You are on page 1of 8

Page 2 of Outline

WILLIAM REAGAN VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE


FACTS: William Reagan is a US citizen assigned at Clark Air Base to help provide technical
assistance to the US Air Force (USAF). In April 1960 Reagan imported a 1960 Cadillac car
valued at $6,443.83. Two months later, he got permission to sell the same car provided that
he would sell the car to a US citizen or a member of the USAF. He sold it to Willie Johnson,
Jr. for $6,600.00 as shown by a Bill of Sale. The sale took place within Clark Air Base. As a
result of this transaction, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue calculated the net taxable
income of Reagan to be at P17,912.34 and that his income tax would be P2,797.00. Reagan
paid the assessed tax but at the same time he sought for a refund because he claims that he
is exempt. Reagan claims that the sale took place in foreign soil since Clark Air Base, in
legal contemplation is a base outside the Philippines. Reagan also cited that under the
Military Bases Agreement, he, by nature of his employment, is exempt from Philippine
taxation.
ISSUE: Is the sale considered done in a foreign soil not subject to Philippine income tax?
HELD: No. The Philippines is independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised
over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its
limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and
everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction,
both territorial and personal. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Military Bases
Agreement that lends support to Reagans assertion. The Base has not become foreign soil
or territory. This countrys jurisdictional rights therein, certainly not excluding the power
to tax, have been preserved, the Philippines merely consents that the US exercise
jurisdiction in certain cases this is just a matter of comity, courtesy and expediency. It is
likewise noted that he indeed is employed by the USAF and his income is derived from US
source but the income derived from the sale is not of US source hence taxable.
PEOPLE VS GOZO
FACTS: Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot which was located inside the US Naval
Reservation which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. Upon the advice of
an assistant in the Mayors Office and some neighbors, she demolished the house standing
thereon without acquiring the necessary permits and then later on erected another house.
She was then charged by the City Engineers Office for violating a municipal order which
requires her to secure permits for any demolition and/or construction within the City. She
was convicted in violation thereof by the lower court. She appealed and countered that the
City of Olongapo has no administrative jurisdiction over the said lot because it is within a
Naval Base of a foreign country.
ISSUE: Is the Municipal Ordinance enforceable within the US Naval Base?
HELD: Yes. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as
part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses
committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior
or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government
retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the
United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of (Military
Bases Agreement). Hence, in the exercise of its sovereignty, the State through the City of
Olongapo does have administrative jurisdiction over the lot located within the US Naval
Base.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS FRANK ROBERTSON
FACTS: Frank and James Robertson (brothers) were American citizens born in the
Philippines. They stayed here in the Philippines until they were repatriated by the US in
1945. Thereafter they established their domicile in California. Soon after they were
employed by the US Federal Government as workers in the US Navy. They were later
assigned at the US Naval Base in Olongapo City in 1962. They hold American passports and
are admitted as special temporary visitors under the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.
On the other hand, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) contends that the
American brothers are subject to taxation because their residence here in the Philippines is
not by reason of their employment in connection with the construction, maintenance,
operation or defense of the US Bases here as provided by the Military Bases Agreement.
Further, the burden of proof of such exemption to taxation shall be upon the respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not the American brothers are exempt from taxation?
HELD: Yes. The law and the facts of the case are so clear that there is no room left for doubt
the validity of the brothers defense. In order to avail oneself of the tax exemption under
the RP-US Military Bases Agreement: he must be a national of the United States employed
in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation or defense, of the bases,
residing in the Philippines by reason of such employment, and the income derived is from
the U.S. Government (Art. XII par. 2 of PI-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947). Said
circumstances are all present in the case at bar.
ISAGANI CRUZ VS SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FACTS: Former Justice Isagani Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of the
Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA Law) on the ground that
the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public
domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian
doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. The IPRA law basically
enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which may include
natural resources.
In addition, Cruz et al contend that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of
ancestral domains and ancestral lands which might even include private lands found
within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law also violate the rights of private
landowners.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.
HELD: The Supreme Court deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and
reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same result transpired. Since there was
no majority vote, Cruzs petition was dismissed and the constitutionality of the IPRA law
was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include public domain somehow against
the regalian doctrine.
TAADA VS ANGARA
FACTS: This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers,
taxpayers, and various NGOs to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement.

Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and
against to the Filipino First policy. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially
its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly
agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service
sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country.
These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the
signatory Senators, a free market espoused by WTO.

Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since
the said Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it
meant that Congress could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and
general welfare if such legislation would not conform to the WTO Agreement.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.

2. Whether or not the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization and the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in
Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that agreement cited by petitioners
directly contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II
and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or


impair the exercise of legislative power by Congress.

4. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial
power by this Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.

5. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate in the ratification by the President
of the Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization
implied rejection of the treaty embodied in the Final Act.

DISCUSSIONS:

1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and
services. It contemplates neither economic seclusion nor mendicancy in the international
community. The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak and developing
economies, which comprise the vast majority of its members. Unlike in the UN where major states
have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on
the basis of sovereign equality, with each members vote equal in weight to that of any other. Hence,
poor countries can protect their common interests more effectively through the WTO than through
one-on-one negotiations with developed countries. Within the WTO, developing countries can form
powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the Organization.
Which is not merely a matter of practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus,
the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing countries like
the Philippines to share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their
economic development.

In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation,
the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to
be automatically part of our own laws. A state which has contracted valid international obligations
is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment
of the obligations undertaken. Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic
Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may
intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedures. With regard to Infringement of a design patent, WTO members shall be free to
determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own
internal systems and processes.

The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is balanced
by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.
The Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the
WTO Agreement thereby making it a part of the law of the land is a legitimate exercise of its
sovereign duty and power.
RULINGS:

In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the
right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. As explained by former Chief Justice
Roberto Concepcion, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of
government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or so
capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not
only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.

While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the
world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only
against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did
not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and
services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage
the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit
them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on
foreign competition that is unfair.

By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater
benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with
coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree
to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown by the foregoing treaties
Philippines has entered, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution,
based on the rationale that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and amity
with all nations.

The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent
as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our judicial
system.

The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act required
from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement. Moreover, the
Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the members deliberation on
August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated August 11, 1994, the senators of
the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was concurring in.
Page 8 of Outline under SEPARATION OF POWERS/INTERDEPENDENCE/BLENDING OF
POWERS & CHECKS AND BALANCES

IN RE: LAURETA AND MARAVILLA

DEMETRIA VS ALBA

MANTRUSTE SYSTEM VS CA

ANGARA VS ELECTORAL COMMISSION

PLANAS VS GIL

LUZON STEVEDORING VS SSS

GARCIA VS MACARAIG

BONDOC VS HRET

DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS COMELEC

AMPATUAN VS SEC. DE LIMA

You might also like