Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 10, 2014 a. The law did not abandon the Sabah claim. This is evident on the
provision of Section 2 of RA 9522:
655 SCRA 476 Political Law National Territory RA 9522 is Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of
Constitutional the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without
prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea
In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining the archipelagic around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over
baselines of the Philippines was enacted the law is also known which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and
as the Baselines Law. This law was meant to comply with the sovereignty.
terms of the third United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the Philippines in February 1984. b. UNCLOS may term our waters as archipelagic waters and that
we may term it as our internal waters, but the bottom line is that
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA our country exercises sovereignty over these waters and UNCLOS
9522 as they contend, among others, that the law decreased the itself recognizes that. However, due to our observance of
national territory of the Philippines hence the law is international law, we allow the exercise of others of their right of
unconstitutional. Some of their particular arguments are as innocent passage. No modern State can validly invoke its
follows: sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised
in accordance with customary international law without risking
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of Paris retaliatory measures from the international community.
and other ancillary treaties this also resulted to the exclusion of
our claim over Sabah; c. The classification of the KIG (or the Spratlys), as well as the
Scarborough Shoal, as a regime of islands did not diminish our
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, describes the Philippine maritime area. Under UNCLOS and under the baselines law, since
waters as archipelagic waters which, in international law, opens they are regimes of islands, they generate their own maritime
our waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all zones in short, they are not to be enclosed within the baselines
vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts (overflight), undermining of the main archipelago (which is the Philippine Island group). This
Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the is because if we do that, then we will be enclosing a larger area
countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in which would already depart from the provisions of UNCLOS that
violation of relevant constitutional provisions; the demarcation should follow the natural contour of the
archipelago.
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), as well as
the Scarborough Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a regime of islands Nevertheless, we still continue to lay claim over the KIG and the
pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a large maritime area Scarborough Shoal through effective occupation.
but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.
NOTES:
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are
tenable. Under UNCLOS and the baselines law, we have three levels of
maritime zones where we exercise treaty-based rights:
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or
UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or lose, territory. The a. territorial waters 12 nautical miles from the baselines; where
treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the acquisition, we exercise sovereignty
enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory. What
controls when it comes to acquisition or loss of territory is the b. contiguous zone 24 nautical miles from the baselines;
international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession and jurisdiction where we can enforce customs, fiscal, immigration,
prescription and NOT the execution of multilateral treaties on the and sanitation laws (CFIS).
regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with
c. exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles from the baselines;
the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental
where we have the right to exploit the living and non-living
shelves.
resources in the exclusive economic zone
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact
Note: a fourth zone may be added which is the continental shelf
it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046),
this is covered by Article 77 of the UNCLOS.
we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing the Philippines.
The area that it covered was 440,994 square nautical miles (sq. na.
mi.). But under 9522, and with the inclusion of the exclusive
economic zone, the extent of our maritime was increased to
586,210 sq. na.mi. (See image below for comparison)
MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO, et. al., Petitioners,vs.SCOTT H. SWIFT,
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international et. al., Respondents.
community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine
areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights. G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014
PONENTE: Villarama
FACTS:
Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A
on a given question. Specifically, it is a partys personal and and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the
substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain immunities of warships and other government ships operated for
direct injury as a result of the act being challenged, and calls for non-commercial purposes. A foreign warships unauthorized
more than just a generalized grievance. However, the rule on entry into our internal waters with resulting damage to marine
standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for resources is one situation in which the above provisions may
non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and apply.
legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the
But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as
subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance,
in this case, the US?
of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public
interest. According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not
ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy the US
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we
considers itself bound by customary international rules on the
recognized the public right of citizens to a balanced and
traditional uses of the oceans as codified in UNCLOS.
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional
history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. We Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that the US refusal to join
declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need the UNCLOS was centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS
not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the
and polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind, pointing
the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental out that such has nothing to do with its the US acceptance of
importance with intergenerational implications. Such right carries customary international rules on navigation.
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment. The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpios view that non-
membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will
On the novel element in the class suit filed by the disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its
petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear
ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of international responsibility under Art. 31 in connection with the
environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha
own and future generations. reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and
trading partner, which has been actively supporting the countrys
Second issue: YES.
efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from its
obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warship while
transiting our internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a
The US respondents were sued in their official capacity as Government exercising leadership in international affairs,
commanding officers of the US Navy who had control and unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to
supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the marine
omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS environment as provided in Article 197 of UNCLOS
Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were
performing official military duties. Considering that the Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis
satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require
States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on
remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US
a regional basis, directly or through competent international
government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules,
The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of
standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent
jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift,
with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the
Rice and Robling.
marine environment, taking into account
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio characteristic regional features.
T. Carpio took the position that the conduct of the US in this case,
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present
when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No.
controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said treaty upholds
10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the
the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States
matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations
while navigating the latters territorial sea, the flag States shall
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that
be required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout
while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit
the laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be
as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates
liable for damages caused by their warships or any other
an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with
government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under
the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage
Article 31.
through the latters internal waters and the territorial sea.
Third issue: NO.
The waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information
only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as even if nobody demands. The policy of public disclosure
the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it establishes a concrete ethical principle for the conduct of public
can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the peoples right to
case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental know as the centerpiece. It is a mandate of the State to be
law is to be filed separately. accountable by following such policy. These provisions are vital to
the exercise of the freedom of expression and essential to hold
The Court considered a view that a ruling on the public officials at all times accountable to the people. Indubitably,
application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the effectivity of the policy of public disclosure need not await the
the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the passing of a statute. As Congress cannot revoke this principle, it is
grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond merely directed to provide for reasonable safeguards. The
the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. complete and effective exercise of the right to information
necessitates that its complementary provision on public disclosure
The Court also found unnecessary at this point to derive the same self-executory nature. Since both provisions go
determine whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed hand-in-hand, it is absurd to say that the broader right to
absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have information on matters of public concern is already enforceable
resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules while the correlative duty of the State to disclose its transactions
allows the recovery of damages, including the collection of involving public interest is not enforceable until there is an
administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit enabling law. Respondents cannot thus point to the absence of an
or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the implementing legislation as an excuse in not effecting such policy.
same violation of an environmental law. An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a
continuing dialogue or process of communication between the
government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, et al .v . THE GOVERNMENT the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al . that the government may perceive and be responsive to the
peoples will. Envisioned to be corollary to the twin rights to
information and disclosure is the design for feedback mechanisms.
