Manifestation of a republican state

1.

The existence of a bill of rights;

2. The observance of the rule of majority;
3. The observance of the principle that ours is a government of laws, and not of men;
4. The presence of elections through popular will;
5. The observance of the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances;
6. The observance of the principle that the legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws;
7. The observance of the law on public officers; and
8. The observance of the principle that the State cannot be sued without its consent.

DEFINE STATE
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Collector vs. campos rueda

FACTS:
Antonio Campos Rueda is the administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Cerdeira. Cerdeira is a Spanish national, by reason of her marriage to a
Spanish citizen and was a resident of Tangier, Morocco up to her death. At the time of her demise she left, among others, intangible personal properties
in the Philippines. The CIR then issued an assessment for state and inheritance taxes of P369,383.96. Rueda filed an amended return stating that
intangible personal properties worth P396,308.90 should be exempted from taxes. The CIR denied the request on the ground that the law of Tangier is
not reciprocal to Section 122 (now Section 104) of the National Internal Revenue Code.
The case was elevated to the CTA which sided with Rueda. The CTA stated that the foreign country mentioned in Section 122 "refers to a government of
that foreign power which, although not an international person in the sense of international law, does not impose transfer or death upon intangible
person properties of our citizens not residing therein, or whose law allows a similar exemption from such taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary that
Tangier should have been recognized by our Government order to entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits of the proviso of Section 122 of our
Tax. Code."
ISSUE: Whether the exemption is valid.
RULING:
YES.
The controlling legal provision as noted is a proviso in Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. It reads thus: "That no tax shall be collected
under this Title in respect of intangible personal property (a) if the decedent at the time of his death was a resident of a foreign country which at the time
of his death did not impose a transfer tax or death tax of any character in respect of intangible person property of the Philippines not residing in that
foreign country, or (b) if the laws of the foreign country of which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death allow a similar exemption from
transfer taxes or death taxes of every character in respect of intangible personal property owned by citizens of the Philippines not residing in that foreign
country."
It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically
organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a
government functioning under a regime of law. A foreign country is thus a sovereign person with the people composing it viewed as an organized
corporate society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience to its commands.
Even on the assumption then that Tangier is bereft of international personality, the CIR has not successfully made out a case. The Court did commit itself
to the doctrine that even a tiny principality, like Liechtenstein, hardly an international personality in the sense, did fall under this exempt category.

ELEMENTS OF A STATE. DEFINE EACH

PEOPLE
PERMANENT POPULATIONA state is an organization of human beings living together as a community. The population of a state comprises all
individuals who, in principle, inhabit the territory in a permanent way. It may consist of nationals and foreigners. As has repeatedly been pointed out by
doctrine, the requirement of a population is not necessarily an equivalent of the requirement of nationality. The population of a state need not be
completely homogeneous in culture, language, race or otherwise. Indeed, it is even rare, except for Micro-States, to find a State with a homogeneous
people. International law does not require a minimum number of inhabitants constituting a State. The smallest number of nationals in a Micro-State can
be found in Nauru and in Monaco. This figure can be even lower if we take into account that theoretically Pitcairn with 52 inhabitants has the right to opt
for statehood by virtue of its right to self-determination. No reservations have been made by the international community with respect to statehood
because of the limited number of nationals of Micro-States, even if the nationals were outnumbered by foreign residents.

TERRITORY
A DEFINED TERRITORYThe functions of a State, a political and legal community of human beings, must first of all be exercised in a given territory.
Territory is a geographical area that is owned and controlled by a government or country to exercise such state sovereignty. Therefore, most of legal
professors give and conclude the definition of the territory that territory clearly comprises and refers to land territory which belongs to state and
individuals, internal waters and territorial sea (straits) which state claims for sovereignty, and the airspace above this territory. It is required that the State
must consist of a certain coherent territory effectively governed and the territory of a State need not be exactly fixed by definite frontiers. "A defined
geographical area" the existence of Micro-State with minimum land territory such as Monaco (1.95 square kilometer), and the Vatican City (0.44 square
kilometer) leads to the conclusion that no minimum size is required for the territory, as this element was never a reason for denying statehood.

GOVERNMENTThe government is the executive branch of the state and has the role to administer the state uniformly in the following aspects: political,
economic, social, cultural, use of natural resources, environmental protection, national defense and security, and foreign affairs. Form of state is defined
depending on the constitution drafted, generally structure of state can be divided into: unitary state and federal state, this probably affects the
government in exercising limit on its power.

SOVEREIGNTYSovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that
rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. The definition of "the Sovereignty" is quite similar to "the Independence"
and they mostly used along together.

A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to
which it is not accountable and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it.
Features of Presidential System:
The president does not propose bills. However, the president has the power to veto acts of the legislature.
The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other such
parliamentary procedures.
The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and
legislative branches.
The power to pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals is often in the hands of the heads of state in governments that separate their
legislative and executive branches of government.
A parliamentary system is a system of government wherein the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature, and are accountable to
that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive
and chief legislator.
Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a different set
of checks and balances compared to those found in presidential systems. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head
of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being a figurehead,
often either a president (elected either popularly or by the parliament) or a hereditary monarch (often in a constitutional monarchy).

108 SCRA 757 Political Law Delegation of Power Completeness Test

In 1981, there was an ongoing labor dispute between the Free Telephone Workers Union (the Union) and the Philippine Long Distance Company.
Eventually, the Minister of Labor (Blas Ople) assumed jurisdiction over the issue pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code. The Union assailed the
provisions of Article 264 as it averred that it is an undue delegation of power by Congress to the Minister of Labor. They averred that by granting
discretion to the Minister of Labor to whether or not refer a labor dispute for compulsory arbitration to the National Labor Relations Commission, it also
effectively granted the Minister to make or unmake the law on free collective bargaining.
ISSUE: Whether or not such provision is an undue delegation of power.
HELD: No. In the first place, this issue is not yet ripe for adjudication as the Minister of Labor was yet to take on the entirety of the case. There is still no
ground to rule that there is an unconstitutional application of the law.
The Union failed to make out a case of undue delegation of legislative power. There could be, however, an unconstitutional application. For while the
Constitution allows compulsory arbitration, it must be stressed that the exercise of such competence cannot ignore the basic fundamental principle and
state policy that the state should afford protection to labor. But as to whether or not there is an unconstitutional application of the law, that is yet to be
determined since the Minister of Labor has not yet made a factual determination of the labor dispute in issue.
There is no undue delegation in this case. The law in issue is complete and it set a sufficient standard. The law cannot be any clearer, the coverage
being limited to strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest.

30 SCRA 649 Political Law Two-fold Function of the Government Free Enterprise Ministrant vs Constituent Functions
In September 1961 a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was agreed upon by labor unions (ASA and AWA) and ACCFA (Agricultural Credit and
Cooperative Financing Administration). The said CBA was supposed to be effective on July 1, 1962. Due to non-implementation of the CBA the unions
held a strike on October 25, 1962. And 5 days later CUGCO (Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices), the mother union of
ASA and AWA filed a complaint against ACCFA due to unfair labor practices, among others, which CUGCO was able to win in court.
In April 1963, ACCFA appealed the decision and while the appeal was pending, Republic Act No. 3844 was passed which effectively turned ACCFA to
ACA (Agricultural Credit Administration). In March 1964, ASA and AWA then petitioned that they may have sole bargaining rights with ACA. While this
petition was not yet decided upon, in the same month of March 1964, Executive Order No. 75 was also passed which placed ACA under the Land
Reform Project Administration (LRPA). Notwithstanding the latest legislation passed, the trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of ASA and AWA
and ruled that they have bargaining rights with ACA..
ISSUE: Whether or not ASA and AWA can be given sole bargaining rights with ACA.
HELD: No. The Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA. EO 75 placed ACA under the LRPA and by virtue of RA 3844 the implementation of the Land
Reform Program of the government is a governmental function NOT a proprietary function. Being such, ACA can no longer step down to deal privately
with said unions as it may have been doing when it was still ACCFA.
The Supreme Court also made a pronouncement which recognized the growing complexities of modern society which have rendered the classification
of the governmental functions (ministrant and constituent) as unrealistic, if not obsolete. Ministerial and governmental functions continue to lose their

