PEOPLE OF NORTH COTABATO VS.

GRP ISSUE: Whether or not the MOA-AD creating the BJE is valid and constitutional considering that it partakes the status of an associative state which is not recognized y the constitution and considering further that the BJE is a solution for a long-standing conflict in Mindanao and subject to accommodation through constitutional amendments. RULING: No, the MOA-AD creating the BJE is unconstitutional. The MOA-AD creating the BJE violates the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of the country as stated in Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution. The creation of the BJE is contrary to Article 1 because the recognition of an associate state is not recognized under the constitution. The constitution does not contemplate any state other than the Philippine state. NICOLAS VS. ROMULO ISSUE: Whether or not the Kenney-Agreement is consistent with the Visiting Forces Agreement and does not violate the right of the Philippine government to acquire jurisdiction over Smith considering that the crime was committed in the Philippines and therefore giving the Philippines the right over detention of Smith and further considering that the agreement is pursuant to VFA which was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. RULING: No, the Kenney-Agreement is not consistent with the VFA and it does not violate the right of the Philippine government to acquire jurisdiction over Smith. The Romulo-Kenney agreement violated the principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines. Section 10 Article 5 of the VFA, in case of detention after conviction, detention of the accused should be under Philippine authorities. Furthermore, custody during trial and detention after conviction have been further differentiated and defined. Custody during trial should be given to the US authorities provided that the accused appears during trial. Detention after conviction should be subject to Philippines authorities. TMCEA VS. CA ISSUE: Whether or not the HSRA and Executive Order 102 are valid and constitutional considering that they are violative of the provisions of the constitution and considering further that on the part of the government to impose socialized hospital fees will ensure effective fiscal management and sustainability. RULING: Yes, the HSRA and EO 102 are valid and constitutional. Article 2 states that. As a general rule, the provisions of the constitution are self-executory. However, exceptions to this rule are those stipulated in Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution since they only provide legal guidelines for judicial interpretations and legislative enactments.

KILOSBAYAN VS. MORATO ISSUE: Whether or not the Kilosbayan has the legal standing to file a suit against the PCSO invoking the violation of the following constitutional provisions (Article 2 Sections 5, 12, 13, 17) considering that it has the legal capacity as a peoples organization invoking the constitutional provision that all government authority emanates from the people considering further that the assailed activities of the PCSO/PGMC is mandated by law. RULING: No. Kilosbayan has no right to file a suit against PCSO. While it is true that Article 2 Section 1 provides that . In this case, the SC discussed the parties who have the locus standi to file a suit against a govt agency. Only those with legal standing may invoke judicial power such as taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens and legislators; in the case of the taxpayers, they are allowed to sue where there is illegal disbursement of public funds and where a tax measure is assailed as unconstitutional, voters are allowed to question the validity of election laws, concerned citizens if it raises consti questions of transcendental importance, and in the case of legislators, if they question the validity of any official action which infringes the legislative prerogative and powers. Kilosbayan does not have the same kind of interest as laid down by the SC and the invocation that PCSO & PGMC activities are violative of these sections (Sections 5, 12, 13 and 17 of Article 2) cannot be given countenanced. Further, the conduct of charity sweepstakes, lottery and other similar activities is allowed under RA 1169 as amended. OPOSA VS. FACTORAN ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner Oposa can validly invoke Section 16 Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution as basis to cancel all existing timber lodging agreements in the country and direct the DENR to cease and desist from processing application for TLAs considering that the TLA will have an adverse and detrimental consequence because of continued deforestation citing Section 16 Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution as basis and considering further that the issue raised by the petitioner is a political question and the complain doesnt specify a legal right violated by DENR for which any relief is provided by law. RULING: Yes, the contention of the petitioner is correct. Section 16 Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution can be properly invoked as basis of the right to a balanced and helpful ecology which carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Section 16 Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution as well as Section 15 of Article 2 ensures ecological and environmental balance which means that the government has the obligation to protect the environment for the present and future generations of the Philippines. These constitutional provisions laid down the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility which enunciates that every generation as a responsibility to the next generation to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and helpful ecology. Their invocation that Section 16, which ensures the right to a sound environment as well as its protection for the enjoyment of the generations to come, is valid.

CENIZA VS. COMELEC ISSUE: Whether or not Batas Pambansa 51 categorizing certain highly urbanized and component cities and not allowing them to vote in the provincial election is contrary to the concept of a democratic and republican state considering that the BP 51 as the only basis for not allowing its electorate to vote for the provincial officials is constitutionally infirmed and considering further that the intent of the law is to increase local autonomy. RULING: Yes, BP 51 is constitutional. Article 2 Sec 1 provides that the Philippines is .. In this case, BP 51 validly classify that the electorate of highly urbanized city cannot vote for provincial officials while a component city may or may not vote for provincial officials as provided by their charter. The intent of the law is not to deprive the people the right to suffrage which will destroy the republican form of government but to promote autonomy of LGUs and to ensure its full development. Also, the SC discussed that highly urbanized cities are outside of the supervisory power of the provinces in which they are geographically located. This situation is consistent with the loss of their right to vote for provincial officials because the provincial government has ceased to exercise any governmental jurisdiction and authority over them. On the part of Mandaue, although being a component city, their charter expressly prohibits the residence from voting for provincial officials of the province in which they are geographically located. The practice of allowing voters in one component city to vote for provincial officials and denying the same privilege to a highly urbanized city is a matter of legislative discretion which violates neither the constitution nor the voters right to suffrage.

KURODA VS. JALANDONI ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Order 68 of the President governing the trial of accused war criminals is inconsistent with international law considering that it is null and void because the Philippine is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulation covering Land Warfare, considering further that the Executive Order conforms with the said convention on the ground that we adopt the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. RULING: Executive Order 68 is constitutional. Under Section 3, Article II of the 1935 Constitution which is now found in Section 2, Article II, the Philippines. In this case, while it is true that the Philippines is not a signatory to the first Hague Convention because we are still under the American regime, and we only signed the second in 1947. This convention is accepted as international law. This therefore, form part of the law of the land even if the Philippines was not a signatory of the conventions embodying them. Through our constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained only in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. Further, the crime of treason committed by Kuroda during the 2nd World War is an offense against the same government and sovereign people even if we change from commonwealth to republic.