the concept of association – runs counter to the national sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Republic.
3.

a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state,
or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not recognized by law; The defining concept underlying the relationship between the national
government and the BJE being itself contrary to the present Constitution, it is not
surprising that many of the specific provisions of the MOA-AD on the formation
and powers of the BJE are in conflict with the Constitution and the laws. The BJE is
Yes. The provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties
more of a state than an autonomous region. But even assuming that it is covered
aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status
by the term “autonomous region” in the constitutional provision just quoted, the
closely approximating it.
MOA-AD would still be in conflict with it.
The concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution.

b) to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the MOA:
No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our
laws as having an “associative” relationship with the national government. Indeed,
the concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the The MOA-AD provides that “any provisions of the MOA-AD requiring amendments
Constitution to any local or regional government. It also implies the recognition of to the existing legal framework shall come into force upon the signing of a
the associated entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not contemplate Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the legal
any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it framework,” implying an amendment of the Constitution to accommodate the
provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory MOA-AD. This stipulation, in effect, guaranteed to the MILF the amendment of the
for independence. Constitution .
It will be observed that the President has authority, as stated in her oath of office, Thus, the concept of “Bangsamoro,” as defined in this strand of the MOA-AD,
only to preserve and defend the Constitution. Such presidential power does not, includes not only “Moros” as traditionally understood even by Muslims, but all
however, extend to allowing her to change the Constitution, but simply to indigenous peoples of Mindanao and its adjacent islands. The MOA-AD adds that
recommend proposed amendments or revision. As long as she limits herself to the freedom of choice of indigenous peoples shall be respected. What this
recommending these changes and submits to the proper procedure for freedom of choice consists in has not been specifically defined. The MOA-AD
constitutional amendments and revision, her mere recommendation need not be proceeds to refer to the “Bangsamoro homeland,” the ownership of which is
construed as an unconstitutional act. vested exclusively in the Bangsamoro people by virtue of their prior rights of
occupation. Both parties to the MOA-AD acknowledge that ancestral domain does
not form part of the public domain.
The “suspensive clause” in the MOA-AD viewed in light of the above-discussed
standards.
Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 provides for
clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral domain, which
entails, among other things, the observance of the free and prior informed consent
Given the limited nature of the President’s authority to propose constitutional
of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the statute
amendments, she cannot guarantee to any third party that the required
does not grant the Executive Department or any government agency the power to
amendments will eventually be put in place, nor even be submitted to a
delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or
plebiscite. The most she could do is submit these proposals as recommendations
compromise.
either to Congress or the people, in whom constituent powers are vested.

Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 requires all
c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front for
national offices to conduct consultations beforeany project or program critical to
ancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
the environment and human ecology including those that may call for the eviction
RIGHTS ACT OF 1997),
of a particular group of people residing in such locality, is implemented therein.
particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATION, The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests
ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively
RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS) and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of
inhabitants from their total environment.
This strand begins with the statement that it is “the birthright of all Moros and all
Indigenous peoples of Mindanao to identify themselves and be accepted as
‘Bangsamoros.’” It defines “Bangsamoro people” as the natives or original
inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and the Sulu
archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization, and their descendants
whether mixed or of full blood, including their spouses.