Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the constitutionality of RA

7716 otherwise known as the Expanded Value Added Tax

(EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not
exclusively originate from the House of Representatives as
required by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though
RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3
readings in the HoR, the same did not completethe 3 readings in
Senate for after the 1st reading it was referred to the Senate
Ways & Means Committee thereafter Senate passed its own
version known as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what
Senate could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its
text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that way the
bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes
the text (only the text) of the HB. (Its ironic however to note that
Tolentino and co-petitioner Raul Roco even signed the said
Senate Bill.)
ISSUE: Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally infirm.
HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the
challenge, holding that such consolidation was consistent with
the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments
to the version originated in the HoR. What the Constitution
simply means, according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative
must come from the HoR. Note also that there were several
instances before where Senate passed its own version rather
than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other such
bills are concerned. This practice of amendment by substitution
has always been accepted. The proposition of Tolentino
concerns a mere matter of form. There is no showing that it

would make a significant difference if Senate were to adopt his

over what has been done.

When President Benigno Aquino III took office, his administration

noticed the sluggish growth of the economy. The World Bank
advised that the economy needed a stimulus plan. Budget
Secretary Florencio Butch Abad then came up with a program
called the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the funding of
government projects. DAP enables the Executive to realign funds
from slow moving projects to priority projects instead of waiting
for next years appropriation. So what happens under the DAP
was that if a certain government project is being undertaken
slowly by a certain executive agency, the funds allotted therefor
will be withdrawn by the Executive. Once withdrawn, these funds
are declared as savings by the Executive and said funds will
then be reallotted to other priority projects. The DAP program
did work to stimulate the economy as economic growth was in
fact reported and portion of such growth was attributed to the
DAP (as noted by the Supreme Court).
Other sources of the DAP include the unprogrammed funds from
the General Appropriations Act (GAA). Unprogrammed funds are
standby appropriations made by Congress in the GAA.
Meanwhile, in September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada made

an expos claiming that he, and other Senators, received

Php50M from the President as an incentive for voting in favor of
the impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Secretary Abad claimed that the money was taken from the DAP
but was disbursed upon the request of the Senators.
This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out that the
DAP does not only realign funds within the Executive. It turns out
that some non-Executive projects were also funded; to name a
few: Php1.5B for the CPLA (Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army),
Php1.8B for the MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front), P700M
for the Quezon Province, P50-P100M for certain Senators each,
P10B for Relocation Projects, etc.
This prompted Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of the
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, and several other concerned
citizens to file various petitions with the Supreme Court
questioning the validity of the DAP. Among their contentions was:
DAP is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional rule
which provides that no money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.
Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on certain laws
particularly the GAA (savings and augmentation provisions
thereof), Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of the Constitution (power of the
President to augment), Secs. 38 and 49 of Executive Order 292
(power of the President to suspend expenditures and authority to
use savings, respectively).
Issues:

I. Whether or not the DAP violates the principle no money shall

be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law (Sec. 29(1), Art. VI, Constitution).
II. Whether or not the DAP realignments can be considered as
impoundments by the executive.
III. Whether or not
constitutional.

the DAP realignments/transfers are

IV. Whether or not the sourcing of unprogrammed funds to the

DAP is constitutional.
V. Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is applicable.

Held
I. No, the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), Art. VI of the
Constitution. DAP was merely a program by the Executive and is
not a fund nor is it an appropriation. It is a program for prioritizing
government spending. As such, it did not violate the
Constitutional provision cited in Section 29(1), Art. VI of the
Constitution. In DAP no additional funds were withdrawn from the
Treasury otherwise, an appropriation made by law would have
been required. Funds, which were already appropriated for by
the GAA, were merely being realigned via the DAP.
II. No, there is no executive impoundment in the DAP.
Impoundment of funds refers to the Presidents power to refuse
to spend appropriations or to retain or deduct appropriations for
whatever reason. Impoundment is actually prohibited by the GAA
unless there will be an unmanageable national government

