Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali Case Title Lambino

v. COMELEC (2006) Held/Doctrine Chapter 2: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES COMELEC denied due Petition dismissed. Initiative petition does not comply with Const., Art. XVII, 2. course to Lambino Groups petition to hold a plebiscite to (Procedure) ratify an initiative petition to Essential elements of an amendment: modify the Constitution. The (1) the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their proposed change was a shift behalf; (2)as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. in the form of government The initiative petition signed by the people should embody (or have as an attachment) the proposed from Bicameral-Presidential changes to the Constitution. to Unicameral-Parliamentary, above all. Logrolling when the initiative petition incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the same petition. The petition or the signature sheets do not indicate or have as an attachment the proposed changes to the Constitution. (Amendment v Revision) A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. Revision- a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. -a change that alters the substantial entirety of the constitution. Amendment- a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. - generally affects only the specific provision being amended. Quantitative test- whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions." -court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change. Qualitative test- inquire whether the change will "accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision." Chapter 3: GENERAL CONSIDERATION The MOA-AD is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. TERRITORY 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. That the present components of the ARMM and the certain municipalities voted for inclusion therein in 2001, however, does not render another plebiscite unnecessary under the Constitution, precisely because what these areas voted for then was their inclusion in the ARMM, not the BJE. The MOA-AD's manner of delineating the ancestral domain of the Bangsamoro people is a clear departure from the procedure provided in the IPRA. By paragraph 1 of Territory, the Parties simply agree that, subject to the delimitations in the agreed Schedules, "[t]he Bangsamoro homeland and historic territory refer to the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, and the aerial domain, the atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region." Facts

The Province of North Cotabato v. Peace Panel (2008)

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, through the Chairpersons of their respective peace negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. However, the SC issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from signing the same.

Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali Magallona Ermita (2011) RA 9522 shortened the baseline (previously rectangular) and classified adjacent territories (Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough Shoal) as regimes of islands. v. RA 9522 was enacted, amending RA 3046 to comply with the terms of UNCLOS III. RA 9522 is CONSTITUTIONAL. TERRITORY UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelves. Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. These laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III State parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones/continental shelves. Enclosing the KIG would violate the UNCLOS which provides that the drawing of baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from general configuration of the archipelago. The KIG and the Scarborough Shoal are both far from the baseline. Right of innocent passage is a CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW which is automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. MTRCB HAS POWER TO ISSUE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDERS. (It can suspend TV programs, but not hosts) PARENS PATRIAE The State has a compelling interest in extending social protection to minors against all forms of neglect, exploitation, and immorality which may pollute innocent minds. It has a compelling interest in helping parents, through regulatory mechanisms, protect their childrens minds from exposure to undesirable materials and corrupting experiences. The welfare of children and the States mandate to protec t and care for them, as parens patriae, constitute a substantial and compelling government interest in regulating petitioners utterances in TV broadcast as provided in PD 1986. The civil registrar should register the minor using the surname of Dom. 1) Application of Parens Patriae. The State as parens patriae affords special protection to children from abuse, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development. In the eyes of society, a child with an unknown father bears the stigma of dishonor. It is to petitioner minor childs best interests to allow him to bear the surname of the now deceased Dominique and enter it in his birth certificate.

Soriano Laguardia (2009)

v.

Soriano, a host of Ang dating daan, uttered certain remarks (putang babae). MTRCB issued a preventive suspension order suspending Soriano for 20 days.

De la Cruz v. Gracia (2009)

Jenie and Dominique lived as common law husband and wife. Dominique died, two months later Jenie gave birth to their children. Prior to Doms death, he made a handwritten autobiography acknowledging the unborn child as his own. Civil Registrar denied Jenies application for registration of the child under the surname of Dominique since the autobiography was made prior to the birth of the child. Trial Court dismissed the complaint by Jenie for lack of cause of action reasoning that although the autobiography is handwritten by Dom, it is unsigned. On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, through the Chairpersons of their respective peace

The Province of North Cotabato v. Peace Panel (2008)

SOVEREIGNTY The associative relationship between the Central Government and BJE is not recognized under the present Constitution. The concept of association implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of

Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOAAD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. However, the SC issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from signing the same. Philippine territory for independence. The people's right to self-determination should not be understood as extending to a unilateral right of secession. The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination - a people's pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, while upholding the right of indigenous peoples to autonomy, does not obligate States to grant indigenous peoples the near-independent status of an associated state. The suspensive clause ("provisions thereof inconsistent with the laws shall not take effect until these laws are amended") is not valid. It is inconsistent with the limits of the President's authority to propose constitutional amendments, it being a virtual guarantee that the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of the Philippines will certainly be adjusted to conform to all the "consensus points" found in the MOA-AD.