The imperative of a public consultation, as a species of the right to
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in line with the governments information, is evident in the marching orders to respondents.
policy of pursuing peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic The mechanics for the duty to disclose information and to conduct
Liberation Front (MILF), asked Prime Minister Mahathir public consultation regarding the peace agenda and process is
Mohammad to convince the MILF to continue negotiating with the manifestly provided by E.O. No.
government. MILF, thereafter, convened its Central Committee
and decided to meet with the Government of the Republic of the 3. The preambulatory clause of E.O. No. 3 declares that there is a
Philippines (GRP). Formal peace talks were held in Libya which need to further enhance the contribution of civil society to the
resulted to the crafting of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on comprehensive peace process by institutionalizing the peoples
Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) which consists of three (3) participation. One of the three underlying principles of the
aspects: a.) security aspect; b.) rehabilitation aspect; and c.) comprehensive peace process is that it should be community-
ancestral domain aspect. Various negotiations were held which led based, reflecting the sentiments, values and principles important
to the finalization of the Memorandum of Agreement on the to all Filipinos and shall be defined not by the government
Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD). The said memorandum was set to be alone, nor by the different contending groups only, but by all
signed last August 5, 2008. In its body, it grants the authority Filipinos as one community. Included as a component of the
and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of comprehensive peace process is consensus-building and
the Bangsamoro to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). The empowerment for peace, which includes continuing
latter, in addition, has the freedom to enter into any economic consultations on both national and local levels to build consensus
cooperation and trade relation with foreign countries. The for a peace agenda and process, and the mobilization and
sharing between the Central Government and the BJE of total facilitation of peoples participation in the peace process.Clearly,
production pertaining to natural resources is to be 75:25 in favor E.O. No. 3 contemplates not just the conduct of a plebiscite to
of the BJE. The MOA-AD further provides for the extent of the effectuate continuing consultations, contrary to respondents
territory of the Bangsamoro. It describes it as the land mass as position that plebiscite is more than sufficient
well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, consultation.Further, E.O. No. 3 enumerates the functions and
including the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it, responsibilities of the PAPP, one of which is to conduct regular
embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region. With dialogues with the National Peace Forum (NPF) and other peace
regard to governance, on the other hand, a shared responsibility partners to seek relevant information, comments,
and authority between the Central Government and BJE was recommendations as well as to render appropriate and timely
provided. The relationship was described as associative. With reports on the progress of the comprehensive peace process. E.O.
the formulation of the MOA-AD, petitioners aver that the No. 3 mandates the establishment of the NPF to be the principal
negotiation and finalization of the MOA-AD violates constitutional forum for the Presidential Adviser on Peace Progress (PAPP) to
and statutory provisions on public consultation, as mandated by consult with and seek advi[c]e from the peace advocates, peace
Executive Order No. 3, and right to information. They further partners and concerned sectors of society on both national and
contend that it violates the Constitution and laws. Hence, the filing local levels, on the implementation of the comprehensive peace
of the petition. process, as well as for government[-]civil society dialogue and
consensus-building on peace agenda and initiatives. In fine, E.O.
No. 3 establishes petitioners right to be consulted on the peace
agenda, as a corollary to the constitutional right to information
ISSUES: and disclosure. In general, the objections against the MOA-AD
center on the extent of the powers conceded therein to the BJE.
1) Whether or not the MOA-AD violates constitutional and
Petitioners assert that the powers granted to the BJE exceed those
statutory provisions on public consultation and right to
granted to any local government under present laws, and even go
information 2) Whether or not the MOA-AD violates the
beyond those of the present ARMM. Before assessing some of the
Constitution and the laws.
specific powers that would have been vested in the BJE, however,
it would be useful to turn first to a general idea that serves as a
unifying link to the different provisions of the MOA-AD, namely,
HELD: the international law concept of association. Significantly, the
MOA-AD explicitly alludes to this concept, indicating that the
The MOA-AD subject of the present cases is of public concern, Parties actually framed its provisions with it in mind. Association is
involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the referred to in paragraph 3 on TERRITORY, paragraph 11 on
State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large. RESOURCES, and paragraph 4 on GOVERNANCE. It is in the last
Intended as a splendid symmetry to the right to information mentioned provision, however, that the MOA-AD most clearly
under the Bill of Rights is the policy of public disclosure under uses it to describe the envisioned relationship between the BJE
Section 28, Article II of the Constitution which provides that and the Central Government.
subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest. Moreover, the policy of full
public disclosure enunciated in above-quoted Section 28 4. The relationship between the Central Government and the
complements the right of access to information on matters of Bangsamoro juridical entity shall be associative characterized by
public concern found in the Bill of Rights. The right to information shared authority and responsibility with a structure of governance
guarantees the right of the people to demand information, while based on executive, legislative, judicial and administrative
institutions with defined powers and functions in the
comprehensive compact. A period of transition shall be plebiscite unnecessary under the Constitution, precisely because
established in a comprehensive peace compact specifying the what these areas voted for then was their inclusion in the ARMM,
relationship between the Central Government and the BJE. The not the BJE.
nature of the associative relationship may have been intended
to be defined more precisely in the still to be forged Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution must also be amended if
Comprehensive Compact. Nonetheless, given that there is a the scheme envisioned in the MOA-AD is to be effected. That
concept of association in international law, and the MOA-AD constitutional provision states: The State recognizes and
by its inclusion of international law instruments in its TOR placed promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
itself in an international legal context, that concept of association framework of national unity and development. An associative
may be brought to bear in understanding the use of the term arrangement does not uphold national unity. While there may be
associative in the MOA-AD. The MOA-AD contains many a semblance of unity because of the associative ties between the
provisions which are consistent with the international legal BJE and the national government, the act of placing a portion of
concept of association, specifically the following: the BJEs Philippine territory in a status which, in international practice, has
capacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign generally been a preparation for independence, is certainly not
countries, the commitment of the Central Government to ensure conducive to national unity.
the BJEs participation in meetings and events in the ASEAN and
the specialized UN agencies, and the continuing responsibility of The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution
the Central Government over external defense. Moreover, the and laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept
BJEs right to participate in Philippine official missions bearing on underlying them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned
negotiation of border agreements, environmental protection, and between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the
sharing of revenues pertaining to the bodies of water adjacent to concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and
or between the islands forming part of the ancestral domain, implies that the same is on its way to independence.
resembles the right of the governments of FSM and the Marshall
While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the provisions
Islands to be consulted by the U.S. government on any foreign
thereof inconsistent with the present legal framework will not be
affairs matter affecting them. These provisions of the MOA
effective until that framework is amended, the same does not cure
indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to vest in the
its defect. The inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing
BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely
an associative relationship between the BJE and the Central
approximating it. The concept of association is not recognized
Government is, itself, a violation of the Memorandum of
under the present Constitution. No province, city, or municipality,
Instructions from the President dated March 1, 2001, addressed to
not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an
the government peace panel. Moreover, as the clause is worded, it
associative relationship with the national government. Indeed,
virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the
the concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted
Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither
by the Constitution to any local or regional government. It also
the GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to
implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. The
make such a guarantee. Upholding such an act would amount to
Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this
authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in
jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it
Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves
provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of
through the process of initiative, for the only way that the
Philippine territory for independence.
Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is
Even the mere concept animating many of the MOA-ADs through an undue influence or interference with that process.
provisions, therefore, already requires for its validity the
amendment of constitutional provisions, specifically the following
provisions of Article X: Saguisag vs Executive Secretary
SECTION 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Case Digest: GR 212426 Jan 12, 2016
Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities,
and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided. SECTION
15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Facts:
Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities,
municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and
distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social
Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators,
structures, and other relevant characteristics within the
questioned before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA (Enhanced
framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as
Defense Cooperation Agreement), an agreement entered into by
well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.
the executive department with the US and ratified on June 6,
It is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of 2014. Under the EDCA, the PH shall provide the US forces the
its relationship with the national government being fundamentally access and use of portions of PH territory, which are called Agreed
different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but Locations. Aside from the right to access and to use the Agreed
name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Locations, the US may undertake the following types of activities
Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a within the Agreed Locations: security cooperation exercises; joint
defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into and combined training activities; humanitarian and disaster relief
relations with other states. activities; and such other activities that as may be agreed upon by
the parties.