well-defined boundaries and are absorbed within the activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it to meet the increasing
social challenges of the times and move towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Hence, gone are the days where constituent functions are
exclusively performed by the government and not delegated to private institutions. In this case, a constituent function is left to be performed by a private
entity like ACA (formerly ACCFA).
Separate Opinion on the Free Enterprise System
J. Fernando This country never practiced the free enterprise system and it has abandoned the concept of laissez faire. It is the welfare state concept
which is being followed as shown by the constitutional provision on agrarian reform, housing, protection to labor and others that provide for the social
welfare.
100 Phil. 468 Political Law Two-fold Function of the Government Constituent vs Ministrant Functions
Leopoldo Bacani and Mateo Matoto were court stenographers assigned in a court in Manila. During the pendency of a particular case in said court,
counsel for one of the parties, National Coconut Corporation or NACOCO, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic
notes taken by them during the hearing. Bacani et al complied with the request and sent 714 pages and thereafter submitted to said counsel their bills
for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Bacani and P150 to Matoto for said transcripts at the rate of
P1 per page.
However, in January 1953, the Auditor General required Bacani et al to reimburse said amounts on the strength of a circular of the Department of
Justice. It was expressed that NACOCO, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question. Bacani et al counter that
NACOCO is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. NACOCO set up as a defense that the NACOCO
is a government entity within the purview of section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 and, hence, it is exempt from paying the
stenographers fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not NACOCO is a government entity.
HELD: No. Government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) do not acquire the status of being part of the government because they do not
come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. Take for instance the NACOCO. While it was organized with the purpose of adjusting
the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States and of providing Facilities for the better curing of copra
products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products, a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, it
was, however, given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law
in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518 the law creating
NACOCO). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government.
The Supreme Court also noted the constituent functions of the government. Constituent functions are those which constitute the very bonds of society
and are compulsory in nature. According to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, they are as follows:
1. The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery.
2. The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children.
3. The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime.
4. The determination of contract rights between individuals.
5. The definition and punishment of crime.
6. The administration of justice in civil cases.
7. The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens.
8. Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international
interests.
On the other hand, ministrant functions are those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of society, and are merely
optional. The most important of the ministrant functions are: public works, public education, public charity, health and safety regulations, and regulations
of trade and industry. The principles to consider whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are: (1) that a government
should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake and (2) that a government should do these things which
by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals.

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation" (lit., "parent of the fatherland"). In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene
against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of
protection.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V. MONTE DE PIEDAD

35 PHIL 728
FACTS:
About $400,000 were paid into the treasury of the Philippine Islands by the inhabitants of the Spanish Dominions for the relief of those damaged by the
earthquake on June 3, 1863 in the Philippines. Upon the petition of the governing body of respondent, the Philippine government directed its treasurer to
turn over to the respondent the sum of $80,000 of the relief fund in instalments of $20,000 each. Petitioner now bring suit to recover said amount with
interest against respondents in behalf of the various petitions of the persons and heirs to whom the relief was intended. Defendant contends that the
amount was given as a donation and that the court erred in stating that the Philippine Islands has subrogated the Spanish government in its rights.

ISSUE:
Does the government of the Philippines have authority to file a suit against the respondent?
HELD:
The legislature or government of the State, as parens patriae, has the right to enforce all charities of public nature. The court further asserted that said
amount was not a donation and that respondent is liable for the debt regardless of the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States. It is said
that there is total abrogation of the former political relations of the inhabitants of the ceded region, however, the circumstances present in the case are
not political in nature. The great body of municipal law which regulates private and domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by the
new ruler, as such, the government has the authority to file a suit in behalf of its people by virtue of the principle of parens patriae.

58 SCRA 94 Political Law Parens Patriae Strengthening the Family

Florentino Pilapil insured himself and he indicated in his insurance plan that his child will be his beneficiary. He also indicated that if upon his death the
child is still a minor; the proceeds of his benefits shall be administered by his brother, Francisco Pilapil. The child was only ten years of age when
Florentino died and so Francisco then took charge of Florentinos insurance proceeds for the benefit of the child.
On the other hand, the mother of the child Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking the delivery of the insurance proceeds in favor and for her to be
declared as the childs trustee. Francisco asserted the terms of the insurance policy and that as a private contract its terms and obligations must be
binding only to the parties and intended beneficiaries.
ISSUE: Whether or not the state may interfere by virtue of parens patriae to the terms of the insurance policy.
HELD: Yes. The Constitution provides for the strengthening of the family as the basic social unit, and that whenever any member thereof such as in the
case at bar would be prejudiced and his interest be affected then the judiciary if a litigation has been filed should resolve that case according to the best
interest of that person. The uncle here should not be the trustee, it should be the mother as she was the immediate relative of the minor child and it is
assumed that the mother shall show more care towards the child than the uncle will. The application of parens patriae here is in consonance with this
countrys tradition of favoring conflicts in favor of the family hence preference to the parent (mother) is observed.