People v. Versoza (2008)

The President - in the course of conducting peace negotiations - may validly consider implementing even those policies that require changes to the Constitution, but she may not unilaterally implement them without the intervention of Congress, or act in any way as if the assent of that body were assumed as a certainty. The GRP's almost consummated act of guaranteeing amendments to the legal framework is, by itself, sufficient to constitute grave abuse of discretion. The grave abuse lies not in the fact that they considered, as a solution to the Moro Problem, the creation of a state within a state, but in their brazen willingness to guarantee that Congress and the sovereign Filipino people would give their imprimatur to their solution. Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves through the process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference with that process. Chapter 4: THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY Versoza filed a judicial 1. The state cannot be put in estoppel. reconstitution of a TCT in her (Topical) name because the original was It is a well-settled rule that the state cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its burned, while the owners officials or agents, especially absent any showing that it had dealt capriciously or dishonorably duplicate was lost. The lower with its citizens. the OSGs failure to raise an effective objection to the evidence presented in court ordered the reconstitution support of the petition does not bar petitioner from assailing the propriety of the reconstitution based on the evidence presented ordered by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. by Versoza and the LRA. The OSG questions the sufficiency 2. Admissibility of the photocopy of Owners duplicate. and competency of the evidence Yes it is admissible. The order of presentation of secondary evidence under Sec. 5, Rule 130 of the presented. Versoza argues that Rules of Court is existence, execution, loss, contents. the Republc, through OSG, is Although the lower court did not consciously passed upon the admissibility of the photocopy presented estopped from assailing the by respondent, the latter did submit several documents to prove the existence, execution and contents evidence because it did not raise of the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted. timely objection during the RTC proceeding.

Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali German Agency v. CA (2009) Phillippines and Germany entered into an agreement in 1971. In 1999, they made an agreement in furtherance of the 1971 agreement which they call SHINE. In the SHINE project, both governments assigned their respective implementing agencies. GTZ was designated by Germany as its implementing agency. Santos et al were employees of GTZ under the project SHINE. When Nicolay assumed the position of Project Manager of SHINE, dispute arose between private respondents and the PM. Private respondents contract were preterminated by Nicolay, hence they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the NLRC. GTZ contends state immunity from suit since it is an implementing agency of Germany in the SHINE project GTZ is not immune from suit. Rule 65 petition to the CA is improper. The Court of Appeals is correct in pronouncing the general rule that the proper recourse from the decision of the Labor Arbiter is to first appeal the same to the NLRC. 2. (Topical) GTZ is not immune from suit. Where suit is filed not against the government itself or its officials but against one of its entities, it must be ascertained whether or not the State, as the principal that may ultimately be held liable, has given its consent to be sued. This ascertainment will depend in the first instance on whether the government agency impleaded is incorporated or unincorporated. An incorporated agency has a charter of its own that invests it with a separate juridical personality, like the Social Security System, the University of the Philippines, and the City of Manila. By contrast, the unincorporated agency is so called because it has no separate juridical personality but is merged in the general machinery of the government, like the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Mines and the Government Printing Office. If the agency is incorporated, the test of its suability is found in its charter. The simple rule is that it is suable if its charter says so, and this is true regardless of the functions it is performing. Municipal corporations, for example, like provinces and cities, are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions because their charter provides that they can sue and be sued. In the case at bar, GTZ failed to adduce evidence that they are immune from suit, neither did they ask from the DFA a certification that they are immune from suit. They did not prove that under German law, although they are incorporated under a private law, they are granted immunity from suit. In the absence of proof about German Law, it is deemed to be the same as Philippine Law on Corporations. Our Corporation Code states that a corporation incorporated under the said law can sue and be sued. The SolGens indorsement of GTZs claim is not sufficient substitute of DFAs certification since under PIL, it is the Foreign Affairs that should issue such a certification, the DFA in the Philippines. BCDA Board without authority to provide year-end bonus to Board Members and Consultants: 1. The Boards power to adopt a compensation and benefit scheme is not unlimited. Section 9 of RA No. 7227 states that Board members are entitled only to a per diem. Also, DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-2 states that, "Members of the Board of Directors of agencies are not salaried officials of the government; hence, not entitled to YEB. 2. DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-2 states that, "YEB and retirement benefits, are personnel benefits granted in addition to salaries. As fringe benefits, these shall be paid only when the basic salary is also paid." The full-time consultants are not part of the BCDA personnel and are not paid the basic salary. 3. Article II of the Constitution is entitled Declaration of Principles and State Policies. By its very title, Article II is a statement of general ideological principles and policies. It is not a source of enforceable rights. 4. The State is not estopped from correcting a public officers erroneo us application of a statute, and an unlawful practice, no matter how long, cannot give rise to any vested right. 1.