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
Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as
provisions of the M OA-AD on the formation and powers of the
medium of agreement with US violated the constitutional
BJE are in conflict with the Constitution and the laws. Article X,
requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves foreign
Section 18 of the Constitution provides that [t]he creation of the
military bases, troops and facilities whose entry into the country
autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a
should be covered by a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The
majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite
Senate, through Senate Resolution 105, also expressed its position
called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and
that EDCA needs congressional ratification.
geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be
included in the autonomous region. Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
The BJE is more of a state than an autonomous region. But even
America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops,
assuming that it is covered by the term autonomous region in
or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a
the constitutional provision just quoted, the MOA-AD would still
treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so
be in conflict with it. Under paragraph 2(c) on TERRITORY in
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a
relation to 2(d) and 2(e), the present geographic area of the
national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a
ARMM and, in addition, the municipalities of Lanao del Norte
treaty by the other contracting State.
which voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite
Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal are
automatically part of the BJE without need of another plebiscite,
in contrast to the areas under Categories A and B mentioned Issue 1: W/N the petitions as citizens suit satisfy the
earlier in the overview. That the present components of the requirements of legal standing in assailing the constitutionality of
ARMM and the above-mentioned municipalities voted for EDCA
inclusion therein in 2001, however, does not render another
No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act, these prior agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to the
petitioners suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of having Senate.
to establish a direct and personal interest if they show that the act
affects a public right. But here, aside from general statements
that the petitions involve the protection of a public right, and that
their constitutional rights as citizens would be violated, the De Castro Dissent
petitioners failed to make any specific assertion of a particular
public right that would be violated by the enforcement of EDCA.
For their failure to do so, the present petitions cannot be No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct from
considered by the Court as citizens suits that would justify a the VFA and the MDT. Whether the stay of the foreign troops in
disregard of the aforementioned requirements. the country is permanent or temporary is immaterial because the
Constitution does not distinguish. The EDCA clearly involves the
entry of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the country.
Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers Hence, the absence of Senate concurrence to the agreement
makes it an invalid treaty.
No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is neither
meant to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the disbursement EPILOGUE
of public funds.
The fear that EDCA is a reincarnation of the U.S. bases so zealously
A taxpayers suit concerns a case in which the official act protested by noted personalities in Philippine history arises not so
complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public much from xenophobia, but from a genuine desire for self-
funds derived from taxation. Here, those challenging the act must determination, nationalism, and above all a commitment to
specifically show that they have sufficient interest in preventing ensure the independence of the Philippine Republic from any
the illegal expenditure of public money, and that they will sustain foreign domination.
a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed act.
Mere fears, however, cannot curtail the exercise by the President
Applying that principle to this case, they must establish that EDCA
of the Philippines of his Constitutional prerogatives in respect of
involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers.
foreign affairs. They cannot cripple him when he deems that
A reading of the EDCA, however, would show that there has been
additional security measures are made necessary by the times. As
neither an appropriation nor an authorization of disbursement.
it stands, the Philippines through the Department of Foreign
Affairs has filed several diplomatic protests against the actions of
the People's Republic of China in the West Philippine
Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as legislators suit Sea;462 initiated arbitration against that country under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; 463 is in the process of
No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international negotiations with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front for peace in
agreement is an institutional prerogative granted by the Southern Philippines,464 which is the subject of a current case
Constitution to the Senate. In a legislators suit, the injured party before this Court; and faces increasing incidents of kidnappings of
would be the Senate as an institution or any of its incumbent Filipinos and foreigners allegedly by the Abu Sayyaf or the New
members, as it is the Senates constitutional function that is People's Army.465 The Philippine military is conducting reforms that
allegedly being violated. Here, none of the petitioners, who are seek to ensure the security and safety of the nation in the years to
former senators, have the legal standing to maintain the suit. come.466 In the future, the Philippines must navigate a world in
which armed forces fight with increasing sophistication in both
strategy and technology, while employing asymmetric warfare and
remote weapons.
Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial Review
over the case Additionally, our country is fighting a most terrifying enemy: the
backlash of Mother Nature. The Philippines is one of the countries
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise matters of most directly affected and damaged by climate change. It is no
transcendental importance which justify setting aside the rule on coincidence that the record-setting tropical
procedural technicalities. The challenge raised here is rooted in cyclone Yolanda (internationally named Haiyan), one of the most
the very Constitution itself, particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, devastating forces of nature the world has ever seen hit the
which provides for a stricter mechanism required before any Philippines on 8 November 2013 and killed at least 6,000
foreign military bases, troops or facilities may be allowed in the people.467 This necessitated a massive rehabilitation project. 468 In
country. Such is of paramount public interest that the Court is the aftermath, the U.S. military was among the first to extend help
behooved to determine whether there was grave abuse of and support to the Philippines.
discretion on the part of the Executive Department.
That calamity brought out the best in the Filipinos as thousands
upon thousands volunteered their help, their wealth, and their
prayers to those affected. It also brought to the fore the value of
Brion Dissent
having friends in the international community.
Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners satisfied
In order to keep the peace in its archipelago in this region of the
the requirement of legal standing in asserting that a public right
world, and to sustain itself at the same time against the
has been violated through the commission of an act with grave
destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends. Who
abuse of discretion. The court may exercise its power of judicial
they are, and what form the friendships will take, are for the
review over the act of the Executive Department in not submitting
President to decide. The only restriction is what the Constitution
the EDCA agreement for Senate concurrence not because of the
itself expressly prohibits. It appears that this overarching concern
transcendental importance of the issue, but because the
for balancing constitutional requirements against the dictates of
petitioners satisfy the requirements in invoking the courts
necessity was what led to EDCA.
expanded jurisdiction. Read more
As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive
agreement, it remains consistent with existing laws and treaties
Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA agreement for that it purports to implement.
concurrence by the Senate violates the Constitution
The Court first found that the territorial domain of the Sultanate
of Johor (Malaysia) did cover in principle all the islands and islets
within the Straits of Singapore including
PedraBranca/PulauBatuPuteh. It found that no development
affected this original title until 1953.
After 1953 however, the Court found that the conduct of the
Parties could be seen as conduct titresouverain. This included
the investigation of shipwrecks by Singapore within the islands
territorial waters and the granting or not granting of permission by
Singapore to Malaysian officials to survey the waters surrounding
the island. Additionally, the Court considered that weight could
also be given in support of Singapores claim by way of Malaysias
absence of reaction to the flying of the Singapore ensign on the
island and Singapores installation of military equipment on the
island.
As for South Ledge, the Court noted that this low-tide elevation
fell within the apparently overlapping territorial waters generated
by PedraBranca/PulauBatuPuteh and by Middle Rocks. Recalling
that it had not been mandated by the Parties to draw the line of
delimitation with respect to their territorial waters in the area, the
Court concluded that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the
State in the territorial waters of which it is located.
In the context of a territorial dispute, the critical date upon which Malaysia has established to the satisfaction of the Court that [] when the British started their preparations for the
the dispute crystallized is of particular importance.8 As stated in construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty
the 2002 Indonesia/Malaysia judgment,9 the Court cannot take over the Sultan of Johor.
23
into consideration acts having taken place after the critical date.
