javellana

Constitutional Law Political Question Validity of the 1973 Constitution Restriction to Judicial
Power
In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973 Constitution. Javellana, a
Filipino and a registered voter sought to enoin the !"ec #ec and other ca$inet secretaries from
implementing the said constitution. Javellana averred that the said constitution is void $ecause the same
was initiated $% the president. &e argued that the 'resident is w(o power to proclaim the ratification $%
the Filipino people of the proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratif% such constitution is not
a free election there $eing intimidation and fraud.
ISSUE: )hether or not the #C must give due course to the petition.
HELD: *he #C ruled that the% cannot rule upon the case at $ar. Maorit% of the #C ustices e"pressed the
view that the% were concluded $% the ascertainment made $% the president of the 'hilippines, in the
e"ercise of his political prerogatives. Further, there $eing no competent evidence to show such fraud and
intimidation during the election, it is to $e assumed that the people had ac+uiesced in or accepted the
1973 Constitution. *he +uestion of the validit% of the 1973 Constitution is a political +uestion which was
left to the people in their sovereign capacit% to answer. *heir ratification of the same had shown such
ac+uiescence.
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION vs. COMELEC
140 SCRA 455, January 7, 1986
FACTS:
Petitions were fie! "uestionin# t$e %ai!ity of &P 88', (ain# a s)e(ia ee(tion for Presi!ent
an! *i(e+Presi!ent on Fe,ruary 7, 1986- T$e aw was ena(te! foowin# t$e etter of
Presi!ent .ar(os to t$e &P t$at $e was /irre%o(a,y %a(atin# t$e )osition of Presi!ent
effe(ti%e ony w$en t$e ee(tion is $e! an! after t$e winner is )ro(ai0e! an! "uaifie! as
Pres- ,y ta1in# $is oat$ of offi(e ten !ays after $is )ro(a0ation-/ T$e )rin(i)a #roun! for
t$e ($aen#e to t$e %ai!ity of t$e statute was t$at t$e (on!itiona resi#nation of t$e
Presi!ent !i! not (reate a %a(an(y re"uire! ,y Arti(e *22, Se(- 9 w$i($ aut$ori3e! t$e (ain#
of a s)e(ia ee(tion-
2SS45S:
1- 6$et$er or not &P 88' is un(onstitutiona-
7- 6$et$er or not t$e Su)re0e Court s$ou! aow in(u0,ent Presi!ent .ar(os to run on
t$at sai! s)e(ia ee(tion-
859::
After !ei,eratin#, 7 Justi(es %ote! to !is0iss- ;n t$e ot$er $an!, 5 Justi(es %ote! to
!e(are t$e statute un(onstitutiona- 2n a((or!an(e wit$ Ja%eana %- 5<e(uti%e Se(retary, of
t$e %iew t$at as t$ere were ess t$an ten %otes for !e(arin# &P 88' un(onstitutiona- T$e
)etitions s$ou! ,e !is0isse!-
;n t$e se(on! issue, it turne! out to ,e a )oiti(a "uestion- 2t (an ony ,e !e(i!e! ,y t$e
)eo)e in t$eir so%erei#n (a)a(ity at t$e s($e!ue! ee(tion- T$us, it is outsi!e t$e a0,it of
t$e (ourts- T$e Court (annot stan! in t$e way of ettin# t$e )eo)e !e(i!e t$rou#$ t$eir
,aot, eit$er to t$e #i%e t$e in(u0,ent )resi!ent a new 0an!ate or ee(t a new )resi!ent-
1
!end!ent vs Revision
,am$ino was a$le to gather the signatures of -,3.7,9/. individuals for an initiative petition to amend the
1907 Constitution. *hat said num$er of votes comprises at least 1. per centum of all registered voters
with each legislative district at least represented $% at least 3 per centum of its registered voters. *his has
$een verified $% local C1M!,!C registrars as well. *he proposed amendment to the constitution see2s
to modif% #ecs 137 of 4rt 5I and #ec 136 of 4rt 5II and $% adding 4rt 75III entitled 8*ransitor%
'rovisions9. *hese proposed changes will shift the president $icameral3presidential s%stem to a
:nicameral3'arliamentar% form of government. *he C1M!,!C, on 31 4ug .;;-, denied the petition of
the ,am$ino group due to the lac2 of an ena$ling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution < this is in pursuant to the ruling in #antiago vs C1M!,!C. ,am$ino et al contended that
the decision in the aforementioned case is onl% $inding to the parties within that case.
ISSUE: )hether or not the petition for initiative met the re+uirements of #ec . 4rt75II of the 1907
Constitution.
HELD: *he proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. *he proponents secure the
signatures in their private capacit% and not as pu$lic officials. *he proponents are not disinterested
parties who can impartiall% e"plain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the
people. *he proponents present favora$l% their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments
against their proposal. *he proponents, or their supporters, often pa% those who gather the signatures.
*hus, there is no presumption that the proponents o$served the constitutional re+uirements in gathering
the signatures. *he proponents $ear the $urden of proving that the% complied with the constitutional
re+uirements in gathering the signatures < that the petition contained, or incorporated $% attachment, the
full te"t of the proposed amendments. *he proponents failed to prove that all the signatories to the
proposed amendments were a$le to read and understand what the petition contains. 'etitioners merel%
handed out the sheet where people can sign $ut the% did not attach thereto the full te"t of the proposed
amendments.
,am$ino et al are also actuall% proposing a revision of the constitution and not a mere amendment. *his is
also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed amendment should onl% contain one issue. *he
proposed amendment(s $% petitioners even includes a transitor% provision which would ena$le the would3
$e parliament to enact more rules.
*here is no need to revisit the #antiago case since the issue at hand can $e decided upon other facts. *he
rule is, the Court avoids +uestions of constitutionalit% so long as there are other means to resolve an issue
at $ar.

===>1*!? 1n >ovem$er .;, .;;- in a petition for reconsideration su$mitted $% the ,am$ino @roup 1;
AtenB Justices of the #upreme Court voted that Cepu$lic 4ct -73/ is ade+uate.
&1)!5!C, this was a mere minute resolution which reads in part?
*en A1;B Mem$ers of the Court reiterate their position, as shown $% their various opinions alread% given
when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Cepu$lic 4ct >o. -73/ is sufficient and ade+uate to
amend the Constitution thru a peopleEs initiative.
4s such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not $ecome stare decisis. #ee discussion here
2

====C4 -73/? 4n 4ct 'roviding for a #%stem of Initiative and Ceferendum and 4ppropriating Funds
*herefor
"antia#o case
Political Law Revision vs !end!ent to the Constitution
1n - Dec 199-, 4tt%. Jesus #. Delfin filed with C1M!,!C a 8'etition to 4mend the Constitution to ,ift
*erm ,imits of elective 1fficials $% 'eopleEs Initiative9 *he C1M!,!C then, upon its approval, a.) set
the time and dates for signature gathering all over the countr%, b.) caused the necessar% pu$lication of the
said petition in papers of general circulation, and c.) instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners
and volunteers in esta$lishing signing stations. 1n 10 Dec 199-, MD #antiago et al filed a special civil
action for prohi$ition against the Delfin 'etition. #antiago argues among others that the 'eopleEs
Initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution >1* a revision thereof. *he e"tension or the
lifting of the term limits of those in power Aparticularl% the 'residentB constitutes revision and is therefore
$e%ond the power of peopleEs initiative.
ISSUE: )hether the proposed Delfin petition constitutes amendment to the constitution or does it
constitute a revision.