budget deficit (which did not happen). Nevertheless, theres no

impoundment in the case at bar because whats involved in the
DAP was the transfer of funds.
III. No, the transfers made through the DAP were
unconstitutional. It is true that the President(and even the heads
of the other branches of the government) are allowed by the
Constitution to make realignment of funds, however, such
transfer or realignment should only be made within their
respective
offices.
Thus,
no
cross-border
transfers/augmentations may be allowed. But under the DAP, this
was violated because funds appropriated by the GAA for the
Executive were being transferred to the Legislative and other
non-Executive agencies.
Further, transfers within their respective offices also
contemplate realignment of funds to an existing project in the
GAA. Under the DAP, even though some projects were within the
Executive, these projects are non-existent insofar as the GAA is
concerned because no funds were appropriated to them in the
GAA. Although some of these projects may be legitimate, they
are still non-existent under the GAA because they were not
provided for by the GAA. As such, transfer to such projects is
unconstitutional and is without legal basis.
On the issue of what are savings
These DAP transfers are not savings contrary to what was
being declared by the Executive. Under the definition of savings
in the GAA, savings only occur, among other instances, when
there is an excess in the funding of a certain project once it is

completed, finally discontinued, or finally abandoned. The GAA

does not refer to savings as funds withdrawn from a slow
moving project. Thus, since the statutory definition of savings
was not complied with under the DAP, there is no basis at all for
the transfers. Further, savings should only be declared at the
end of the fiscal year. But under the DAP, funds are already
being withdrawn from certain projects in the middle of the year
and then being declared as savings by the Executive
particularly by the DBM.
IV. No. Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be used as
money source for the DAP because under the law, such funds
may only be used if there is a certification from the National
Treasurer to the effect that the revenue collections have
exceeded the revenue targets. In this case, no such certification
was secured before unprogrammed funds were used.
V. Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which recognizes the
legal effects of an act prior to it being declared as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is applicable. The DAP
has definitely helped stimulate the economy. It has funded
numerous projects. If the Executive is ordered to reverse all
actions under the DAP, then it may cause more harm than good.
The DAP effects can no longer be undone. The beneficiaries of
the DAP cannot be asked to return what they received especially
so that they relied on the validity of the DAP. However, the
Doctrine of Operative Fact may not be applicable to the authors,
implementers, and proponents of the DAP if it is so found in the
appropriate tribunals (civil, criminal, or administrative) that they
have not acted in good faith.

NOVEMBER 22, 2013 BY FUCKYEAHEMIR

CASE DIGEST: Belgica v.

Executive Secretary (G.R. Nos.
208566, 208493 and
209251, 2013)
Click here for the full text of the Decision.
Click here for a more comprehensive digest (recommended
for non-lawyers).
I. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
A. Congressional Pork Barrel
WON the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork
Barrel Laws similar to it are unconstitutional considering that
they violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on
1.) separation of powers
2.) non-delegability of legislative power
3.) checks and balances

4.) accountability
5.) political dynasties
6.) local autonomy
B.

Substantive

Issues

on

the

Presidential

Pork

Barrel
WON the phrases:
(a) and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President under Section 8 of PD 910 relating
to the Malampaya Funds, and
(b) to finance the priority infrastructure development
projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or
destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed
and authorized by the Office of the President of the
Philippines under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD
1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund,
are

unconstitutional

insofar

delegations of legislative power

* HELD AND RATIO:
A. Congressional Pork Barrel

as

they

constitute undue

1.) YES. At its core, legislators have been consistently

accorded post-enactment
projects

they

desire

authority
to

be

(a)

to

identify

funded through

the

various

Congressional Pork Barrel allocations; (b) and in the areas of

fund release and realignment. Thus, legislators have been, in
one form or another, authorized to participate in the various
operational aspects of budgeting, violating the separation
of powers principle. That the said authority is treated as
merely

recommendatory

in

nature

does

not

alter

its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition covers any

role in the implementation or enforcement of the law.
Informal practices, through which legislators have effectively
intruded into the proper phases of budget execution, must
be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the
same unconstitutional treatment.
2.) YES. The 2013 PDAF Article violates the principle of nondelegability

since

legislators are

effectively

allowed

to

individually exercise the power of appropriation, which, as

settled in Philconsa, is lodged in Congress.
3.) YES. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount of P24.79
Billion

only appears

as

collective

allocation

limit.