With regard to the dispute as to sovereignty over Pedra Branca,
the Court considered 14 February 1980, the time of Singapores
protest in response to Malaysias publication of the 1979 map, as
the critical date. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the
The next issue is
dispute as to sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge
whether Malaysia
crystallized on 6 February 1993.10
has retained
sovereignty over
3. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca Pedra Branca
following 1844 or
Sovereignty whether the sovereignty has since passed to Singapore.24 In fact,
over Pedra Singapore contended that it acquired sovereignty over Pedra
Branca is the Branca in 1844 on the basis of the construction and operation of
central issue of Horsburgh lighthouse on the island as well as various other
the present actions.25 In response to this question, the ICJ particularly
case. While examined the conduct of the Parties relating to Padra Branca in
Singapore some detail.
argued that the
legal status of In this context, an important element is the construction and
Pedra Baranca commissioning of Horsburgh lighthouse on Pedra Branca by the
was that United Kingdom between 1850-1851. Malaysia argued that the
of terra nullius,11 Malaysia maintained that it had an original title conduct of the United Kingdom and Singapore related only to the
to Pedra Branca of long standing.12 Thus, an arising question was construction and commissioning of the lighthouse and later
whether Malaysia has established its claim over the island. In this operating it with the consent conferred by the Sultan of Johor and
respect, a principal issue relates to the question whether the the Temenggong in November 1844; and that they were not
Sultanate of Johora predecessor of Malaysiahad sovereignty actions intended to acquire sovereignty over Pedra Branca.26 By
over Pedra Branca. contrast, Singapore contended that the United Kingdom acquired
title to the island in the period of 1847-1851 by taking lawful
On this issue, the ICJ examined three letters, all from 1824, written possession of the island in connection with building the lighthouse
on it.27 In this regard, the ICJ did not draw any conclusions about 1850 for the whole of the following century or more.36 Overall, the
sovereignty on the basis of the construction and commissioning of Court considered that the relevant facts reflect a convergent
the lighthouse, while the Court noted that the only time the Johor evolution of the positions of the Parties concerning title to Pedra
authorities were present throughout that process was the two-day Branca. Hence, the Court concluded, by twelve votes to four that
visit of the Temenggong and his followers in early June 1950.28 by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to Singapore.37
Thus, the central question is whether the conduct of the Parties 4. Sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge
after the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca provides
a basis for the passing of sovereignty over the island from Johor to Concerning the legal status of Middle Rocks and South Ledge,
the United Kingdom, Singapores predecessor. In this respect, the basically Singapore argued that sovereignty over these marine
1953 correspondence is of central importance. On 12 June 1953, features comes with sovereignty over Pedra Branca. According to
the Colonial Secretary of Singapore sent a letter to the British Singapore, whoever owns the island owns Middle Rocks and South
Adviser to the Sultan of Johor, writing that: Ledge because they are dependencies of the island of Pedra
Branca.38 On the other hand, Malaysia claimed that Middle Rocks
It is [now] desired to clarify the status of Pedra Branca. I would therefore be most grateful to know whether there is and South Ledge have always been considered as features falling
any document showing a lease or grant of the rock or whether it has been ceded by the Government of the State of within Johor/Malaysian jurisdiction. Malaysia also argued that
29
Johore or in any other way disposed of. Singapore not only failed to protest against Malaysias
manifestations of sovereignty, but did not advance any claims of
In a letter dated 21 September 1953, the Acting State Secretary of its own to Middle Rocks and South Ledge either.39
Johor replied as follows:
The ICJ held that as far as the ancient original title held by the
I have the honour to refer to your letter dated 12th June 1953, addressed to the British Adviser, Johor, on the Sultan of Johor was concerned, Middle Rocks should be
question of the status of Pedra Branca Rock some 40 miles from Singapore and to inform you that the Johor understood to have had the same legal status as Pedra Branca. In
Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca.
30
relation to this, the Court clearly confirmed that the particular
circumstances concerning Pedra Branca which have come to affect
The opinions of the Parties were sharply divided with respect to the passing of title to the island to Singapore do not apply to other
the significance and interpretation of this correspondence. In maritime features, namely, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Hence,
particular, two issues must be highlighted. the Court concluded, by fifteen votes to one that original title to
Middle Rocks should remain with Malaysia as the successor to the
The first issue is whether the Acting State Secretary had the legal Sultan of Johor.40
capacity to write the 1953 letter. In this regard, the Court did not
uphold the Malaysian argument that the Acting State Secretary On the other hand, the legal status of South Ledge must be
did not have the authority and capacity to write the 1953 letter.31 distinguished from that of Middle Rocks, because South Ledge is a
low-tide elevation. In this regard, the Court recalled the
The second issue concerns the interpretation of the word 2001 Qatar/Bahrain case which stated that:
ownership in the reply of Johor. While in law ownership is
distinct from sovereignty, the ICJ took the view that in It is thus not established that in the absence of other rules and legal principles, low-tide elevations can, from the
41
international litigation, ownership over territory has sometimes viewpoint of the acquisition of sovereignty, be fully assimilated with islands or other land territory.
correspond to the law, where the territory which is the subject of the dispute is effectively administered by a State (i) effective exercise of State authority and intention to conduct
other than the one possessing the legal title, preference should be given to the holder of the title. In the event that titre de
the effectivit does not co-exist with any legal title, it must invariably be taken into consideration. Finally, there are souverain,
cases where the legal title is not capable of showing exactly the territorial expanse to which it relates. (ii) peaceful and continuous exercise of State authority,
The effectivit can then play an essential role in showing how the title is interpreted in practice.
49
(iii) public exercise of authority titre de souverain,
(iv) enduring for a long length of time.67
This formula was echoed by the 1994 Libya/Chad,50 the
2002Indonesia/Malaysia,51 and By applying these criteria, Judges Simma and Abraham concluded
the 2002 Cameroon/Nigeria judgments.52 In that a claim on the basis of prescription would have been
the Malaysia/Singapore dispute, Singapores effectivits do not unsuccessful.68 Judge ad hoc Dugard reached the same
correspond to the law, because Malaysia established its original conclusion.69
title over Pedra Branca. Hence, according to the formula of the
Court, preference must be given to Malaysia. As with all types of law, the antithesis between stability and
change is a fundamental issue underlying international law of
As Judges Simma and Abraham pointedly observed, it is arguable acquisition of territory. This will produce a difficult question how it
that an original title of a State cannot be passed to another State, is possible to reconcile the requirement of stability of sovereignty
unless there is consent of the holder of the legal title to the and change of circumstances with the passage of time.
cession of that title to another State.53 In relation to this, the ICJ, The Malaysia/Singapore judgment will provide an important
in the present case, explicitly stated that: example for discussion in this matter.
[A]ny passing of sovereignty over territory on the basis of the conduction of the Parties [] must be manifested
54
clearly and without any doubt by that conduct and the relevant fact.
BACKSTORY: Philippines wins arbitration case vs. China over South (5)Aggravation of Dispute:
China Sea
Finally, the Tribunal considered whether Chinas actions since the
In a 501-page award, the Tribunal decided in favor of the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute
Philippines and said that China does not have historic rights to the between the Parties.
South China Sea and that their nine-dash line claim has no legal
basis. The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the
implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and
Below are five key points included in the summary statement Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas
released to the media Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was
therefore excluded from compulsory settlement.
(1)Historic Rights and the Nine-Dash Line:
The Tribunal found, however, that Chinas recent large-scale land
The Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible
rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution
rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the
with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention. marine environment, built a large artificial island in the
Philippines exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of
The Tribunal also noted that, although 2 Chinese navigators and the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that
fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made formed part of the Parties dispute.
use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence
that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the BACKSTORY: #InquirerSeven FAQ about the Philippines vs. China
waters or their resources. arbitration case
The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to The Convention
claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within
the nine-dash line. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) a coastal state needs to have land before they can claim
(2)Status of Features: rights to the sea. The international treaty has been signed and
ratified by both the Philippines and China.