HELD: *he Delfin proposal does not involve a mere amendment to, $ut a revision of, the Constitution
$ecause, in the words of Fr. Joa+uin Fernas, #J., it would involve a change from a political philosoph%
that reects unlimited tenure to one that accepts unlimited tenureG and although the change might appear to
$e an isolated one, it can affect other provisions, such as, on s%nchroniHation of elections and on the #tate
polic% of guaranteeing e+ual access to opportunities for pu$lic service and prohi$iting political d%nasties.
4 revision cannot $e done $% initiative which, $% e"press provision of #ection . of 4rticle 75II of the
Constitution, is limited to amendments. *he prohi$ition against reelection of the 'resident and the limits
provided for all other national and local elective officials are $ased on the philosoph% of governance, 8to
open up the political arena to as man% as there are Filipinos +ualified to handle the demands of leadership,
to $rea2 the concentration of political and economic powers in the hands of a few, and to promote
effective proper empowerment for participation in polic% and decision3ma2ing for the common good9G
hence, to remove the term limits is to negate and nullif% the no$le vision of the 1907 Constitution.
$arch%June 1997
!end!ent to the Constitution
1n - Dec 199-, 4tt%. Jesus #. Delfin filed with C1M!,!C a 8'etition to 4mend the Constitution to ,ift
*erm ,imits of elective 1fficials $% 'eopleEs Initiative9 *he C1M!,!C then, upon its approval, a.) set
the time and dates for signature gathering all over the countr%, b.) caused the necessar% pu$lication of the
said petition in papers of general circulation, and c.) instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners
and volunteers in esta$lishing signing stations. 1n 10 Dec 199-, MD #antiago et al filed a special civil
action for prohi$ition against the Delfin 'etition. #antiago argues that 1.) the constitutional provision on
peopleEs initiative to amend the constitution can onl% $e implemented $% law to $e passed $% Congress
and no such law has %et $een passed $% Congress, 2.) C4 -73/ indeed provides for three s%stems of
initiative namel%, initiative on the Constitution& on statues and on local le#islation' *he two latter forms
3
of initiative were specificall% provided for in #u$titles II and III thereof $ut no provisions were
specificall% made for initiatives on the Constitution. *his omission indicates that the matter of peopleEs
initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law < as pointed out $% former #enator 4rturo
*olentino.
ISSUE: )hether or not C4 -73/ was intended to include initiative on amendments to the constitution
and if so whether the act, as worded, ade+uatel% covers such initiative.
HELD: C4 -73/ is intended to include the s%stem of initiative on amendments to the constitution $ut is
unfortunatel% inade+uate to cover that s%stem. #ec . of 4rticle 17 of the Constitution provides?
84mendments to this constitution ma% li2ewise $e directl% proposed $% the people through initiative upon
a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total num$er of registered voters, of which ever% legislative
district must $e represented $% at least there per centum of the registered voters therein. . . *he Congress
shall provide for the implementation of the e"ercise of this right9 *his provision is o$viousl% not self3
e"ecutor% as it needs an ena$ling law to $e passed $% Congress. Joa+uin Fernas, a mem$er of the 190-
Con3Con stated 8without implementing legislation #ection ., 4rt 17 cannot operate. *hus, although this
mode of amending the constitution is a mode of amendment which $%passes Congressional action in the
last anal%sis is still dependent on Congressional action.9 Fluntl% stated, the right of the people to directl%
propose amendments to the Constitution through the s%stem of inititative would remain entom$ed in the
cold niche of the constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. *he people cannot e"ercise
such right, though constitutionall% guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not provide for its
implementation.

===>ote that this ruling has $een 8reversed9 on >ovem$er .;, .;;- when ten ustices of the #C ruled that
C4 -73/ is ade+uate enough to ena$le such initiative. &1)!5!C, this was a mere minute resolution
which reads in part?
*en A1;B Mem$ers of the Court reiterate their position, as shown $% their various opinions alread% given
when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Cepu$lic 4ct >o. -73/ is sufficient and ade+uate to
amend the Constitution thru a peopleEs initiative.
4s such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not $ecome stare decisis
()) "CR *7( Political Law +ational ,erritory R 9)-- is Constitutional
In March .;;9, Cepu$lic 4ct 9/.., an act defining the archipelagic $aselines of the 'hilippines was
enacted < the law is also 2nown as the Faselines ,aw. *his law was meant to compl% with the terms of
the third :nited >ations Convention on the ,aw of the #ea A:>C,1# IIIB, ratified $% the 'hilippines in
Fe$ruar% 1906.
'rofessor Merlin Magallona et al +uestioned the validit% of C4 9/.. as the% contend, among others, that
the law decreased the national territor% of the 'hilippines hence the law is unconstitutional. #ome of their
particular arguments are as follows?
a. the law a$andoned the demarcation set $% the *reat% of 'aris and other ancillar% treaties < this also
resulted to the e"clusion of our claim over #a$ahG
4
$. the law, as well as :>C,1# itself, terms the 'hilippine waters a 8archipelagic9 waters which, in
international law, opens our waters landward of the $aselines to maritime passage $% all vessels Ainnocent
passageB and aircrafts AoverflightB, undermining 'hilippine sovereignt% and national securit%,
contravening the countr%Es nuclear3free polic%, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisionsG
c. the classification of the Iala%aan Island @roup AII@B, as well as the #car$orough #hoal A .ajo de
!asinlocB, as a 8regime of islands9 pursuant to :>C,1# results in the loss of a large maritime area $ut
also preudices the livelihood of su$sistence fishermen.
ISSUE: )hether or not the contentions of Magallona et al are tena$le.
HELD: >o. *he #upreme Court emphasiHed that C4 9/.., or :>C,1#, itself is not a means to ac+uire,
or lose, territor%. *he treat% and the $aseline law has nothing to do with the ac+uisition, enlargement, or
diminution of the 'hilippine territor%. )hat controls when it comes to ac+uisition or loss of territor% is
the international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession and prescription and >1* the e"ecution
of multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea3use rights or enacting statutes to compl% with the treat%Es
terms to delimit maritime Hones and continental shelves.
*he law did not decrease the demarcation of our territor%. In fact it increased it. :nder the old law
amended $% C4 9/.. AC4 3;6-B, we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing the 'hilippines. *he
area that it covered was 66;,996 nautical miles
.
. Fut under 9/.., and with the inclusion of the e"clusive
economic Hone, the e"tent of our maritime are increased to /0-,.1; nautical miles
.
. A#ee image $elow for
comparisonB
If an%, the $aselines law is a notice to the international communit% of the scope of the maritime space and
su$marine areas within which #tates parties e"ercise treat%3$ased rights.
5
4nent their particular contentions?
a. *he law did not a$andon the #a$ah claim. *his is evident on the provision of #ection . of C4 9/..?
#ection .. *he definition of the $aselines of the territorial sea of the 'hilippine 4rchipelago as provided
in this 4ct is with!t "#$%!&ic$ t th$ &$'i($ati( ) th$ bas$'i($s ) th$ t$##it#ia' s$a a#!(& th$
t$##it#* ) Sabah+ sit!at$& i( N#th B#($+ v$# which th$ R$"!b'ic ) th$ Phi'i""i($s has
ac,!i#$& &-i(i( a(& sv$#$i.(t*.