According to legitimacy: De facto and De jure

A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally
invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead.
De jure government is a government which rules legally and with the consent of the people, in contrast with a de facto government, which takes control
of a country by force.

AQUINO vs. COMELEC

(248 SCRA 400)
Facts:
On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of RepresentativeforthenewSecondLegislativeDistrictofMakatiCity.Inhiscertificateof
candidacy,Aquinostatedthathewasaresident of the aforementioned district for 10 months. Faced with a petition for disqualification, he amended thee n t r y o n h i s
r e s i d e n c y i n h i s c e r t i f i c a t e o f c a n d i d a c y t o 1 y e a r a n d 1 3 d a y s . T h e C o m m i s s i o n o n E l e c t i o n s dismissed the
petition on 6 May and allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino won. Acting on amotion for reconsideration of the above dismissal, the
Commission on Election later issued an order suspendingthe proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved the issue. On 2 June, the
Commission on Electionsfound Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of residence.
Issue:
Whether residency in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes domicile to
w a r r a n t t h e disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral district.
Held:
T h e p l a c e w h e r e a p a r t y a c t u a l l y o r c o n s t r u c t i v e l y h a s h i s p e r m a n e n t h o m e , w h e r e h e , n o m a t t e r where he
may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that tow h i c h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n r e f e r s w h e n i t
speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. The purpose is toex clude strangers or newcomers
unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community from takingadvantage of favorable
circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain. Aquinos certificate of candidacy in a previous
( 1 9 9 2 ) e l e c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t h e w a s a r e s i d e n t a n d a r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r o f S a n J o s e , Concepcion, Tarlac for more than
52 years prior to that election. Aquinos connection to the Second District of Makati City is an alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in the area.
The intention not to establish apermanent home in Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. The shortlength of
time he claims to be a resident of Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his
sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not toacquire a new, residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of
the Second DistrictofMakatiCity.AquinowasthusrightfullydisqualifiedbytheCommissiononElections

Facts:
In a petition for declaratory relief with no respondents, petitioner asked the court if the provision of the Section 5 Article XVIII of the 1986 Constitution, to
wit: The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of
elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992, refers to the then-incumbent President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Laurel or the
previously-elected President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Vice-President Arturo M. Tolentino.
After the election of February 7, 1986 where Marcos and Tolentino were declared the winners, Aquino and Laurel were installed into the position last
February 25, 1986 after the infamous People Power Revolution. The next regular election for the President and Vice-President was held last May 2,
1992.
Issue:
Whether the aforecited article applies to the then-incumbent President and Vice-President, or the previously elected President and Vice-President.
Held:
The petition was hereby dismissed outright for:
1. Lack of jurisdiction. Court has no jurisdiction over petition for declaratory relief. Rules of Court states that it is the RTC (Regional Trial Courts) who has
the jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. Also, incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of
their incumbency and tenure.
2. Lack of cause of action on the part of petitioner. Petitioner had no personality to use, and his allegation was manifestly gratuitous. The legitimacy of
the Aquino government was not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge, and the
people have made judgment.

353 SCRA 452 Political Law Constitutional Law De Jure vs De Facto President Arroyo a de jure president
Joseph Erap Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave while Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the President. From the beginning of
Eraps term, he was plagued by problems that slowly but surely eroded his popularity. His sharp descent from power started on October 4, 2000.
Singson, a longtime friend of Estrada, went on air and accused the Estrada, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The
expos immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 19, Estrada fell from power. At 1:20 p.m. of said day, the Erap informed then Executive
Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected. January 20 turned to be the
day of Eraps surrender. On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, Arroyo immediately discharged the powers and duties of the Presidency.
After his fall from the pedestal of power, Eraps legal problems appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed against him in the Office of the
Ombudsman were set in motion.
ISSUE: Whether or not Arroyo is a legitimate (de jure) president.
HELD: The SC holds that the resignation of Estrada cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacaang. In the press release containing
his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality; (2)
he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. He
did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability
disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given
him to serve the people as President; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our
country. Estradas reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his
supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioners valedictory, his final act of farewell. His
presidency is now in the past tense. Even if Erap can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on
the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the
de jure President made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.

Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon75 Phil 113Feria, J.FactsThe respondent judge of the lower court refused to take cognizance of and
continue the proceeding of civil case No. 3012 of said court which was initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established
during the Japanese military occupation of thePhilippines. He argued that the proclamation issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur had the effectof
invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgements of the courts of the saidgovernments. He also argued that the said governments during
the Japanese occupation were notde facto governments.IssueWhether or not the governments established in the Philippines under the names of
PhilippinesExecutive Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupationor regime were de facto governments.HeldThe
Supreme Court held that the Philippine Executive Commission which was organized byOrder No. 1 by the Commander of the Japanese forces, was a
civil government established by themilitary forces of occupation and therefore a de facto government of the second kind. The sourceof its authority
comes from the Japanese military, it is a government imposed by the laws of war.The same is true with the Republic of the Philippines. Apparently
established and organized as asovereign state independent from any other government by the Filipino people, was, in truth andreality, a government
established by the Japanese forces of occupation.

Three Kinds of a De Facto Government

1.

In a proper legal sense, a government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal
governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as the government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later
by Cromwell the Protector.

2.

One that is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is
denominated a government of paramount force as the cases of Castine in Maine which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812, and
Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico, by the troops of the US.

3.

One that is established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a countrywho rise in insurrection against the parent state such as
the government of the Southern Confederacy.

***But there is another description of a government called also by publicists as government de facto but which might, perhaps be more aptly
denominated as a government of paramount force. It is characterized by:
1.

That its existence is maintained by active military power with the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful
government

2.

That while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private residents who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such
force, do not become responsible, or wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by laws of the rightful government.

30 SCRA 968 Political Law Sovereignty

William Reagan is a US citizen assigned at Clark Air Base to help provide technical assistance to the US Air Force (USAF). In April 1960 Reagan
imported a 1960 Cadillac car valued at $6,443.83. Two months later, he got permission to sell the same car provided that he would sell the car to a US
citizen or a member of the USAF. He sold it to Willie Johnson, Jr. for $6,600.00 as shown by a Bill of Sale. The sale took place within Clark Air Base. As
a result of this transaction, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue calculated the net taxable income of Reagan to be at P17,912.34 and that his income
tax would be P2,797.00. Reagan paid the assessed tax but at the same time he sought for a refund because he claims that he is exempt. Reagan
claims that the sale took place in foreign soil since Clark Air Base, in legal contemplation is a base outside the Philippines. Reagan also cited that
under the Military Bases Agreement, he, by nature of his employment, is exempt from Philippine taxation.
ISSUE: Is the sale considered done in a foreign soil not subject to Philippine income tax?
HELD: No. The Philippines is independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is
beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must
submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Military Bases Agreement
that lends support to Reagans assertion. The Base has not become foreign soil or territory. This countrys jurisdictional rights therein, certainly not
excluding the power to tax, have been preserved, the Philippines merely consents that the US exercise jurisdiction in certain cases this is just a matter
of comity, courtesy and expediency. It is likewise noted that he indeed is employed by the USAF and his income is derived from US source but the
income derived from the sale is not of US source hence taxable.

53 SCRA 476 Political Law Sovereignty

Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot which was located inside the US Naval Reservation which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. Upon
the advice of an assistant in the Mayors Office and some neighbors, she demolished the house standing thereon without acquiring the necessary
permits and then later on erected another house. She was then charged by the City Engineers Office for violating a municipal order which requires her
to secure permits for any demolition and/or construction within the City. She was convicted in violation thereof by the lower court. She appealed and
countered that the City of Olongapo has no administrative jurisdiction over the said lot because it is within a Naval Base of a foreign country.
ISSUE: Is the Municipal Ordinance enforceable within the US Naval Base?
HELD: Yes. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of
jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive
jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the United
States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of (Military Bases Agreement). Hence, in the exercise of its sovereignty, the State
through the City of Olongapo does have administrative jurisdiction over the lot located within the US Naval Base.

53 SCRA 476 Political Law Sovereignty

Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot which was located inside the US Naval Reservation which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. Upon
the advice of an assistant in the Mayors Office and some neighbors, she demolished the house standing thereon without acquiring the necessary
permits and then later on erected another house. She was then charged by the City Engineers Office for violating a municipal order which requires her
to secure permits for any demolition and/or construction within the City. She was convicted in violation thereof by the lower court. She appealed and
countered that the City of Olongapo has no administrative jurisdiction over the said lot because it is within a Naval Base of a foreign country.
ISSUE: Is the Municipal Ordinance enforceable within the US Naval Base?
HELD: Yes. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of
jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive
jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the United
States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of (Military Bases Agreement). Hence, in the exercise of its sovereignty, the State
through the City of Olongapo does have administrative jurisdiction over the lot located within the US Naval Base.