The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by
land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention You need to have land before you can have rights to the sea. Its
classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on as simple as that.You cannot just have rights to the sea without
historical materials in evaluating the features. owning land, former Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said in a
forum at the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center in 2014,
The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and citing the basic principle of UNCLOS.
noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small
groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and guano China asserts it has indisputable sovereignty and historic
mining enterprises were attempted. rights to over two-thirds of the 3.5 million square kilometers
South China Sea using its nine-dash line claim that overlaps with
The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute the UNCLOS-mandated 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone
inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical (EEZ).
economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal
concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating The line, encircling an area roughly the size of Mexico, overlaps
extended maritime zones. territories claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei
and Taiwan. China argues that its historic rights justify the line. But
the Philippines insists that these rights cannot be used to define
sea borders.
The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate
maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of The Philippines says since the South China Sea is mostly sea, there
the features claimed by China was capable of generating an is no land mass or clumps of islands and rocks there large enough
exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could to generate sea borders that will span the over 2 million square
without delimiting a boundarydeclare that certain sea areas are kilometers China is claiming with its nine-dash line.
within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because
those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of In recent months, China has conducted massive land reclamation
China. activities turning submerged reefs into artificial islands capable of
hosting military equipment and structures.
(3)Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:
Unclos, however, does not recognize artificial islands and states
Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic that these are not entitled to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea nor
zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated a 200 nm eez.
the Philippines sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by
(a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration,
(b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese
fishermen from fishing in the zone. CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC., Petitioner, v. THE PROVINCIAL
TREASURER OF BATANGAS, THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF
The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like BATANGAS, THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ASSESSOR OF
those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough NASUGBU, BATANGAS, Respondents.
Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting
access.
The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels DECISION
had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they
physically obstructed Philippine vessels.
APCN P 203,300,000.00 Petitioner Capwire asserts that recourse to the Local Board of
Assessment Appeals, or payment of the tax under protest, is
BMP-CNS P 65,662,000.00 inapplicable to the case at bar since there is no question of fact
involved, or that the question involved is not the reasonableness
SEA-ME-WE-3 CNS P P 7,540,000.00 of the amount assessed but, rather, the authority and power of
the assessor to impose the tax and of the treasurer to collect it.25
GP-CNS P1,789,000.00 It contends that there is only a pure question of law since the
issue is whether its submarine cable system, which it claims lies in
international waters, is taxable.26 Capwire holds the position that
Capwire claims that it also reported that the system the cable system is not subject to tax.27cralawred
"interconnects at the PLDT Landing Station in Nasugbu, Batangas,"
Respondents assessors and treasurers of the Province of
which is covered by a transfer certificate of title and tax
Batangasana Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas disagree with
declarations in the name of PLDT.11
Capwire and insist that the case presents questions of fact such as
As a result, the respondent Provincial Assessor of Batangas the extent and portion of the submarine cable system that lies
(Provincial Assessor) issued the following Assessments of Real within the jurisdiction of the said local governments, as well as the
Property (ARP) against Capwire: nature of the so-called indefeasible rights as property of
Capwire.28 Such questions are allegedly resolvable only before
administrative agencies like the Local Board of Assessment
Appeals.29
ARP Cable System Assessed Value
Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. - The following 1. In 1867, the Legislature of Mississippi granted a charter to a
arc exempted from payment of the real property tax: lottery company for twenty-five years in consideration of a
stipulated sum in cash, an annual payment of a further sum, and a
(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any percentage of receipts from the sale of tickets. A provision of the
of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof constitution adopted in 1868 declares that
has been granted, for consideration of otherwise, to a taxable
person; "The legislature shall never authorize any lottery, nor shall the sale
of lottery tickets be allowed, nor shall any lottery heretofore
(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents authorized be permitted to be drawn, or tickets therein to be
appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious cemeteries sold."
and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes;
Held:
1. That this provision is not in conflict with sec. 10, art. 1, of the By their answer the respondents admit that they were carrying on
Constitution of the United States, which prohibits a State from a lottery enterprise under the name mentioned. They aver that in
"passing a law impairing the obligation of contracts." so doing they were exercising the rights, privileges, and franchises
conferred by their charter, and that they have in all things
2. That such a charter is in legal effect nothing more than a license complied with its provisions. They further aver that their rights
to enjoy the privilege conferred for the time, and on the terms and franchises were not impaired by the constitutional provision
specified, subject to future legislative or constitutional control or and legislative enactment aforesaid.
withdrawal.
The state replied to the answer by admitting that the respondents
2. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, had in every particular conformed to the provisions of their
commented upon and explained. charter.
3. The legislature cannot, by chartering a lottery company, defeat The court, holding that the act of incorporation had been
the will of the people of the state authoritatively expressed, in abrogated and annulled by the constitution of 1868 and the
relation to the continuance of such business in their midst. legislation of July 16, 1870, adjudged that the respondents be
ousted of and from all the liberties and privileges, franchises and
emoluments, exercised by them under and by virtue of the said
act.
The Legislature of Mississippi passed an Act, approved Feb. 16,
1867, entitled "An Act incorporating the Mississippi Agricultural The judgment was, on error, affirmed by the supreme court, and
and Manufacturing Aid Society." Its provisions, so far as they bear Stone and others sued out this writ.
upon the questions involved, are as follows:
The City of Manila has the power to enact Ordinance No. 8027
There are two kinds of implied repeal. The first is: where the
provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are
irreconcilably contradictory, the latter act, to the extent of the
conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The Ordinance No. 8027 was passed by the SangguniangPanlungsod of
second is: if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier Manila in the exercise of its police power. Police power is the
one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and
the earlier law. The oil companies argue that the situation here ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good
falls under the first category. order or safety and general welfare of the people. This power
flows from the recognition that saluspopuliest suprema lex (the
welfare of the people is the supreme law).
The oil companies insist that mandamus does not lie against
respondent in consideration of the separation of powers of the Ordinance No. 8027 is a valid police power measure because there
executive and judiciary. However, while it is true that Courts will is a concurrence of lawful subject and lawful method. It was
not interfere by mandamus proceedings with the legislative or enacted for the purpose of promoting sound urban planning,
executive departments of the government in the legitimate ensuring health, public safety and general welfare of the
exercise of its powers, there is an exception to enforce mere residents of Manila. The Sanggunian was impelled to take
ministerial acts required by law to be performed by some officer measures to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic
thereof. A writ of mandamus is the power to compel the devastation in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty Terminals. Towards this objective, the Sanggunian reclassified the
resulting from office, trust or station. area defined in the ordinance from industrial to commercial.