$. :>C,1# ma% term our waters as 8archipelagic waters9 and that we ma% term it as our 8internal
waters9, $ut the $ottom line is that our countr% e"ercises sovereignt% over these waters and :>C,1#
itself recogniHes that. &owever, due to our o$servance of international law, we allow the e"ercise of
others of their right of innocent passage. >o modern #tate can validl% invo2e its sovereignt% to a$solutel%
6
for$id innocent passage that is e"ercised in accordance with customar% international law without ris2ing
retaliator% measures from the international communit%.
c. *he classification of the II@ Aor the #pratl%EsB, as well as the #car$orough #hoal, as a regime of
islands did not diminish our maritime area. :nder :>C,1# and under the $aselines law, since the% are
regimes of islands, the% generate their own maritime Hones < in short, the% are not to $e enclosed within
the $aselines of the main archipelago Awhich is the 'hilippine Island groupB. *his is $ecause if we do that,
then we will $e enclosing a larger area which would alread% depart from the provisions of :>C,1# <
that the demarcation should follow the natural contour of the archipelago.
>evertheless, we still continue to la% claim over the II@ and the #car$orough #hoal through effective
occupation.
NOTES:
:nder :>C,1# and the $aselines law, we have three levels of maritime Hones where we e"ercise t#$at*/
bas$& #i.hts?
a. territorial waters < 1. nautical miles from the $aselinesG where we e"ercise sovereignt%
$. conti#uous /one < .6 nautical miles from the $aselinesG urisdiction where we can enforce customs,
fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws ACFI#B.
c. e0clusive econo!ic /one < .;; nautical miles from the $aselinesG where we have the right to e"ploit the
living and non3living resources in the e"clusive economic Hone
Nt$? a fourth Hone ma% $e added which is the continental shelf < this is covered $% 4rticle 77 of the
:>C,1#.
Monday, April 9, 2012
PhiIippine Constitution- ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
A. PRINCIPLES
T$is arti(e in t$e 19'5 Constitution uses t$e )$raseoo#y /:e(aration of Prin(i)es/ ony- T$e
new Constitution $as a!!e! t$e )$rase /an! State )oi(ies/-
T$is )ortion of t$e Constitution 0i#$t ,e (ae! t$e ,asi( )oiti(a (ree! of t$e nation- 2t ays
7
!own t$e )oi(ies t$at t$e #o%ern0ent is ,oun! to o,ser%e- 6it$ t$e e<(e)tion of Se(tion =
w$i($ refers to t$e !uty of (iti3ens to ser%e t$e State, t$ese )ro%isions )res(ri,e t$e
fun!a0enta o,i#ations of t$e #o%ern0ent, )arti(uary t$e e#isati%e an! t$e e<e(uti%e
!e)art0ents as its )oi(y+!eter0inin# or#ans-2t is in(u0,ent on t$e )eo)e to !e0an!
fufi0ent of t$ese #o%ern0ent !uties t$rou#$ t$e e<er(ise of t$e ri#$t of suffra#e- &ut
in!ire(ty so0e of t$ese )rin(i)es 0ay ai! t$e (ourt in !eter0inin# t$e %ai!ity of statutes or
e<e(uti%e a(ts in >usti(ea,e (ases-
6$ere t$e ?o%ern0ent t$rou#$ t$e 5<e(uti%e :e)art0ent fais in its !uty to enfor(e t$ese
)ro%isions, t$e re0e!y )ro%i!e! t$erefore is not >u!i(ia ,ut )oiti(a- T$e )eo)e $ere is
(ae! u)on to a%ai of t$e re0e!y t$rou#$ t$e ,aot, not t$rou#$ t$e (ourt-
T$is is not to say t$at t$e )ro%isions !i! not $a%e t$eir usefuness in iti#ation- T$e sa0e aso
o,i#ate! t$e >u!i(iary to ,e #ui!e! ,y t$e sa0e )ro%isions in t$e e<er(ise of t$e )ower of
>u!i(ia re%iew-
Se(tion 2- T$e P$ii))ines is a !e0o(rati( an! Re)u,i(an State- So%erei#nty resi!es in t$e
)eo)e an! a #o%ern0ent aut$ority e0anates fro0 t$e0-
T$is arti(e is a re)ro!u(tion of Arti(e 22, Se(tion 2 of t$e 19'5 Constitution, 0aintaine!
un!er Se(tion 2, Arti(e 22 of t$e 197' Constitution-
T$e re"uire0ents of a !e0o(rati( an! re)u,i(an state are as foows:
a@ Car!ina ri#$ts e0,o!ie! in t$e &i of Ri#$tsA
,@ T$e )rin(i)e t$at ours is a #o%ern0ent of aws an! not of 0enA
(@ T$e )rin(i)e t$at t$e State (annot ,e sue! wit$out its (onsentA
!@ T$e )rin(i)e t$at t$e e#isature (annot )ass irre)eaa,e awsA
e@ 5e(tion t$rou#$ )o)uar wiA
f@ T$e )rin(i)e t$at an offi(e is a )u,i( trustA
an!
#@ T$e rue a#ainst un!ue !ee#ation of e#isati%e )ower-
S;*5R52?BTC
+is t$e su)re0e )ower of t$e state to (o00an! o,e!ien(e fro0 a t$e in$a,itants, w$et$er
(iti3en or aien- T$is )ower resi!es in t$e )eo)e-- T$erefore, t$ey $a%e t$e ri#$t to
(onstitute t$eir own #o%ern0ent, !efine an! )ro%i!e t$e )owers it 0ay e<er(ise wit$in e#a
i0its- T$is ri#$t 0ay ,e e<er(ise! !ire(ty or in!ire(ty-
:ire(t e<er(ise of so%erei#nty
2t is t$e )eo)e t$at e<er(ises a(tua so%erei#nty t$rou#$ w$at is (ae! t$e )o)uar wi + t$e
ee(tion of t$e )eo)eDs re)resentati%es in a (ean an! $onest ee(tora )ro(ess-
8
T$e afore(ite! is in a((or! wit$ t$e (onstitution 0an!ates of a #o%ern0ent t$at is
re)resentati%e or re)u,i(an in nature an! a P$ii))ine state t$at is re)resentati%e !e0o(ra(y
or a re)u,i(an state-
2n!ire(t e<er(ise of so%erei#nty
T$e (onstitutiona 0an!ate t$at so%erei#nty resi!es in t$e )eo)e !oes not 0ean t$e Fii)ino
)eo)e #o%ern t$e0se%es !ire(ty e<er(isin# a(ts of #o%ern0ent + i1e t$e 0a1in# of
aws,enfor(in# t$e sa0e or !e(i!in# (ases in%o%in# ife, i,erty or )ro)erty- T$e 0a1in# of
aws, is eft to t$e aw0a1in# ,o!y (o0)ose! of t$e )eo)eDs re)resentati%es ($osen t$rou#$
t$e ee(tora )ro(essA enfor(in# t$e aws is eft to t$e e<e(uti%e !e)art0entA an! !e(i!in#
(ases is eft to t$e (ourts-
T$e )eo)e e<er(ise t$is a(ts of #o%ern0ent t$rou#$ t$e offi(ers an! e0)oyees (onstitutin#
t$e #o%ern0ent set u) ,y t$e0 as 0an!ate! ,y t$e Constitution-
Peo)eDs Ri#$ts to C$an#e t$eir Pu,i( ;ffi(ers
T$is !e(are! (onstitutiona )rin(i)e is ,est e<e0)ifie! in t$e syste0s of re(a, referen!u0
an! initiati%e- A t$ese $a%e 0a!e )ossi,e #reater )arti(i)ation of t$e )eo)e in t$e affairs
of #o%ern0ent- T$is is furt$er e%i!en(e! ,y t$e (onstitutiona )ro%isions on se(tora
re)resentation, 0uti+)arty syste0s an! t$e ri#$t of t$e )eo)e to a0en! t$e (onstitution
w$i($ t$ey, t$e0se%es, or!aine! an! )ro0u#ate!-
Se(tion 7- T$e P$ii))ines renoun(es war as an instru0ent of nationa )oi(y, a!o)ts t$e
#eneray a((e)te! )rin(i)es of internationa aw as )art of t$e aw of t$e an! an! a!$eres
to t$e )oi(y of )ea(e, e"uaity, >usti(e, free!o0, (oo)eration, an! a0ity wit$ a nations-
Se(tion 7 is a su,stantia re)ro!u(tion of t$e (ontents of Se(tion ', Arti(e 22 of t$e 19'5
Constitution- T$is )arti(uar )ro%iso is !i%i!e! into t$ree )arts:
a@ Renun(iation of war as an instru0ent of nationa )oi(yA
,@ A!o)tion of t$e #eneray a((e)te! )rin(i)es of internationa aw as )art of t$e aw of t$e
an!Aan!