Legislators make intermediate appropriations of the PDAF

only after the GAA is passed and hence, outside of the law.
Thus, actual items of PDAF appropriation would not have
been written into the General Appropriations Bill and are

thus put into effect without veto consideration. This kind of

lump-sum/post-enactment

legislative

identification

budgeting system fosters the creation of a budget within a

budget

which

presentment

subverts

and

the prescribed

consequently

impairs

procedure

of

the Presidents

power of item veto. As petitioners aptly point out, the

President

is

forced

to

decide

between (a)

accepting

the entire P24. 79 Billion PDAF allocation without knowing

the specific projects of the legislators, which may or may not
be consistent with his national agenda and (b) rejecting the
whole PDAF to the detriment of all other legislators with
legitimate projects.
Even without its post-enactment legislative identification
feature, the 2013 PDAF Article would remain constitutionally
flawed since the lump-sum amount of P24.79 Billion would
be treated as a mere funding source allotted for multiple
purposes of spending (i.e. scholarships, medical missions,
assistance to indigents, preservation of historical materials,
construction of roads, flood control, etc). This setup connotes
that the appropriation law leaves the actual amounts
and purposes of the appropriation for further determination
and, therefore, does not readily indicate a discernible item
which may be subject to the Presidents power of item veto.
4.) YES. To a certain extent, the conduct of oversight would
be tainted as said legislators, who are vested with postenactment authority, would, in effect, be checking on

activities in which they themselves participate. Also, this

very same concept of post-enactment authorization runs
afoul of Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which
provides that: [A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives] shall not intervene in any matter before
any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or
where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.
Allowing legislators to intervene in the various phases
of project implementation renders them susceptible to taking
undue advantage of their own office.
However, the same post-enactment authority and/or the
individual legislators control of his PDAF per se would allow
him to perpetrate himself in office. This is a matter which
must be analyzed based on particular facts and on a case-tocase basis.
Also, while it is possible that the close operational proximity
between legislators and the Executive department, through
the formers post-enactment participation, may affect the
process of impeachment, this matter largely borders on the
domain of politics and does not strictly concern the Pork
Barrel Systems intrinsic constitutionality. As such, it is an
improper subject of judicial assessment.
5.) NO. Section

26,

Article

II

of the

1987

Constitution

is considered as not self-executing due to the qualifying

phrase as may be defined by law. Therefore, since

there appears to be no standing law which crystallizes the

policy on political dynasties for enforcement, the Court must
defer from ruling on this issue. In any event, the abovestated argument on this score is largely speculative since it
has not been properly demonstrated how the Pork Barrel
System would be able to propagate political dynasties.
6.) YES. The Court, however, finds an inherent defect in the
system

which

actually

belies

the

avowed

intention

of making equal the unequal. The gauge of PDAF and CDF

allocation/division is based solely on the fact of office,
without taking into account the specific interests and
peculiarities of the district the legislator represents. As a
result,

district

representative

of

highly-

urbanized metropolis gets the same amount of funding as a

district representative of a far-flung rural province which
would be relatively underdeveloped compared to the
former. To

add,

what

rouses

graver

scrutiny

is

that

even Senators and Party-List Representatives and in some

years, even the Vice-President who do not represent any
locality, receive funding from the Congressional Pork Barrel
as well.
The Court also observes that this concept of legislator
control underlying the CDF and PDAF conflicts with the
functions

of

the

various

Local

Development

Councils

(LDCs), instrumentalities whose functions are essentially

geared towards managing local affairs. The programs,

policies and resolutions of LDCs should not be overridden nor

duplicated by individual legislators, who are national officers
that have no law-making authority except only when acting
as a body.
C. Presidential Pork Barrel
YES. Regarding the Malampaya Fund: The phrase and
for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by
the President under Section 8 of PD 910 constitutes an
undue delegation of legislative power as it does not lay down
a sufficient standard to adequately determine the limits of
the Presidents authority with respect to the purpose for
which the Malampaya Funds may be used. As it reads,
the said phrase gives the President wide latitude to use the
Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and,
in effect, allows him to unilaterally appropriate public funds
beyond the purview of the law.
Regarding the Presidential Social Fund: Section 12 of PD
1869,

as

amended

by

PD

1993,

indicates that

the

Presidential Social Fund may be used to finance the

priority infrastructure development projects. This gives him
carte blanche authority to use the same fund for any
infrastructure project he may so determine as a priority.
The

law

does

not

supply

definition

of

priority

infrastructure development projects and hence, leaves the

President without any guideline to construe the same. To

note, the delimitation of a project as one of infrastructure

is too broad of a classification since the said term could
pertain to any kind of facility. Thus, the phrase to finance
the priority infrastructure development projects must be
stricken down as unconstitutional since similar to Section 8
of PD 910 it lies independently unfettered by any sufficient
standard of the delegating law.