The oil companies also argue that petitioners had a plain, speedy The ordinance was intended to safeguard the rights to life,
and adequate remedy to compel respondent to enforce Ordinance security and safety of all the inhabitants of Manila and not just of
No. 8027, which was to seek relief from the President of the a particular class. The depot is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a
Philippines through the Secretary of the Department of Interior representation of western interests which means that it is a
and Local Government (DILG) by virtue of the Presidents terrorist target. As long as it there is such a target in their midst,
power of supervision over local government units. This suggested the residents of Manila are not safe. It therefore became
process, however, would be unreasonably long, tedious and necessary to remove these terminals to dissipate the threat. Wide
consequently injurious to the interests of the local government discretion is vested on the legislative authority to determine not
unit (LGU) and its constituents whose welfare is sought to be only what the interests of the public require but also what
measures are necessary for the protection of such interests. An ordinance based on reasonable classification does not violate
Clearly, the Sanggunian was in the best position to determine the the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the law. The
needs of its constituents. requirements for a valid and reasonable classification are: (1) it
must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the
purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions
only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same
In the exercise of police power, property rights of individuals may class. The law may treat and regulate one class differently from
be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the another class provided there are real and substantial differences
objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the government to distinguish one class from another.
may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty,
property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote the
general welfare. However, the interference must be reasonable
and not arbitrary. And to forestall arbitrariness, the methods or Here, there is a reasonable classification. What the ordinance
means used to protect public health, morals, safety or welfare seeks to prevent is a catastrophic devastation that will result from
must have a reasonable relation to the end in view. a terrorist attack. Unlike the depot, the surrounding community is
not a high-value terrorist target. Any damage caused by fire or
explosion occurring in those areas would be nothing compared to
the damage caused by a fire or explosion in the depot itself.
The means adopted by the Sanggunian was the enactment of a Accordingly, there is a substantial distinction. The enactment of
zoning ordinance which reclassified the area where the depot is the ordinance which provides for the cessation of the operations
situated from industrial to commercial. A zoning ordinance is of these terminals removes the threat they pose. Therefore it is
defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically germane to the purpose of the ordinance. The classification is not
arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political limited to the conditions existing when the ordinance was enacted
subdivision into specific land uses as present and future projection but to future conditions as well. Finally, the ordinance is applicable
of needs. As a result of the zoning, the continued operation of the to all businesses and industries in the area it delineated.
businesses of the oil companies in their present location will no
longer be permitted. The power to establish zones for industrial,
commercial and residential uses is derived from the police power
itself and is exercised for the protection and benefit of the Ordinance No. 8027 is not inconsistent with RA 7638 and RA 8479
residents of a locality. Consequently, the enactment of Ordinance
No. 8027 is within the power of the SangguniangPanlungsod of
the City of Manila and any resulting burden on those affected
cannot be said to be unjust. The oil companies and the DOE assert that Ordinance No. 8027 is
unconstitutional because it contravenes RA 7638 (DOE Act of
1992) and RA 8479 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Law of
1998).
Ordinance No. 8027 is not unfair, oppressive or confiscatory which
amounts to taking without compensation
Ordinance No. 8027 is not partial and discriminatory Another reason that militates against the DOEs assertions is
that Section 4 of Article X of the Constitution confines the
Presidents power over LGUs to one of general supervision.
Consequently, the Chief Executive or his or her alter egos, cannot
The oil companies take the position that the ordinance has exercise the power of control over them. The President and his or
discriminated against and singled out the Pandacan Terminals her alter egos, the department heads, cannot interfere with the
despite the fact that the Pandacan area is congested with activities of local governments, so long as they act within the
buildings and residences that do not comply with the National scope of their authority. Accordingly, the DOE cannot substitute its
Building Code, Fire Code and Health and Sanitation Code. own discretion for the discretion exercised by the sanggunian of
the City of Manila. In local affairs, the wisdom of local officials
must prevail as long as they are acting within the parameters of
the Constitution and the law.
Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial to commercial and
directedcertain business owners and operators, including the
Ordinance No. 8027 is not invalid for failure to comply with RA three oil giants to cease and desistfrom operating their businesses
7924 and EO 72 there.
The oil companies argue that zoning ordinances of LGUs are Ordinance No. 8027, approved by Manila City Council on
required to be submitted to the Metropolitan Manila November 28, 2001 and effective December 28, 2001, reclassifies
Development Authority (MMDA) for review and if found to be in portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana from industrial to commercial
compliance with its metropolitan physical framework plan and and directs the owners and operators of businesses to cease and
regulations, it shall endorse the same to the Housing and Land Use desist from operating their businesses within 6 months from the
Regulatory Board (HLURB). Their basis is Section 3 (e) of RA 7924 ordinances effectivity. Among the businesses in the area are the
and Section 1 of E.O. 72. They argue that because Ordinance No. so-called Pandacan Terminals of Chevron, Petron, and Shell.
8027 did not go through this review process, it is invalid.
The challenged ordinance also caused the automatic cancellation On the impairment of freedom to contract by limiting duration of
of the license of the hotels that violated the ordinance. use to twice every 24 hours- It was not violative of due process.
'Liberty' as understood in democracies, is not license; it is 'liberty
The lower court declared the ordinance unconstitutional. regulated by law.' Implied in the term is restraint by law for the
good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and
Hence, this appeal by the city of Manila. order of society and the general well-being.
Held: No. HELD: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC
noted that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within
Rationale: the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and
must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it
The mantle of protection associated with the due must also conform to the following substantive requirements:
process guaranty does not cover petitioners. This particular
manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
to safeguard public morals is immune from such imputation of
nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything (2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and
narrow the scope of police power which has been properly (3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
limitable of powers,4 extending as it does "to all the great public
needs." (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
It would be, to paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy (6) must not be unreasonable.
the very purpose of the state if it could be deprived or allowed
itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health,
public morals, public safety and the general welfare. Negatively
put, police power is that inherent and plenary power in the State The police power of the City Council, however broad and far-
which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full to the comfort, reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon;
safety, and welfare of society. and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be
reasonable and for the public good. In the case at bar, the
On the legislative organs of the government, whether national or enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated
local, primarily rest the exercise of the police power, which, it power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe
regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order,
safety and general welfare of the people.
FACTS: Private respondent Malate Tourist Development
In view of the requirements of due process, equal protection and Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation engaged in the business of
other applicable constitutional guaranties however, the exercise of operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging houses. It built and
such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or opened Victoria Court in Malate which was licensed as a motel
property of any person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such although duly accredited with the DOT as a hotel. On 28 June
exercise of police power may be considered as either capricious, 1993, MTDC filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a
whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
violation of any other applicable constitutional guaranty may call Order7 with the lower court impleading as defendants, herein
for correction by the courts. petitioners City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim (Lim), Hon. Joselito
L. Atienza, and the members of the City Council of Manila (City
The Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and lifted the Council). MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes
injuction on the Ordinance in question. motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be
declared invalid and unconstitutional.
The enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of It is an ordinance which permanently restricts the use of property
delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general that it can not be used for any reasonable purpose goes beyond
laws. regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the property
without just compensation.78 It is intrusive and violative of the
The police power granted to LGUs must always be exercised with private property rights of individuals.
utmost observance of the rights of the people to due process and
equal protection of the law. Due process requires the intrinsic
validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his
life, liberty and property. There are two different types of taking that can be identified. A
possessory taking occurs when the government confiscates or
physically occupies property. A regulatory taking occurs when
the governments regulation leaves no reasonable economically
Requisites for the valid exercise of Police Power are not met viable use of the property.