(@ A!$eren(e to t$e )oi(y of )ea(e, e"uaity, >usti(e, free!o0, (oo)eration, an! a0ity wit$
a nations-
Renun(iation of war as a nationa )oi(y
2n renoun(in# war as an instru0ent of nationa )oi(y e<)ressy !e(are! in t$e Constitution,
t$e P$ii))ines affir0s t$e 19'4 an! t$e 1971 Constitutiona Con%entionDs ,eief t$at an
effe(ti%e 0eans of outaw war is to )ro$i,it t$e sa0e in t$e Constitution-
9
T$is )arti(uar )ro%iso (onte0)ates, as it was (onte0)ate! un!er t$e 19'5 Constitution,
!efensi%e war, not a##ressi%e war- T$is was ins)ire! ,y t$e Eeo#+&rian! Pa(t of 77 Au#ust
1978 w$i($ renoun(es wars of a##ression-
T$e )ower to wa#e a !efensi%e war is an in$erent )art of so%erei#nty- T$e e<)ains t$e
reason w$y t$e Constitution 0a1es !efense of t$e state t$e )ri0e !uty of #o%ern0ent un!er
se(tion 4 of Arti(e 22 of t$e ($arter- At t$e sa0e ti0e, se(tion 77 of t$e sa0e arti(e,
e0)owers t$e Con#ress, ,y a %ote of two+t$ir!s of ,ot$ 8ouses, in >oint session asse0,es, to
!e(are t$e e<isten(e of a state of war-
A!o)tion of internationa aw
T$e se(on! )art of t$e )ro%ision is t$e (onstitutiona !e(aration t$at t$e P$ii))ines
(onfor0s to t$e #eneray a((e)te! )rin(i)es of internationa aw in its reation wit$ ot$ers
states- T$is si0)y 0eans t$at w$ene%er a state is a!0itte! into t$e fa0iy of nations, it
,e(o0es in(u0,ent u)on it to o,ser%e t$ese a((e)te! )rin(i)es wit$in its >uris!i(tion an!,
at t$e sa0e ti0e, enfor(e t$e0 ,efore its (ourts in%o%in# t$e sa0e, in t$e a,sen(e of any
statutory aw, )ro%isions of any treaty, or any )ro%ision of t$e Constitution to t$e (ontrary-
T$ese )rin(i)es of internationa aw t$at for0 )art of t$e aws of t$e P$ii))ines w$i($ are
#eneray a((e)te! ,y (i%ii3e! states in(u!e t$ose rues on !i)o0ati( an! forei#n State
i00unity, t$ose )ro%isions of t$e 4nite! Bations C$arter to w$i($ 0e0,er nations (onfor0,
in(u!in# t$e i0)e0entin# internationa a#ree0ents- Treaties t$erefore, entere! into ,y t$e
P$ii))ines wit$ ot$er states 0ust (onfir0 to #eneray a((e)te! )rin(i)es of internationa
aw w$i($ t$e Constitution !e(ares as a )art of t$e aws of t$e an!-
2nternationa reations
T$e t$ir! )art of t$e )ro%ision as a !e(are! (onstitutiona )rin(i)e + a )oi(y of /)ea(e,
e"uaity, >usti(e, free!o0, (oo)eration an! a0ity/ is a ne(essary (onse"uen(es to t$e
P$ii))ine a!$eren(e to t$e aw of nations re"uirin# t$at states
a@ s$ou! ,e at )ea(e wit$ ea($ ot$erA
,@ s$ou! sette t$eir internationa !is)utes or !ifferen(e not ,y war ,ut ,y )ea(efu 0eansA
(@ t$at war 0ay ,e resorte! to ony w$en !is)utes (an no on#er ,e sette! ,y !i)o0ati(
($annesA to retorsion, re)risa, an! ot$er 0eans s$ort of war, an! in e<tre0e (ases ,y war,
,ut in t$is (ase, sti t$e (on!u(t of war 0ust ,e #o%erne! ,y rues + t$e aws of war-
Re#ar!ess of t$eir res)e(ti%e nationa i!eoo#ies, 0e0,er (ountries of t$e internationa
(o00unity are e"ua, free, irres)e(ti%e of t$eir si3e, )o)uation an! weat$, (onse"uenty,
ea($ one is e"uay entite! to t$e ri#$ts an! su,>e(t to t$e o,i#ations of 0e0,ers$i) in t$e
4nite! Bations- 2t foows t$at )oi(ies of t$e P$ii))ines in its reation wit$ ot$er states as
ens$rine! in t$e Constitution 0ust ,e (onsistent wit$ t$e rues an! )rin(i)es of internationa
10
aw w$i($ see1s )ea(e an! a0ity a0on# nations-
Conse"uenty, it is t$us )ro%i!e! in t$e Constitution t$at t$e P$ii))ines )ursues an!
in!e)en!ent forei#n )oi(y t$at wi 0aintain nationa so%erei#nty, territoria inte#rity,
nationa interest an! t$e ri#$t of sef+!eter0ination- T$e nationa )oi(ies t$en 0ust ,e
!ire(te! towar!s t$e o,ser%an(e of internationa (oo)eration, (onsi!erin# t$at at t$is sta#e
of wor! $istory, t$ere e<ists an e%er #rowin# inter!e)en!en(e a0on# in!e)en!ent states-
Su)re0a(y of t$e Ci%iian Aut$ority
Se(tion ' Ci%iian aut$ority is at a ti0es su)re0e o%er t$e 0iitary-
Su)re0a(y of (i%iian aut$ority o%er t$e 0iitary is in$erent in !e0o(rati( an! re)u,i(an
states- Su)eriority of (i%iian aut$ority o%er t$e 0iitary is re#ar!e! as an essentia
(onstituent of t$e fa,ri( of )oiti(a ife-
T$e Presi!ent of t$e P$ii))ines is aways a (i%iian- At t$e sa0e ti0e, $e is t$e Co00an!er+
in+C$ief of a t$e Ar0e! For(esA t$e ar0y, t$e na%y an! t$e air for(e, in(u!in# t$e Ca)Aita
(o00an!- A))oint0ent to t$e $i#$er e($eons in t$e ar0e! for(es is %este! in t$e Presi!ent,
a fa(t t$at )re(u!es t$e e0er#en(e of t$e 0iitary ta1e o%er in t$e affairs of t$e (i%i
#o%ern0ent- For t$e roe of t$e 0iitary is s)ee! out (eary in t$e Constitution-
Roe of t$e Ar0e! For(es
T$e Ar0e! For(es of t$e P$ii))ines is t$e )rote(tor of t$e )eo)e an! t$e State- 2ts #oa is to
se(ure t$e so%erei#nty of t$e State an! t$e inte#rity of t$e nationa territory-
Pri0e :uty of ?o%ern0ent
Se(tion 4- T$e )ri0e !uty of #o%ern0ent is to ser%e an! )rote(t t$e )eo)e- T$e ?o%ern0ent
0ay (a u)on t$e )eo)e to !efen! t$e State an!, in t$e fufi0ent t$ereof, a (iti3ens 0ay
,e re"uire!, un!er (on!itions )ro%i!e! ,y aw, to ren!er )ersona, 0iitary or (i%i ser%i(e-
2t is t$e ri#$t of a state to e<a(t (o0)usory 0iitary ser%i(e of its (iti3en an! su($ e<a(tion
!oes not %ioate t$e )rin(i)e of in%ountary ser%itu!e- T$is )ro%iso was in(or)orate! in %iew
of t$e re(o#ni3e! ina!e"ua(y of a %ountary syste0 ,ot$ in ter0s of 0iitary effe(ti%eness
an! in ter0s of e"uaity ,etween t$e ri($ an! t$e )oor-
.aintenan(e of Pea(e
Se(tion 5- T$e 0aintenan(e of )ea(e an! or!er, t$e )rote(tion of ife, i,erty, an! )ro)erty,
an! t$e )ro0otion of t$e #enera wefare are essentia for t$e en>oy0ent ,y a t$e )eo)e of
t$e ,essin#s of !e0o(ra(y-
11
For t$e Fii)ino )eo)e to se(ure unto t$e0se%es an! t$eir )osterity t$e ,essin#s of
in!e)en!en(e an! !e0o(ra(y as en%isione! in t$e Prea0,e of t$e 1987 Constitution, it is
ne(essary for t$e ?o%ern0ent +
1@ to 0aintain )ea(e an! or!erA
7@ )rote(t ife, i,erty an! )ro)ertyA an!