CASE DIGEST: Imbong v Ochoa,

et al. (G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934,
204957, 205003, 205138, 204988,
205043, 205478, 205491, 205720,
206355, 207111, 207172, 207563)
Click here for the full text of the Decision.
Read the RH Law (RA 10354) here.
Read the IRR of the RH Law here.
Read enforcement mechanisms of the RH Law with the
unconstitutional provisions stricken out here.

*SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
A. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH)
Law is unconstitutional for violating the:
1. Right to life
2. Right to health
3. Freedom of religion and right to free speech
a.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious
freedom since it mandates the State-sponsored procurement
of contraceptives, which contravene the religious beliefs of
e.g. the petitioners
b.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious
freedom

by

compelling

medical

health

practitioners,

hospitals, and health care providers, under pain of penalty,

to

refer

patients

to

other

institutions

despite

their

conscientious objections
c.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious
freedom by requiring would-be spouses, as a condition for
the issuance of a marriage license, to attend a seminar on
parenthood,
nutrition

family

planning,

breastfeeding

and

infant

4. Right to privacy (marital privacy and autonomy)

5. Freedom of expression and academic freedom
6. Due process clause
7. Equal protection clause
8. Prohibition against involuntary servitude
B. WON the delegation of authority to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to determine WON a supply or product
is to be included in the Essential Drugs List is valid
C. WON the RH Law infringes upon the powers devolved to
Local Governments and the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM)
* HELD:
A.
1. NO.
2. NO.
3.
a.) NO.

b.) YES.
c.) NO.
4. YES.
5. NO.
6. NO.
7. NO.
8. NO.
B. NO.
C. NO.
* RATIO:
1.) Majority of the Members of the Court believe that the
question of when life begins is a scientific and medical issue
that should not be decided, at this stage, without proper
hearing and evidence. However, they agreed that individual
Members could express their own views on this matter.
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: The State
recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen

the

family

as

basic

autonomous

social

institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and

the life of the unborn from conception.
In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory
construction),

the

traditional

meaning

of

conception

according to reputable dictionaries cited by the ponente is

that life begins at fertilization. Medical sources also support
the view that conception begins at fertilization.
The

framers

of

the

Constitution

also

intended

for

(a) conception to refer to the moment of fertilization and

(b) the protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In
addition, they did not intend to ban all contraceptives for
being unconstitutional; only those that kill or destroy the
fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and female
ovum, and those that similarly take action before fertilization
should be deemed non-abortive, and thus constitutionally
permissible.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for
protecting the life of the unborn child was to prevent
the Legislature from passing a measure prevent
abortion. The Court cannot interpret this otherwise. The
RH Law is in line with this intent and actually
prohibits abortion. By using the word or in defining
abortifacient (Section 4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not only
drugs or devices that prevent implantation but also those

that induce abortion and induce the destruction of a fetus

inside the mothers womb. The RH Law recognizes that the
fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a
bounded duty to protect it.
However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their office
when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient by using
the term primarily. Recognizing as abortifacients only
those that primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a
fetus inside the mothers womb or the prevention of the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mothers
womb (Sec. 3.01(a) of the IRR) would pave the way for the
approval of contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life
of the unborn from conception/fertilization. This violates
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. For the same
reason, the definition of contraceptives under the IRR (Sec
3.01(j)), which also uses the term primarily, must be struck
down.
2.) Petitioners claim that the right to health is violated by the
RH Law because it requires the inclusion of hormonal
contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other
safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning
products and supplies in the National Drug Formulary and in
the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of
all national hospitals (Section 9 of the RH Law). They cite
risks

of

getting

contraceptive pills.

diseases

gained

by

using

e.g.

oral

Some

petitioners do

not

question

contraception

and

contraceptives per se. Rather, they pray that the status quo
under RA 4729 and 5921 be maintained. These laws prohibit
the sale and distribution of contraceptives without the
prescription of a duly-licensed physician.
The RH Law

does not intend to

do

away

with

RA

4729 (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the Court believes

adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only safe
contraceptives are made available to the public. In
fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the DOH
must keep

in mind the provisions of RA 4729: the

contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly

licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and
that the actual distribution of these contraceptive
drugs

and

devices

will

be

done

following

prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.

Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law
is to be considered mandatory only after these
devices and materials have been tested, evaluated
and approved by the FDA. Congress cannot determine
that contraceptives are safe, legal, non-abortificient and
effective.
3.) The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of
contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH
measures (a) is moral from a religious standpoint; or, (b)

right or wrong according to ones dogma or belief. However,

the Court has the authority to determine whether or not the
RH Law contravenes the Constitutional guarantee of religious
freedom.
3a.) The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives
without being dictated upon the policies of any one religion.
To allow religious sects to dictate policy or restrict other
groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution
or the Establishment Clause. This would cause the State to
adhere to a particular religion, and thus, establishes a state
religion. Thus, the State can enhance its population control
program through the RH Law even if the promotion of
contraceptive use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g.
the petitioners.
3b.) Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH Law obliges a hospital
or medical practitioner to immediately refer a person
seeking health care and services under the law to another
accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious
objections based on religious or ethical beliefs. These
provisions violate the religious belief and conviction
of

conscientious

objector.

They

are

contrary

to Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution or the

Free Exercise Clause, whose basis is the respect for
the inviolability of the human conscience.
The provisions in the RH Law compelling non-maternity

specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a

religious

group

and

health

care

service

providers

to

refer patients to other providers and penalizing them if they

fail to do so (Sections 7 and 23(a)(3)) as well as compelling
them to disseminate information and perform RH procedures
under pain of penalty (Sections 23(a)(1) and (a)(2) in relation
to Section 24) also violate (and inhibit) the freedom of
religion. While penalties may be imposed by law to ensure
compliance to it, a constitutionally-protected right must
prevail over the effective implementation of the law.
Excluding public health officers from being conscientious
objectors (under Sec. 5.24 of the IRR) also violates the equal
protection
between

clause.
public

There
health

is

no

officers

perceptible
and

distinction

their

private

counterparts. In addition, the freedom to believe is intrinsic

in every individual and the protection of this freedom
remains even if he/she is employed in the government.
Using

the

compelling

state

interest

test,

there

is no

compelling state interest to limit the free exercise of

conscientious objectors. There is no immediate danger to
the life or health of an individual in the perceived scenario
of the above-quoted provisions. In addition, the limits do not
pertain to life-threatening cases.
The respondents also failed to show that these
provisions are least intrusive means to achieve a

legitimate state objective. The Legislature has already taken

other secular steps to ensure that the right to health is
protected, such as RA 4729, RA 6365 (The Population Act of
the Philippines) and RA 9710 (The Magna Carta of Women).
3c.) Section 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be
spouses to attend a seminar on parenthood, family planning,
breastfeeding and infant nutrition as a condition for the
issuance of a marriage license, is a reasonable exercise of
police power by the government. The law does not even
mandate the type of family planning methods to be included
in the seminar. Those who attend the seminar are free to
accept or reject information they receive and they retain the
freedom to decide on matters of family life without the
intervention of the State.
4.) Section

23(a)(2)(i)

of

the

RH

Law,

which

permits RH procedures even with only the consent of the

spouse undergoing the provision (disregarding spousal
content), intrudes into martial privacy and autonomy
and goes against the constitutional safeguards for
the family as the basic social institution. Particularly,
Section 3, Article XV of the Constitution mandates the State
to defend: (a) the right of spouses to found a family in
accordance with their religious convictions and the demands
of responsible parenthood and (b) the right of families or
family associations to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect them.

The RH Law cannot infringe upon this mutual decisionmaking, and endanger the institutions of marriage and the
family.
The exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor
undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a
miscarriage (Section 7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family and
violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which
states: The natural and primary right and duty of parents in
the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support of
the Government. In addition, the portion of Section 23(a)(ii)
which reads in the case of minors, the written consent of
parents or legal guardian or, in their absence, persons
exercising parental authority or next-of-kin shall be required
only in elective surgical procedures is invalid as it denies
the right of parental authority in cases where what is
involved is non-surgical procedures.
However, a minor may receive information (as opposed to
procedures) about family planning services. Parents are not
deprived of parental guidance and control over their minor
child in this situation and may assist her in deciding whether
to accept or reject the information received. In addition, an
exception may be made in life-threatening procedures.
5.) The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of
Section 14 of the RH Law, which mandates the State to