To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale What is crucial in judicial consideration of regulatory takings is
for the enactment of the Ordinance, and to free it from the that government regulation is a taking if it leaves no reasonable
imputation of constitutional infirmity, not only must it appear that economically viable use of property in a manner that interferes
the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of with reasonable expectations for use. When the owner of real
a particular class, require an interference with private rights, but property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically
the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking.
individuals.60 It must be evident that no other alternative for the
accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can
work. A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of
the police measure and the means employed for its The Ordinance gives the owners and operators of the prohibited
accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public establishments three (3) months from its approval within which to
interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property wind up business operations or to transfer to any place outside of
will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. the Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds
of business allowable within the area. The directive to wind up
business operations amounts to a closure of the establishment, a
permanent deprivation of property, and is practically confiscatory.
Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police measure Unless the owner converts his establishment to accommodate an
shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights a allowed business, the structure which housed the previous
violation of the due process clause. business will be left empty and gathering dust. It is apparent that
the Ordinance leaves no reasonable economically viable use of
property in a manner that interferes with reasonable expectations
for use.
The object of the Ordinance was, accordingly, the promotion and
protection of the social and moral values of the community. The second and third options to transfer to any place outside of
Granting for the sake of argument that the objectives of the the Ermita-Malate area or to convert into allowed businessesare
Ordinance are within the scope of the City Councils police powers, confiscatory as well. The penalty of permanent closure in cases of
the means employed for the accomplishment thereof were subsequent violations found in Section 4 of the Ordinance is also
unreasonable and unduly oppressive. equivalent to a taking of private property.
The worthy aim of fostering public morals and the eradication of Petitioners cannot take refuge in classifying the measure as a
the communitys social ills can be achieved through means less zoning ordinance. A zoning ordinance, although a valid exercise of
restrictive of private rights; it can be attained by reasonable police power, which limits a wholesome property to a use which
restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. The closing can not reasonably be made of it constitutes the taking of such
down and transfer of businesses or their conversion into property without just compensation. Private property which is not
businesses allowed under the Ordinance have no reasonable
noxious nor intended for noxious purposes may not, by zoning, be without judicial proceedings. That tenet applies to a nuisance per
destroyed without compensation. Such principle finds no support se, or one which affects the immediate safety of persons and
in the principles of justice as we know them. The police powers of property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law
local government units which have always received broad and of necessity. It can not be said that motels are injurious to the
liberal interpretation cannot be stretched to cover this particular rights of property, health or comfort of the community. It is a
taking. legitimate business. If it be a nuisance per accidens it may be so
proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose. A motel is not per
se a nuisance warranting its summary abatement without judicial
intervention.
Further, The Ordinance confers upon the mayor arbitrary and
unrestricted power to close down establishments. Ordinances
such as this, which make possible abuses in its execution,
depending upon no conditions or qualifications whatsoever other Not only does the Ordinance contravene the Code, it likewise runs
than the unregulated arbitrary will of the city authorities as the counter to the provisions of P.D. 499. As correctly argued by
touchstone by which its validity is to be tested, are unreasonable MTDC, the statute had already converted the residential Ermita-
and invalid. The Ordinance should have established a rule by Malate area into a commercial area. The decree allowed the
which its impartial enforcement could be secured. Similarly, the establishment and operation of all kinds of commercial
Ordinance does not specify the standards to ascertain which establishments except warehouse or open storage depot, dump or
establishments tend to disturb the community, annoy the yard, motor repair shop, gasoline service station, light industry
inhabitants, and adversely affect the social and moral welfare of with any machinery or funeral establishment. The rule is that for
the community. an ordinance to be valid and to have force and effect, it must not
only be within the powers of the council to enact but the same
must not be in conflict with or repugnant to the general law.
The cited case supports the nullification of the Ordinance for lack
of comprehensible standards to guide the law enforcers in
carrying out its provisions. Conclusion
On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled
An Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels,
The Court likewise cannot see the logic for prohibiting the lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the
business and operation of motels in the Ermita-Malate area but City of Manila. White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and
not outside of this area. A noxious establishment does not motels who sought to have the Ordinance be nullified as the said
become any less noxious if located outside the area. Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. The RTC
ruled in favor of WLC. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution.
The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid
The standard where women are used as tools for entertainment exercise of police power. Under the LGC, the City is empowered to
is also discriminatory as prostitutionone of the hinted ills the regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes,
Ordinance aims to banishis not a profession exclusive to women. restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses,
Both men and women have an equal propensity to engage in lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist
prostitution. Thus, the discrimination is invalid. guides and transports. The CA ruled in favor of the City.
C. The Ordinance is repugnant to general laws; it is ultra vires ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid.
The Ordinance is in contravention of the Code (Sec 458) as the HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it
latter merely empowers local government units to regulate, and indeed infringes upon individual liberty. It also violates the due
not prohibit, the establishments enumerated in Section 1 thereof. process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against
arbitrary regulation or seizure. The said ordinance invades private
rights. Note that not all who goes into motels and hotels for wash
With respect to cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, up rate are really there for obscene purposes only. Some are
inns, pension houses, lodging houses, and other similar tourists who needed rest or to wash up or to freshen up. Hence,
establishments, the only power of the City Council to legislate the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more
relative thereto is to regulate them to promote the general or less subjected only to a limited group of people. The SC
welfare. The Code still withholds from cities the power to suppress reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to
and prohibit altogether the establishment, operation and the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands
maintenance of such establishments. of public interest or public welfare.
It is well to point out that petitioners also cannot seek cover under Case Brief: White Light Corporation v City of Manila
the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement of nuisances
NOVEMBER 26, 2013JEFF REY
G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009 Whether Ordinance No. 7774 is a valid exercise of police power of
the State.
WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA.
MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs. Held:
Facts:
The facts of this case will recall to mind not only the recent City of
Manila v Laguio Jr ruling, but the 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate
On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor
Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled An Ordinance of Manila. The common thread that runs through those decisions
Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and the case at bar goes beyond the singularity of the localities
and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging covered under the respective ordinances. All three ordinances
Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of were enacted with a view of regulating public morals including
Manila (the Ordinance). The ordinance sanctions any person or particular illicit activity in transient lodging establishments. This
corporation who will allow the admission and charging of room could be described as the middle case, wherein there is no
rates for less than 12 hours or the renting of rooms more than wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the services offered by
twice a day. these establishments have been severely restricted. At its core,
this is another case about the extent to which the State can
intrude into and regulate the lives of its citizens
The petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium
Corporation (TC), and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development
Corporation (STDC), who own and operate several hotels and The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of
motels in Metro Manila, filed a motion to intervene and to admit decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to
attached complaint-in-intervention on the ground that the be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the
ordinance will affect their business interests as operators. The local government unit to enact and pass according to the
respondents, in turn, alleged that the ordinance is a legitimate procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following
exercise of police power. substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the
Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but
may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public
RTC declared Ordinance No. 7774 null and void as it strikes at the
policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously
guarded by the Constitution. Reference was made to the
provisions of the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and
the incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate The ordinance in this case prohibits two specific and distinct
economic enterprises. Finally, from the observation that the illicit business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a
relationships the Ordinance sought to dissuade could nonetheless room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to be
be consummated by simply paying for a 12-hour stay, rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units
by the Local Government Code through such implements as the
When elevated to CA, the respondents asserted that the general welfare clause.
ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Section
458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which confers on cities
the power to regulate the establishment, operation and
maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State
inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. Police
establishments, including tourist guides and transports. Also, they power has been used as justification for numerous and varied
contended that under Art III Sec 18 of Revised Manila Charter, actions by the State.
they have the power to enact all ordinances it may deem
necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the
furtherance of the prosperity and the promotion of the morality,
peace, good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of The apparent goal of the ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate
the city and its inhabitants and to fix penalties for the violation of the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution,
ordinances. drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are
unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police
power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not
sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means
Petitioners argued that the ordinance is unconstitutional and void must align with the Constitution.
since it violates the right to privacy and freedom of movement; it
is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is unreasonable and
oppressive interference in their business.