'@ )ro0ote t$e #enera wefare
T$e 0aintenan(e of )ea(e an! or!er rests on t$e 0iitary esta,is$0ent, to ,e
(o0)e0ente! ,y t$e >u!i(iary for t$e )rote(tion of ife, i,erty an! )ro)erty wit$in t$e
(onte<t of !ue )ro(ess- T$e )ro0otion of t$e #enera wefare re"uires t$e (oo)erati%e efforts
of t$ose in #o%ern0ent in t$e attain0ent of t$e #reatest #oo! for t$e #reatest nu0,er-
Se)aration of C$ur($ an! State
Se(tion 6- T$e se)aration of t$e ($ur($ an! state s$a ,e in%ioa,e-
T$e union of t$e ($ur($ an! t$e state is )re>u!i(ia to ,ot$- T$e )ro%isions of t$e 1987
Constitution t$at (o0)i0ents t$e )rin(i)e of se)aration of t$e ($ur($ an! state are foun!
un!er+
1@ Se(tion 5, Arti(e 222 w$i($ )ro%i!es, a0on# ot$er t$in#s, t$at no aw s$a ,e 0a!e
res)e(tin# an esta,is$0ent of rei#ion or )ro$i,itin# t$e free e<er(ise t$ereofA
7@ Se(tion 79 F7@ of Arti(e *2 w$i($ )ro$i,its t$e a))ro)riation of )u,i( 0oney or )ro)erty to
,e a))ie!, )ai!, or e0)oye! !ire(ty or in!ire(ty for t$e use, ,enefit, or su))ort of any
se(t, ($ur($, !eno0ination, se(tarian institution or syste0 of rei#ion, or any )riest,
)rea($er, 0inister, or !i#nitary as su($, e<(e)t w$en su($ )riest, )rea($er, 0inister or
!i#nitary is assi#ne! to t$e ar0e! for(es, or to any )ena institution, or #o%ern0ent
or)$ana#e or e)rosariu0A
'@ Se(tion 78 F'@ of Arti(e *2 w$i($ e<e0)ts ($arita,e institutions, ($ur($es, an! )arsona#es
or (on%ents a))urtenant t$ere, 0os"ues, non+)rofit (e0eteries, an! a an!s, ,ui!in#s an!
i0)ro%e0ents a(tuay, !ire(ty, an! e<(usi%ey use! for rei#ious, ($arita,e or e!u(ationa
)ur)oses fro0 ta<ationA
4@ Se(tion 78 F'@ of Arti(e 2G+C w$i($ )ro$i,its t$e re#istration of rei#ious !eno0ination an!
se(ts-
Rei#ious free!o0, a((or!in# to Justi(e 9aure, as a (onstitutiona 0an!ate is not in$i,ition of
)rofoun! re%eren(e for rei#ion an! is not a !enia of its infuen(e in $u0an affairs-
Botwit$stan!in# t$e )rin(i)e of se)aration of ($ur($ an! state, sti ,ot$ (an wor1 to#et$er
in $ar0ony to ser%e t$e wefare of t$e )eo)e- A((or!in# to t$e ate Jai0e Car!ina Sin: t$e
12
C$ur($ an! t$e State are two entities t$at )ay an i0)ortant roe in our ife- 9et us 1ee)
t$e0 se)arate, ,y a 0eans,,ut et us not inter)ret se)aration as se#re#ation- 9et us ,eie%e
t$at t$ey (an wor1 $an! in $an!, se)arate ,ut )arae i1e two tra(1s on t$e rairoa! ea!in#
to t$e sa0e !estination-
TANADA v. ANGARA
1cto$er .-, .;1. J ,eave a comment
.7. #CC4 10, Ma% ., 1997
Facts ?
*his is a petition see2ing to nullif% the 'hilippine ratification of the )orld *rade 1rganiHation A)*1B
4greement. 'etitioners +uestion the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as
#enators via signing the said agreement.
*he )*1 opens access to foreign mar2ets, especiall% its maor trading partners, through the reduction of
tariffs on its e"ports, particularl% agricultural and industrial products. *hus, provides new opportunities
for the service sector cost and uncertaint% associated with e"porting and more investment in the countr%.
*hese are the predicted $enefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed $% the signator% #enators, a
8free mar2et9 espoused $% )*1.
'etitioners on the other hand viewed the )*1 agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair
'hilippine economic sovereignt% and legislative power. *hat the Filipino First polic% of the Constitution
was ta2en for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.
Issue ? )hether or not there has $een a grave a$use of discretion amounting to lac2 or e"cess of
urisdiction on the part of the #enate in giving its concurrence of the said )*1 agreement.
&eld?
In its Declaration of 'rinciples and state policies, the Constitution 8adopts the generall% accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the polic% of peace, e+ualit%,
ustice, freedom, cooperation and amit% , with all nations. F% the doctrine of incorporation, the countr% is
$ound $% generall% accepted principles of international law, which are considered automaticall% part of
our own laws. 'acta sunt servanda < international agreements must $e performed in good faith. 4 treat% is
not a mere moral o$ligation $ut creates a legall% $inding o$ligation on the parties.
*hrough )*1 the sovereignt% of the state cannot in fact and realit% $e considered as a$solute $ecause it
is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. #uch as when 'hilippines oined the :nited
>ations A:>B it consented to restrict its sovereignt% right under the 8concept of sovereignt% as
autolimitation.9 )hat #enate did was a valid e"ercise of authorit%. 4s to determine whether such e"ercise
is wise, $eneficial or via$le is outside the realm of udicial in+uir% and review. *he act of signing the said
agreement is not a legislative restriction as )*1 allows withdrawal of mem$ership should this $e the
political desire of a mem$er. 4lso, it should not $e viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignt%. )*1
remains as the onl% via$le structure for multilateral trading and the verita$le forum for the development
of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self3destruction. *hus, the
people $e allowed, through their dul% elected officers, ma2e their free choice.
'etition is DI#MI##!D for lac2 of merit.
13
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Taada, et al., v. Angara, et al., G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
D E C I I ! N
"En #an$%
&ANGANI#AN, J.'