BCDA v. COA (2009)

The Board of BCDA provided for year-end bonuses to all employees, including board members and consultants. This is pursuant to its alleged authority to create the organizational and compensation scheme for BCDA.

Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION BV v. JALOS Subsistence fishermen are suing Shell for damages, because the operations of Shell (in extracting natural gas and laying down pipes to transport the gas) caused them to lose their income. They said the pipeline stressed to the marine life in the Mindoro Sea. They now have to stay longer and farther out at sea to catch fish, as the pipelines operation has driven the fish population out of coastal waters. Shell is NOT an agent of the Government and is NOT immune from suit. An agent is a person who binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. Shell is but a SERVICE CONTRACTOR.

(2010) Shell is claiming to be an agent of the Government, and has immunity from suit. Spouses Ramos are owners ATO is NOT immune from suit, even if it is a government agency, as it performs PROPRIETARY functions. of a parcel of land. They eventually discovered that Holmes: A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on part of their land is being the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law used by ATO as runway to on which the right depends. an airport it operates. Spouses are suing for Bernas: [A] continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against the collection of the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstacle to compensation for the land the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned usurped. ATO claims and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted. immunity from suit, since it is an agency of the However, the need to distinguish between an unincorporated government agency performing governmental Government. function and one performing proprietary functions has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former because its function is governmental or incidental to such function; it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was essentially a business. NEA employees filed with RTC a petition for mandamus against their employer for payment of rice allowance, meal allowance etc. purportedly authorized under R.A. 6758. RTC directed NEA to settle the claims of the employees and thereafter issued a writ of execution and a notice of garnishment against the funds of NEA with DBP to satisfy the claims. Apparently COA has already rejected claims similar to those of Morales because they are not "incumbents" as of June 30, 1989. RTC halted the implementation of the writ of execution to allow the parties recourse to the processes of the COA. Before the SC, petitioners are arguing that COA erred in disallowing payment of their allowances, since the earlier RTC decision has become final and executory for lack of appeal. Whether or not the immutability of final decision doctrine must prevail over the exclusive jurisdiction of the COA to audit and settle disbursements of funds. [No, the immutability rule applies only when the decision is promulgated by a court possessed of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case ] Without question, petitioner NEA is a GOCC - a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, with capacity to sue and be sued. As such GOCC, petitioner NEA cannot evade execution; its funds may be garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against it. However, before execution may proceed against it, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. Under the law, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. In this case, the petition in the guise of a case for mandamus is a money claim falling within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, courts are utterly without power and authority to exercise concurrently such jurisdiction. Accordingly, all the proceedings of the court in violation of that doctrine and all orders and decisions reached thereby are null and void.

AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. RAMOS

(2011)

AGRA v Commission on Audit (2011)

Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali China National Machinery & Equipment Corporation v. Sta. Maria (2012) CNMEC, a chinese corporation, entered into a Memo of Understanding with Northrail for the development of northrail project. To finance the project, Phils and EXIM Bank entered into a loan agreement. Respondents filed a complaint for annulment of contract on the ground that the above-mentioned contracts were against the Procurement Reform Act, the Constitution etc. CNMEC filed a Motion to Dismiss with the trial court, arguing that it has no jurisdiction over CNMEC and that it was an agent of the Chinese government, making it immune from suit. WON CNMEC is immune from suit? (no) Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory, it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act involved whether the entity claiming immunity performs governmental, as opposed to proprietary, functions because the restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Facts show that show that CNMEC is engaged in a proprietary activity (eg. Memo of Understanding, Letter of the Amb of China, and loan agreement) Further, the Loan Agreement likewise contains express waiver of immunity. Secondly, even if it contends that it performs governmental functions, CNMEG failed to adduce evidence that it is immune from suit under Chinese law. Its designation as the Primary Contractor does not automatically grant it immunity, just as the term implementing agency has no precise definition for purposes of ascertaining whether GTZ ( in GTZ case)was immune from suit. Thirdly, CNMEC failed to present a certification from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Lastly, in addition to the explicit waiver of immunity, there is also an implicit waiver of imunity when the parties agreed to submit any dispute to arbitration.