SC contended that if they were to take the myopic view that an
CA, in turn, reversed the decision of RTC and affirmed the ordinance should be analyzed strictly as to its effect only on the
constitutionality of the ordinance. First, it held that the ordinance petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only restraint
did not violate the right to privacy or the freedom of movement, imposed by the law that they were capacitated to act upon is the
as it only penalizes the owners or operators of establishments that injury to property sustained by the petitioners. Yet, they also
admit individuals for short time stays. Second, the virtually recognized the capacity of the petitioners to invoke as well the
limitless reach of police power is only constrained by having a constitutional rights of their patrons those persons who would
lawful object obtained through a lawful method. The lawful be deprived of availing short time access or wash-up rates to the
objective of the ordinance is satisfied since it aims to curb immoral lodging establishments in question. The rights at stake herein fell
activities. There is a lawful method since the establishments are within the same fundamental rights to liberty. Liberty as
still allowed to operate. Third, the adverse effect on the guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to
establishments is justified by the well-being of its constituents in include the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary
general. restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere
freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is
deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with
which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such
Hence, the petitioners appeared before the SC. restraint as are necessary for the common welfare,
An ordinance which prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien
depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the
business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the said Act, brought an action to obtain a judicial declaration, and to
legitimacy of the ordinance as a police power measure. It must enjoin the Secretary of Finance, Jaime Hernandez, and all other
appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal
from those of a particular class, require an interference with treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacked the
private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the constitutionality of the Act, contending that:
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of
private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for It denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and
the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights deprives of their liberty and property without due process of law.
can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist
between the purposes of the measure and the means employed The subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the
for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the title thereof.
public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private
The Act violates international and treaty obligations of the
property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
Republic of the Philippines.
Issue/s:
Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall
Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or
be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights.
generally accepted principles.
The behavior which the ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already
Discussions:
prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying
existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the A generally accepted principle of international law, should be
proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police observed by us in good faith. If a treaty would be in conflict with a
work would be more effective in easing the situation. So would statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an
the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be
prostitution and drug use. These measures would have minimal
intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate Ruling/s:
merchants. Further, it is apparent that the ordinance can easily be
circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without any Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted
hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. Moreover, drug principle. In this case, the Supreme Court saw no conflict between
dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect wash rates from their the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The
clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent for equal protection of the law clause does not demand absolute
motel rooms and even apartments. equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons
shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions
SC reiterated that individual rights may be adversely affected only both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced; and, that
to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate the equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which
demands of public interest or public welfare. The State is a applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it
leviathan that must be restrained from needlessly intruding into applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable
the lives of its citizens. However well-intentioned the ordinance grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall
may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the within such class and those who do not.
rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. The
ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of
the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons
without sufficient justification. The ordinance rashly equates wash Constitutional Law Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal
rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with Laws in the Exercise of Police Power
immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions.
Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to
take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then)
particularly in the retail business. For some time he and his fellow
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court Chinese businessmen enjoyed a monopoly in the local market in
of Appeals is REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or
Court of Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to
hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No pronouncement as to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business.
costs. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the
ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP
which, according to him, violates the equal protection clause
(pactasundservanda). He said that as a Chinese businessman
ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the
income generation of the country he should be given equal
G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957
opportunity.
LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien
ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties
residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected. by
or generally accepted principles.
Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner,
HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted
vs.
principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised
JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal
SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila, respondents. protection of the law clause does not demand absolute equality
amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be
treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced; and, that the equal
Facts: protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only
to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to
Driven by aspirations for economic independence and national all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for
security, the Congress enacted Act No. 1180 entitled An Act to making a distinction between those who fall within such class and
Regulate the Retail Business. The main provisions of the Act, those who do not.
among others, are:
For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a
treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be
upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power
which, being inherent could not be bargained away or standard by which the authority must be exercised. In addition to
surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can the general policy of the law to protect the local consumer by
no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump rates, P.D. 1956
city market. expressly authorizes the ERB to impose additional amounts to
augment the resources of the Fund.
November 6, 2010
FACTS: 175 SCRA 343 Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights
Equal Protection Valid Classification
President Marcos created a special account in the General Fund
designated as the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). The OPSF
was designated to reimburse oil companies for cost increases in
crude oil. Subsequently, EO 137 expanded the grounds for Eminent Domain Just Compensation
reimbursement to oil companies for cost underrecovery. Now, the
petition avers that the creation of the trust fund violates the
Constitution that if a special tax is collected for a specific purpose,
the revenue generated as a special fund to be used only for the These are four consolidated cases questioning the
purpose indicated. constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (R.A.
No. 6657 and related laws i.e., Agrarian Land Reform Code or R.A.
No. 3844).
ISSUE:
Is the OPSF constitutional? Brief background: Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice
and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of
an agrarian reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an
agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and
RULING: regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers,
Yes. The tax collected is not in pure exercise of the taxing power. It to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844 was enacted
is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide a means for the in 1963. P.D. No. 27 was promulgated in 1972 to provide for the
stabilization of the petroleum products industry. The levy is compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among
primarily in the exercise of the police power of the State. tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for
landowners. In 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No.
228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of
OSMEA vs. ORBOS PD 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands
covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. In
220 SCRA 703 1987, P.P. No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform
program (CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. No. 229, providing the
GR No. 99886, March 31, 1993 mechanics for its (PP131s) implementation, was also enacted.
Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive
" To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation of the power to tax, Agrarian Reform Law in 1988. This law, while considerably
there must be a standard which implies that the legislature changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives
determines matter of principle and lays down fundamental them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its
policy." provisions.
FACTS: Senator John Osmea assails the constitutionality of [Two of the consolidated cases are discussed below]
paragraph 1c of PD 1956, as amended by EO 137, empowering the
Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) to approve the increase of fuel
prices or impose additional amounts on petroleum products which
proceeds shall accrue to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary)
established for the reimbursement to ailing oil companies in the
event of sudden price increases. The petitioner avers that the
collection on oil products establishments is an undue and invalid
The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc.
delegation of legislative power to tax. Further, the petitioner
sought exception from the land distribution scheme provided for
points out that since a 'special fund' consists of monies collected
in R.A. 6657. The Association is comprised of landowners of
through the taxing power of a State, such amounts belong to the
ricelands and cornlands whose landholdings do not exceed 7
State, although the use thereof is limited to the special
hectares. They invoke that since their landholdings are less than 7
purpose/objective for which it was created. It thus appears that
hectares, they should not be forced to distribute their land to their
the challenge posed by the petitioner is premised primarily on the
tenants under R.A. 6657 for they themselves have shown
view that the powers granted to the ERB under P.D. 1956, as
willingness to till their own land. In short, they want to be
amended, partake of the nature of the taxation power of the
exempted from agrarian reform program because they claim to
State.
belong to a different class.
(2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; Landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill
District, Victorias, Negros Occidental and Planters
(3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and Committee Inc., with 1400 planter-members,
submitted a petition seeking to prohibit the
(4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
implementation of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229.
RULING