I. T(E )ACT
Petitioners Senators Taada, et al. questioned the constitutionality of the concurrence
by the Philippine Senate of the Presidents ratification of the international Agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO! They argued that the WTO Agreement
"iolates the mandate of the #$%& 'onstitution to (de"elop a self)reliant and independent national
economy effecti"ely controlled by *ilipinos ! ! ! (to gi"e preference to qualified *ilipinos (and to
promote the preferential use of *ilipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods!+
*urther, they contended that the (national treatment+ and (parity pro"isions+ of the WTO
Agreement (place nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as *ilipinos
and local products,+ in contra"ention of the (*ilipino *irst+ policy of our 'onstitution, and render
meaningless the phrase (effecti"ely controlled by *ilipinos!+
II. T(E I*E
,oes the #$%& 'onstitution prohibit our country from participating in -orld-ide trade
liberalization and economic globalization and from integrating into a global economy that is
liberalized, deregulated and pri"atized.
III. T(E R*+ING
[The Court DISMISSED the petition. It sustained the concurrence of the Philippine
Senate of the Presidents ratification of the Agreement establishing the WTO.
14
NO, the 1987 Constitution DOES NOT prohibit our country fro p!rticip!tin" in
#or$%#i%e tr!%e $iber!$i&!tion !n% econoic "$ob!$i&!tion !n% fro inte"r!tin" into !
"$ob!$ econoy th!t is $iber!$i&e%, %ere"u$!te% !n% pri'!ti&e%.
There are enough balancing pro"isions in the 'onstitution to allo- the Senate to ratify
the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement!
/W0hile the 'onstitution indeed mandates a bias in fa"or of *ilipino goods, ser"ices,
labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business e1change -ith the
rest of the -orld on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of *ilipino
enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair! 2n other -ords,
the 'onstitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy! 2t did not shut out foreign
in"estments, goods and ser"ices in the de"elopment of the Philippine economy! While the
'onstitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, ser"ices and in"estments
into the country, it does not prohibit them either! 2n fact, it allo-s an e1change on the basis of
equality and reciprocity, fro-ning only on foreign competition that is unfair!

111 111 111
/T0he constitutional policy of a (self)reliant and independent national economy+ does not
necessarily rule out the entry of foreign in"estments, goods and ser"ices! 2t contemplates
neither (economic seclusion+ nor (mendicancy in the international community!+ As e1plained by
'onstitutional 'ommissioner 3ernardo 4illegas, sponsor of this constitutional policy5
!conomic self"reliance is a primar# ob$ecti%e of a de%eloping countr# that is &eenl#
a'are of o%erdependence on e(ternal assistance for e%en its most basic needs. It does not
mean autar&# or economic seclusion6 rather, it means a"oiding mendicancy in the international
community! 2ndependence refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the national
economy, especially in such strategic industries as in the de"elopment of natural resources and
public utilities!
The WTO reliance on (most fa"ored nation,+ (national treatment,+ and (trade -ithout
discrimination+ cannot be struc7 do-n as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality
and reciprocity that apply to all WTO members! Aside from en"isioning a trade policy based on
(equality and reciprocity,+ the fundamental la- encourages industries that are (competiti"e in
both domestic and foreign mar7ets,+ thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered
domestic trade en"ironment, but one in fa"or of the gradual de"elopment of robust industries
that can compete -ith the best in the foreign mar7ets! 2ndeed, *ilipino managers and *ilipino
15
enterprises ha"e sho-n capability and tenacity to compete internationally! And gi"en a free
trade en"ironment, *ilipino entrepreneurs and managers in 8ong7ong ha"e demonstrated the
*ilipino capacity to gro- and to prosper against the best offered under a policy of laisse) faire!
111 111 111
2t is true, as alleged by petitioners, that broad constitutional principles require the State
to de"elop an independent national economy effecti"ely controlled by *ilipinos6 and to protect
and9or prefer *ilipino labor, products, domestic materials and locally produced goods! 3ut it is
equally true that such principles : -hile ser"ing as ;udicial and legislati"e guides : are not in
themsel"es sources of causes of action! <oreo"er, there are other equally fundamental
constitutional principles relied upon by the Senate -hich mandate the pursuit of a (trade policy
that ser"es the general -elfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of e1change on the
basis of equality and reciprocity+ and the promotion of industries (-hich are competiti"e in both
domestic and foreign mar7ets,+ thereby ;ustifying its acceptance of said treaty! So too, the
alleged impairment of so"ereignty in the e1ercise of legislati"e and ;udicial po-ers is balanced
by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international la- as part of the la- of the
land and the adherence of the 'onstitution to the policy of cooperation and amity -ith all
nations!
That the Senate, after deliberation and "oting, "oluntarily and o"er-helmingly ga"e its
consent to the WTO Agreement thereby ma7ing it (a part of the la- of the land+ is a legitimate
e1ercise of its so"ereign duty and po-er! We find no (patent and gross+ arbitrariness or
despotism (by reason of passion or personal hostility+ in such e1ercise! 2t is not impossible to
surmise that this 'ourt, or at least some of its members, may e"en agree -ith petitioners that it
is more ad"antageous to the national interest to stri7e do-n Senate =esolution >o! $&! 3ut that
is not a legal reason to attribute gra"e abuse of discretion to the Senate and to nullify its
decision! To do so -ould constitute gra"e abuse in the e1ercise of our o-n ;udicial po-er and
duty! 2neludibly, -hat the Senate did -as a "alid e1ercise of its authority! As to -hether such
e1ercise -as -ise, beneficial or "iable is outside the realm of ;udicial inquiry and re"ie-! That is
a matter bet-een the elected policy ma7ers and the people! As to -hether the nation should
;oin the -orld-ide march to-ard trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that
our people should determine in electing their policy ma7ers! After all, the WTO Agreement
allo-s -ithdra-al of membership, should this be the political desire of a member!
TESDA, as an agency of the State, cannot be sued without its consent.
TESDA, as an agency of the State, cannot be sued without its consent.
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent is embodied in Section 3, Article XVI
of the 1987 Constitution and has been an established principle that antedates this
16
Constitution.
27
It is as well a universally recognized principle of international law that exempts a
state and its organs from the jurisdiction of another state.
28
The principle is based on the very
essence of sovereignty, and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against
the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
29
It also rests on reasons of public
policy that public service would be hindered, and the public endangered, if the sovereign
authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every citizen and, consequently,
controlled in the uses and dispositions of the means required for the proper administration of the
government.
30
What are the various forms of state immunity from suit?
The proscribed suit that the state immunity principle covers takes on various forms, namely:
a suit against the Republic by name;
a suit against an unincorporated government agency;
a suit against a government agency covered by a charter with respect to the agencys
performance of governmental functions;
and a suit that on its face is against a government officer, but where the ultimate liability will fall
on the government.
In the present case, the writ of attachment was issued against a government agency covered
by its own charter. As discussed above, TESDA performs governmental functions, and the
issuance of certifications is a task within its function of developing and establishing a system of
skills standardization, testing, and certification in the country. From the perspective of this
function, the core reason for the existence of state immunity applies i.e., the public policy
reason that the performance of governmental function cannot be hindered or delayed by suits,
nor can these suits control the use and disposition of the means for the performance of
governmental functions. In Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Republic of the
Philippines,
31
we said:
[A] continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against the
inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental efficiency and the
obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental
principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted. With
the well known propensity on the part of our people to go to court, at the least provocation, the
loss of time and energy required to defend against law suits, in the absence of such a basic
principle that constitutes such an effective obstacle, could very well be imagined.