provide Age-and

Development-Appropriate

Reproductive

Health Education. Although educators might raise their

objection to their participation in the RH education program,
the Court reserves its judgment should an actual case be
filed before it.
Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because the
Department

of

curriculum

on

Education

has

not

age-appropriate

yet

formulated

reproductive

health

education.
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution places more
importance on the role of parents in the development of
their children with the use of the term primary. The right of
parents in upbringing their youth is superior to that of the
State.
The

provisions

of

Section

14

of

the

RH

Law

and

corresponding provisions of the IRR supplement (rather than

supplant) the right and duties of the parents in the moral
development of their children.
By

incorporating

parent-teacher-community associations,

school officials, and other interest groups in developing the

mandatory RH program, it could very well be said that the
program will be in line with the religious beliefs of the
petitioners.

6.) The RH Law does not violate the due process

clause

of

the

Constitution

as

the definitions

of

several terms as observed by the petitioners are not

vague.
The definition of private health care service provider must
be seen in relation to Section 4(n) of the RH Law which
defines a public health service provider. The private
health care institution cited under Section 7 should be seen
as synonymous to private health care service provider.
The terms service and methods are also broad enough to
include providing of information and rendering of medical
procedures. Thus, hospitals operated by religious groups are
exempted from rendering RH service and modern family
planning methods (as provided for by Section 7 of the RH
Law) as well as from giving RH information and procedures.
The RH Law also defines incorrect information. Used
together

in

relation

to

Section

23

(a)(1),

the

terms

incorrect and knowingly connote a sense of malice and ill

motive to mislead or misrepresent the public as to the
nature and effect of programs and services on reproductive
health.
7.) To provide that the poor are to be given priority in
the governments RH program is not a violation of the
equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section

11, Article XIII of the Constitution, which states that the

State

shall

prioritize

the

needs

of

the

underprivileged, sick elderly, disabled, women, and

children and that it shall endeavor to provide medical
care to paupers.
The RH Law does not only seek to target the poor to reduce
their number, since Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor
and marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility
issues and desire to have children. In addition, the RH Law
does not prescribe the number of children a couple may
have and does not impose conditions upon couples who
intend to have children. The RH Law only seeks to provide
priority to the poor.
The exclusion of private educational institutions from the
mandatory RH education program under Section 14 is valid.
There is a need to recognize the academic freedom of
private educational institutions especially with respect to
religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity towards
the teaching of reproductive health education.
8.) The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for private
and non-government health care service providers to render
48 hours of pro bono RH services does not amount to
involuntary servitude, for two reasons. First, the practice
of medicine is undeniably imbued with public interest that it
is both the power and a duty of the State to control and

regulate it in order to protect and promote the public

welfare. Second, Section 17 only encourages private and
non-government
bono service.

RH

Besides

service
the

providers

PhilHealth

to

render pro

accreditation,

no

penalty is imposed should they do otherwise.

However, conscientious objectors are exempt from Sec. 17
as long as their religious beliefs do not allow them to render
RH service, pro bono or otherwise (See Part 3b of this
digest.)
B. The delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to
determine whether or not a supply or product is to be
included in the Essential Drugs List is valid, as the FDA not
only has the power but also the competency to evaluate,
register and cover health services and methods (under RA
3720 as amended by RA 9711 or the FDA Act of 2009).
C. The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local
governments. Paragraph (c) of Section 17 provides a
categorical exception of cases involving nationally-funded
projects, facilities, programs and services. Unless a local
government unit (LGU) is particularly designated as the
implementing agency, it has no power over a program for
which

funding

has

been

provided

by

the

national

government under the annual general appropriations act,

even if the program involves the delivery of basic services
within the jurisdiction of the LGU.

In addition, LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH

services. Provision of these services are not mandatory.
Therefore, the RH Law does not amount to an undue
encroachment

by

the

national

government

upon

the

autonomy enjoyed by LGUs.

Article III, Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 or the Organic
Act of the ARMM merely delineates the powers that may be
exercised by the regional government. These provisions
cannot be seen as an abdication by the State of its power to
enact legislation that would benefit the general welfare.

