1 4 Case Digest

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASE DIGESTS
No. 1
LAUREL V MISA
(77 Phil 856)
FACTS
In the case of Anastacio Laurel as the petitioner and Eniberto Misa, et.al. as
the respondents, the Court acting on the petition for habeas corpus filed by the
petitioner and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy
giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be
prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the
Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the sovereignty of the legitimate
government in the Philippines and the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens
thereto was then suspended and that there was a change of sovereignty over these
Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
ISSUE
Whether or not the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines
was then suspended
RULING
The idea of suspended sovereignty or suspended allegiance is incompatible
with our Constitution. Sovereign is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute,
indivisible, inalienable and imprescriptible.
The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory
occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated
or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or
sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier, and if it is not transferred
to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government; that
the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme power which
governs a body politic or society which constitute the state).

No. 2
PROF. MERLIN MAGALLONA, ET.AL. VS HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, ET. AL.
(G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011)
FACTS
In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3036 by enacting RA 9522, the
statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046
compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS III). RA 9522 complied with the requirements by shortening one baseline,
optimizing the location of some base points around the Philippine archipelago and
classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the
Scarborough Shoal, as “regimes of islands” whose islands generate their own
applicable maritime zones.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds:
1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory
2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime
passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining the Philippine sovereignty and
national security
In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as
“regime of islands” not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also
prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
ISSUE
Whether or not Republic Act No. 9522 is unconstitutional

RULING
No, Republic Act No. 9522 is not unconstitutional. RA 9522 is a statutory tool
to demarcate the country’s maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III,
not to delineate Philippine Territory.
The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine
archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-
recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and
continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines
in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national
interest.
No. 3
U.S. VS DORR
(2 Phil. 332)
FACTS
Fred Dorr and Edward O’Brien, proprietor and editor respectively, known as
the defendants in this case, was charged of violating Section 8 of Act No. 292 which
punishes the utterance of “seditious words or speeches” and the writing, publication,
or circulation of scurrilous libels against Senor Benito Legarda, one of the United
States Philippine Commissioners, by placing certain headlines or caption above an
article published in the “Manila Freedom,” a newspaper in the city of Manila. The
editorial was about the appointment of rascal natives (Filipinos) to important
Government positions by the Civil Commission.
ISSUE
Whether or not the publication of the subject article falls within the purview of
Section 8 of Act No. 292
RULING
No. Section 8 of Act No. 292 refers to libel of the government in general, and
not of specific individuals. Moreover, the article in question contains no attack upon
the governmental system of the United States, and it is quite apparent that, though
grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and some of its
individual members.
Hence, the respondents are acquitted.

No. 4
REPUBLIC VS VILLASOR
(54 SCRA 83)
FACTS
Republic of the Philippines filed a petition on July 7, 1969 regarding the
decision that was rendered on July 3, 1961 in Special Proceeding No. 2156-R in
favor of respondents P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino Unchuan, and International
Construction Corporation, and against the petition herein, confirming the arbitration
award in the amount of P1,712,396.40, subject of Special Proceedings. On June 24,
1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor issued an Order declaring the
aforestated decision final and executory, directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province,
Quezon City and Manila to execute the said decision. Pursuant to the said order, the
corresponding Alias Writ of Execution was issued. The Provincial Sheriff of Rizal
served notices of garnishment with several banks, especially on the “monies due the
Armed Forces of the Philippines in the form of deposits to cover the amount
mentioned in the said Writ of Execution”; the Philippine Veterans Bank received the
same notice of garnishment.
Petitioner, on certiorari, filed prohibitions that the respondent Judge,
Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of an alias writ
of execution against properties of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by Judge Villasor valid.

RULING
The Supreme Court declared the writ unlawful. What was done by respondent
judge is not in conformity with the dictates of the Constitution. The Court held that
the fundamental postulate underlying the 1935 Constitution is made explicit in the
revised charter. A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal
conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can
be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends. The State may not be sued without its consent. A corollary, both dictated
by logic and sound sense from such a basic concept, is that public funds cannot be
the object of garnishment proceedings even if the consent to be sued that had been
previously granted and the state liability adjudged.

1 4 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 4 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 4 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASE DIGESTS

government in the Philippines and the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens

Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.

Whether or not the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines

was then suspended

The idea of suspended sovereignty or suspended allegiance is incompatible

with our Constitution. Sovereign is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute,

indivisible, inalienable and imprescriptible.

The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory

occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated

or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or

governs a body politic or society which constitute the state).

In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3036 by enacting RA 9522, the

Scarborough Shoal, as “regimes of islands” whose islands generate their own

applicable maritime zones.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds:

1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory

2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime

In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522’s treatment of the KIG as

prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.

Whether or not Republic Act No. 9522 is unconstitutional

not to delineate Philippine Territory.

archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-

recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and

States Philippine Commissioners, by placing certain headlines or caption above an

editorial was about the appointment of rascal natives (Filipinos) to important

Government positions by the Civil Commission.

Section 8 of Act No. 292

Hence, the respondents are acquitted.

Republic of the Philippines filed a petition on July 7, 1969 regarding the

award in the amount of P1,712,396.40, subject of Special Proceedings. On June 24,

1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor issued an Order declaring the

same notice of garnishment.

Petitioner, on certiorari, filed prohibitions that the respondent Judge,

Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of an alias writ

of execution against properties of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by Judge Villasor valid.

previously granted and the state liability adjudged.

You might also like