PROVI argues that TESDA can be sued because it has effectively waived its immunity when it
entered into a contract with PROVI for a commercial purpose. According to PROVI, since the
purpose of its contract with TESDA is to provide identification PVC cards with security seal
which TESDA will thereafter sell to TESDA trainees, TESDA thereby engages in commercial
transactions not incidental to its governmental functions.
TESDAs response to this position is to point out that it is not engaged in business, and there is
nothing in the records to show that its purchase of the PVC cards from PROVI is for a business
purpose. While TESDA admits that it will charge the trainees with a fee for the PVC cards, it
claims that this fee is only to recover their costs and is not intended for profit.
M4>I,4 I>*!C>4*I1>4, 4IC'1C* 4:*&1CI*K vs. C1:C* 1F 4''!4,#
@.C. >o. 1//-/; Jul% .;, .;;-
17
Facts?
MI44 received Final >otices of Ceal !state *a" Delin+uenc% from the Cit% of 'araLa+ue for the ta"a$le
%ears 199. to .;;1. MI44Es real estate ta" delin+uenc% was estimated at '-.6 million.
*he Cit% of 'araLa+ue, through its Cit% *reasurer, issued notices of lev% and warrants of lev% on the
4irport ,ands and Fuildings. *he Ma%or of the Cit% of 'araLa+ue threatened to sell at pu$lic auction the
4irport ,ands and Fuildings should MI44 fail to pa% the real estate ta" delin+uenc%.
MI44 filed with the Court of 4ppeals an original petition for prohi$ition and inunction, with pra%er for
preliminar% inunction or temporar% restraining order. *he petition sought to restrain the Cit% of
'araLa+ue from imposing real estate ta" on, lev%ing against, and auctioning for pu$lic sale the 4irport
,ands and Fuildings.
'arana+ueEs Contention? #ection 193 of the ,ocal @overnment Code e"pressl% withdrew the ta"
e"emption privileges of 8government3owned and3controlled corporations9 upon the effectivit% of the
,ocal @overnment Code. Cespondents also argue that a $asic rule of statutor% construction is that the
e"press mention of one person, thing, or act e"cludes all others. 4n international airport is not among the
e"ceptions mentioned in #ection 193 of the ,ocal @overnment Code. *hus, respondents assert that MI44
cannot claim that the 4irport ,ands and Fuildings are e"empt from real estate ta".
MI44Es contention? 4irport ,ands and Fuildings are owned $% the Cepu$lic. *he government cannot ta"
itself. *he reason for ta" e"emption of pu$lic propert% is that its ta"ation would not inure to an% pu$lic
advantage, since in such a case the ta" de$tor is also the ta" creditor.
Issue?
)1> 4irport ,ands and Fuildings of MI44 are e"empt from real estate ta" under e"isting lawsM Kes.
!rgo, the real estate ta" assessments issued $% the Cit% of 'araLa+ue, and all proceedings ta2en pursuant
to such assessments, are void.
&eld?
1. MI44 is >ot a @overnment31wned or Controlled Corporation
MI44 is not a government3owned or controlled corporation $ut an instrumentalit% of the >ational
@overnment and thus e"empt from local ta"ation.
MI44 is not a stoc2 corporation $ecause it has no capital stoc2 divided into shares. MI44 has no
stoc2holders or voting shares.
MI44 is also not a non3stoc2 corporation $ecause it has no mem$ers. 4 non3stoc2 corporation must have
mem$ers.
18
MI44 is a government instrumentalit% vested with corporate powers to perform efficientl% its
governmental functions. MI44 is li2e an% other government instrumentalit%, the onl% difference is that
MI44 is vested with corporate powers.
)hen the law vests in a government instrumentalit% corporate powers, the instrumentalit% does not
$ecome a corporation. :nless the government instrumentalit% is organiHed as a stoc2 or non3stoc2
corporation, it remains a government instrumentalit% e"ercising not onl% governmental $ut also corporate
powers. *hus, MI44 e"ercises the governmental powers of eminent domain, police authorit% and the
lev%ing of fees and charges. 4t the same time, MI44 e"ercises 8all the powers of a corporation under the
Corporation ,aw, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this !"ecutive
1rder.9
.. 4irport ,ands and Fuildings of MI44 are 1wned $% the Cepu$lic
a. 4irport ,ands and Fuildings are of 'u$lic Dominion
*he 4irport ,ands and Fuildings of MI44 are propert% of pu$lic dominion and therefore owned $% the
#tate or the Cepu$lic of the 'hilippines.
>o one can dispute that properties of pu$lic dominion mentioned in 4rticle 6.; of the Civil Code, li2e
8roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and $ridges constructed $% the #tate,9 are owned $% the #tate. *he
term 8ports9 includes seaports and airports. *he MI44 4irport ,ands and Fuildings constitute a 8port9
constructed $% the #tate. :nder 4rticle 6.; of the Civil Code, the MI44 4irport ,ands and Fuildings are
properties of pu$lic dominion and thus owned $% the #tate or the Cepu$lic of the 'hilippines.
*he 4irport ,ands and Fuildings are devoted to pu$lic use $ecause the% are used $% the pu$lic for
international and domestic travel and transportation. *he fact that the MI44 collects terminal fees and
other charges from the pu$lic does not remove the character of the 4irport ,ands and Fuildings as
properties for pu$lic use.
*he charging of fees to the pu$lic does not determine the character of the propert% whether it is of pu$lic
dominion or not. 4rticle 6.; of the Civil Code defines propert% of pu$lic dominion as one 8intended for
pu$lic use.9 *he terminal fees MI44 charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MI44 charges to
airlines, constitute the $ul2 of the income that maintains the operations of MI44. *he collection of such
fees does not change the character of MI44 as an airport for pu$lic use. #uch fees are often termed userEs
ta". *his means ta"ing those among the pu$lic who actuall% use a pu$lic facilit% instead of ta"ing all the
pu$lic including those who never use the particular pu$lic facilit%.
$. 4irport ,ands and Fuildings are 1utside the Commerce of Man
*he Court has also ruled that propert% of pu$lic dominion, $eing outside the commerce of man, cannot $e
the su$ect of an auction sale.
'roperties of pu$lic dominion, $eing for pu$lic use, are not su$ect to lev%, encum$rance or disposition
through pu$lic or private sale. 4n% encum$rance, lev% on e"ecution or auction sale of an% propert% of
pu$lic dominion is void for $eing contrar% to pu$lic polic%. !ssential pu$lic services will stop if
19
properties of pu$lic dominion are su$ect to encum$rances, foreclosures and auction sale. *his will
happen if the Cit% of 'araLa+ue can foreclose and compel the auction sale of the -;;3hectare runwa% of
the MI44 for non3pa%ment of real estate ta".
c. MI44 is a Mere *rustee of the Cepu$lic
MI44 is merel% holding title to the 4irport ,ands and Fuildings in trust for the Cepu$lic. #ection 60,
Chapter 1., Foo2 I of the 4dministrative Code allows instrumentalities li2e MI44 to hold title to real
properties owned $% the Cepu$lic. n MI44Es case, its status as a mere trustee of the 4irport ,ands and
Fuildings is clearer $ecause even its e"ecutive head cannot sign the deed of conve%ance on $ehalf of the
Cepu$lic. 1nl% the 'resident of the Cepu$lic can sign such deed of conve%ance.
d. *ransfer to MI44 was Meant to Implement a CeorganiHation
*he transfer of the 4irport ,ands and Fuildings from the Fureau of 4ir *ransportation to MI44 was not
meant to transfer $eneficial ownership of these assets from the Cepu$lic to MI44. *he purpose was
merel% toreorganiHe a division in the Fureau of 4ir *ransportation into a separate and autonomous $od%.