NHMFC v. Abayari (2009)

Republic v. Domingo (2011)

NHMFC, a GOCC with original WON the execution by garnishment could proceed in this case against the funds of petitioner? [no, chapter, was demanded by its because it shall be first filed with COA before the execution may proceed.] employees to pay allowances allegedly authorized under RA A favorable judgment rendered in a special civil action for mandamus is in the nature of a special 6758. Respondents filed a petition judgment. As such, it requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money or the of mandamus with RTC Makati sale or delivery of real or personal property the execution of which is governed by Section 11, Rule City, which in turn, granted the 39 of the Rules of Court. Being a special judgment, the decision may not be executed in the same petition and issued a Writ of way as a judgment for money handed down in an ordinary civil case governed by Section 9, Rule 39 Execution upon finality. of the Rules Court which sanctions garnishment of debts and credits to satisfy a monetary award. Respondents sought the Garnishment is proper only when the judgment to be enforced is one for payment of a sum of money. garnishment of the funds of Assuming for the sake of argument that execution by garnishment could proceed in this case against NHMFC in Land Bank. NHFMC the funds of petitioner, it must bear stress that the latter is a government-owned or controlled assails the decision of the RTC, corporation with a charter of its own. Its juridical personality is separate and distinct from the arguing that the determination of government and it can sue and be sued in its name. As such, while indeed it cannot evade the effects entitlement to benefits and of the execution of an adverse judgment and may not ordinarily place its funds beyond an order of allowances among government garnishment issued in ordinary cases, it is imperative in order for execution to ensue that a claim for employees is not within the court's the payment of the judgment award be first filed with the Commission on Audit (COA). authority. 1. Petitioner sued DSWD Regional Summons served upon regional office of government agency insufficient for a court to acquire office for specific performance when the jurisdiction. It should have been served upon OSG pursuant to Rule 14, Sec. 13 of the Rules of latter failed to pay on a contract of lease Court. of equipments. Jurisprudence further instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated 2. Summons was served only upon government agency, which, because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality of DSWD Regional Office but not upon the its own, the suit is against the agency's principal, i.e., the State. OSG.

Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali Chapter 5 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES COA disallowed the grant of Food CONSTITUTIONAL Allowance to employees of Bureau of Fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries contend The disallowance is constitutional. The social justice provisions of the Constitution are not selfthat the disallowance was executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are statements of unconstitutional for contravening on the principles and policies. To give them effect, legislative enactment is required. These principles principle of social justice enshrines in and state policies are not self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a Section 9 and 10, Article II of the cause of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but Constitution. guidelines for legislation. The Board of BCDA provided for yearend bonuses to all employees, including board members and consultants. This is pursuant to its alleged authority to create the organizational and compensation scheme for BCDA. Article II of the Constitution is entitled Declaration of Principles and State Policies. By its very title, Article II is a statement of general ideological principles and policies. It is not a source of enforceable rights. The State is not estopped from correcting a public officers erroneous application of a statute, and an unlawful practice, no matter how long, cannot give rise to any vested right.

Bureau of Fisheries v. Commission on Audit (2008)

BCDA v. COA

(2009)

Pharmaceutical v. Health Secretary (2007)

1. Petitioners were manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes who assailed the administrative order (RIRR) issued by DOH for going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code. 2. DOH contended that the controversial provisions prohibiting advertising of breastmilk substitutes were based on World Health Assembly Resolutions. They further argued that said WHA resolutions, although not implemented by legislation in our country, had reached the level of a generally accepted principle of international law and was thus deemed part of the law of the pursuant to Art. II, Sec.2 of the Constitution.

WHA Resolutions were not generally accepted principles of international law and thus did not form part of the law of the land. Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. The WHA Resolutions may constitute "soft law" or non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior."Soft law" does not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. It is, however, an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior. For an international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states because they consider it obligatory to comply with such rules (opinio juris). Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary international law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature.

Political Law Review - CRUZ Arnesto, Azis, Badi, Bayalan, Carrasco, Lim, Torres, Umali Bayan Muna Romulo (2011) v. Petitioners question the constitutionality of a bilateral agreement between the US and RP for preventing the proper compliance with the Rome Statute. They allege that the agreement will prevent the ICC from acquiring jurisdiction over persons charges with serious crimes under international law. RA 8762, the Retail Trade Liberalization Act permits foreign nationals to engage in the retail trade business subject to conditions. Petitioners allege that this is a breach of the constitutional mandate for the development of a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. They invoke Section 9, 19 and 20 of Article II and Section 10, 12, and 13 of Article XII of the Constitution. CONSTITUTIONAL. But the doctrine is found in the dissent: The constitutional provision is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. Such rule and principles, therefo re, form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them, for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory Kuroda Case CONSTITUTIONAL Article XII lays down the ideals of economic nationalism. RA 8762 follow these ideals. While Section 19, Article II requires the development of a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipino entrepreneurs, it does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic environment. The objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development.

Espina v. Zamora (2010)