G.R. No. 183591

October 14 2008
Province of North Cotabato vs Government of the Republic of the
Philippines
FACTS:
On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and
the 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 to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them the
complete and official copies of the MA-AD and to prohibit the slated signing

of the MOA-AD and the holding of public consultation thereon. They also
pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional. The Court issued a
TRO enjoining the GRP from signing the same.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for
adjudication;
2. Whether or not there is a violation of the people's right to information on
matters of public concern (Art 3 Sec. 7) under a state policy of full
disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (Art 2, Sec 28)
including public consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of
1991)
3. Whether or not the signing of the MOA, the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines would be binding itself
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;
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 RIGHTS ACT OF 1997),
particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATION,
RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS)
RULINGS:
1. Yes, the petitions are ripe for adjudication. The failure of the respondents
to consult the local government units or communities affected constitutes a
departure by respondents from their mandate under EO No. 3. Moreover,
the respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing
amendments to the Constitution. Any alleged violation of the Constitution
by any 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,

petitioners-in-intervention and intervening respondents the requisite locus

standi in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in David v. MacapagalArroyo.
In Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre, this Court held:
x x x [B]y the mere enactment of the questioned law or the
approval of the challenged action, the dispute is said to
have ripened into a judicial controversy even without any
other overt act . Indeed, even a singular violation of the Constitution
and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty.x x x x
By the same token, when an act of the President, who in our constitutional
scheme 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 courts.
That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate
ripeness.
2. Yes. The Court finds that there is a grave violation of the Constitution
involved in 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 consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code
of 1991).
(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 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 public interest in the highest order. In declaring that the right to
information contemplates steps and negotiations leading to the
consummation of the contract, jurisprudence finds no distinction as to the
executory nature or commercial character of the agreement.
E.O. No. 3 itself is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on

both national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensusbuilding. 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.
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;
Yes. The provisions of the MOA indicate, among other
things, that the Parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status
of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely
approximating it.
The concept of association is not recognized under the present
Constitution.
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 Constitution to any local or regional government. It
also 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 Philippine territory for
independence.
The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the
autonomous region recognized in the Constitution. It is not
merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of its relationship
with the national government being fundamentally different from that of the
ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets
the criteria of a 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 states.
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.
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 more of a state than an autonomous region. But even
assuming that it is covered by the term autonomous region in the
constitutional provision just quoted, the MOA-AD would still be in conflict
with it.

b) to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the

MOA:
The MOA-AD provides that any provisions of the MOA-AD requiring
amendments to the existing legal framework shall come into force upon the
signing of a Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the necessary
changes to the legal framework, implying an amendment of the
Constitution to accommodate the MOA-AD. This stipulation,
in effect, guaranteed to the MILF the amendment of the
Constitution .
It will be observed that the President has authority, as stated in her oath of
office, only to preserve and defend the Constitution. Such presidential
power does not, however, extend to allowing her to change the
Constitution, but simply to recommend proposed amendments or revision.
As long as she limits herself to recommending these changes and submits
to the proper procedure for constitutional amendments and revision, her

mere recommendation need not be construed as an unconstitutional act.

The suspensive clause in the MOA-AD viewed in light of the abovediscussed standards.
Given the limited nature of the Presidents authority to
propose constitutional amendments, she cannot
guarantee to any third party that the required
amendments will eventually be put in place, nor even be
submitted to a plebiscite. The most she could do is submit these
proposals as recommendations either to Congress or the people, in whom
constituent powers are vested.
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 RIGHTS ACT OF 1997),
particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATION,
RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS)
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.
Thus, the concept of Bangsamoro, as defined in this strand of the MOAAD, includes not only Moros as traditionally understood even by Muslims,
but all indigenous peoples of Mindanao and its adjacent islands. The MOAAD adds that the freedom of choice of indigenous peoples shall be
respected. What this freedom of choice consists in has not been
specifically defined. The MOA-AD proceeds to refer to the Bangsamoro
homeland, the ownership of which is 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.

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 of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the statute does not grant the
Executive Department or any government agency the power to delineate
and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or
compromise.
Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991
requires all national offices to conduct consultations beforeany project or
program critical to the environment and human ecology including those that
may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such
locality, is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that
unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the
Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and drastically result to the
diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total
environment.
CONCLUSION:
In sum, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave
abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation
process, as mandated by E.O. No. 3, Republic Act No. 7160, and Republic
Act No. 8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and
crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts
to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise
thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined.
The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws.
Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them,
namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the

BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated
entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.