*he Cepu$lic remains the $eneficial owner of the 4irport ,ands and Fuildings. MI44 itself is owned
solel% $% the Cepu$lic. >o part% claims an% ownership rights over MI44Es assets adverse to the
Cepu$lic.
e. Ceal 'ropert% 1wned $% the Cepu$lic is >ot *a"a$le
#ec .36 of the ,@C provides that real propert% owned $% the Cepu$lic of the 'hilippines or an% of its
political su$divisions e"cept when the $eneficial use thereof has $een granted, for consideration or
otherwise, to a ta"a$le person following are e"empted from pa%ment of the real propert% ta".
&owever, portions of the 4irport ,ands and Fuildings that MI44 leases to private entities are not e"empt
from real estate ta". For e"ample, the land area occupied $% hangars that MI44 leases to private
corporations is su$ect to real estate ta".
@.C. >o. 19.93/ Decem$er 7, .;1;
,1:I# 8F4C1I9 C. FIC41@1
vs.
*&! '&I,I''I>! *C:*& C1MMI##I1> 1F .;1;
" < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 3"
@.C. >o. 193;3-
C!'. !DC!, C. ,4@M4>, C!'. C1D1,F1 F. 4,F4>1, JC., C!'. #IM!1> 4. D4*:M4>1>@,
and C!'. 1C,4>D1 F. F:4, #C.
vs.
!7!C:*I5! #!CC!*4CK '4N:I*1 >. 1C&14, JC. and D!'4C*M!>* 1F F:D@!* 4>D
M4>4@!M!>* #!CC!*4CK F,1C!>CI1 F. 4F4D
0ACTS?
20
'res. 4+uino signed !. 1. >o. 1 esta$lishing 'hilippine *ruth Commission of .;1; A'*CB dated Jul% 3;,
.;1;.
'*C is a mere ad hoc $od% formed under the 1ffice of the 'resident with the primar% tas2 to investigate
reports of graft and corruption committed $% third3level pu$lic officers and emplo%ees, their co3
principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration, and to su$mit its finding and
recommendations to the 'resident, Congress and the 1m$udsman. '*C has all the powers of an
investigative $od%. Fut it is not a +uasi3udicial $od% as it cannot adudicate, ar$itrate, resolve, settle, or
render awards in disputes $etween contending parties. 4ll it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence
of graft and corruption and ma2e recommendations. It ma% have su$poena powers $ut it has no power to
cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. 4lthough it is a fact3finding $od%, it cannot
determine from such facts if pro$a$le cause e"ists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts
of law.
'etitioners as2ed the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enoin the '*C from performing its
functions. *he% argued that?
AaB !.1. >o. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress to create a pu$lic
office and appropriate funds for its operation.
A$B *he provision of Foo2 III, Chapter 1;, #ection 31 of the 4dministrative Code of 1907 cannot
legitimiHe !.1. >o. 1 $ecause the delegated authorit% of the 'resident to structurall% reorganiHe the 1ffice
of the 'resident to achieve econom%, simplicit% and efficienc% does not include the power to create an
entirel% new pu$lic office which was hitherto ine"istent li2e the 8*ruth Commission.9
AcB !.1. >o. 1 illegall% amended the Constitution and statutes when it vested the 8*ruth Commission9
with +uasi3udicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the 1ffice of the 1m$udsman created
under the 1907 Constitution and the D1J created under the 4dministrative Code of 1907.
AdB !.1. >o. 1 violates the e+ual protection clause as it selectivel% targets for investigation and
prosecution officials and personnel of the previous administration as if corruption is their peculiar species
even as it e"cludes those of the other administrations, past and present, who ma% $e indicta$le.
Cespondents, through 1#@, +uestioned the legal standing of petitioners and argued that?
1O !.1. >o. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress $ecause the 'residentEs e"ecutive power and
power of control necessaril% include the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are
faithfull% e"ecuted and that, in an% event, the Constitution, Cevised 4dministrative Code of 1907, 'D >o.
161-1- Aas amendedB, C.4. >o. 997; and settled urisprudence, authoriHe the 'resident to create or form
such $odies.
.O !.1. >o. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds $ecause there is no appropriation
$ut a mere allocation of funds alread% appropriated $% Congress.
3O *he *ruth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the 1m$udsman and the D1J,
$ecause it is a fact3finding $od% and not a +uasi3udicial $od% and its functions do not duplicate, supplant
or erode the latterEs urisdiction.
6O *he *ruth Commission does not violate the e+ual protection clause $ecause it was validl% created for
lauda$le purposes.
21
ISSUES?
1. )1> the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions and +uestion !. 1. >o. 1G
.. )1> !. 1. >o. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers $% usurping the powers of Congress to
create and to appropriate funds for pu$lic offices, agencies and commissionsG
3. )1> !. 1. >o. 1 supplants the powers of the 1m$udsman and the D1JG
6. )1> !. 1. >o. 1 violates the e+ual protection clause.
RULIN1?
*he power of udicial review is su$ect to limitations, to wit? A1B there must $e an actual case or
controvers% calling for the e"ercise of udicial powerG A.B the person challenging the act must have the
standing to +uestion the validit% of the su$ect act or issuanceG otherwise stated, he must have a personal
and su$stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct inur% as a result of its
enforcementG A3B the +uestion of constitutionalit% must $e raised at the earliest opportunit%G and A6B the
issue of constitutionalit% must $e the ver% lis mota of the case.
1. *he petition primaril% invo2es usurpation of the power of the Congress as a $od% to which the% $elong
as mem$ers. *o the e"tent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each mem$er thereof,
since his office confers a right to participate in the e"ercise of the powers of that institution.
,egislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested $% the
Constitution in their office remain inviolate. *hus, the% are allowed to +uestion the validit% of an% official
action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.
)ith regard to Firaogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, an% personal
and direct inur% attri$uta$le to the implementation of !. 1. >o. 1.
,ocus standi is 8a right of appearance in a court of ustice on a given +uestion.9 In private suits, standing
is governed $% the 8real3parties3in interest9 rule. It provides that 8ever% action must $e prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real part% in interest.9 Ceal3part%3in interest is 8the part% who stands to $e
$enefited or inured $% the udgment in the suit or the part% entitled to the avails of the suit.9
Difficult% of determining locus standi arises in pu$lic suits. &ere, the plaintiff who asserts a 8pu$lic right9
in assailing an allegedl% illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general pu$lic. &e has to
show that he is entitled to see2 udicial protection. &e has to ma2e out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the pu$lic order and the securing of relief as a 8citiHen9 or 8ta"pa%er.
*he person who impugns the validit% of a statute must have 8a personal and su$stantial interest in the
case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct inur% as a result.9 *he Court, however, finds reason
in FiraogoEs assertion that the petition covers matters of transcendental importance to ustif% the e"ercise
of urisdiction $% the Court. *here are constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the attention of
this Court in view of their seriousness, novelt% and weight as precedents
*he !"ecutive is given much leewa% in ensuring that our laws are faithfull% e"ecuted. *he powers of the
'resident are not limited to those specific powers under the Constitution. 1ne of the recogniHed powers of
the 'resident granted pursuant to this constitutionall%3mandated dut% is the power to create ad hoc
committees. *his flows from the o$vious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have $een
faithfull% e"ecuted. *he purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating $odies to e"ist is to allow an in+uir%
into matters which the 'resident is entitled to 2now so that he can $e properl% advised and guided in the
performance of his duties relative to the e"ecution and enforcement of the laws of the land.
22
.. *here will $e no appropriation $ut onl% an allotment or allocations of e"isting funds alread%
appropriated. *here is no usurpation on the part of the !"ecutive of the power of Congress to appropriate
funds. *here is no need to specif% the amount to $e earmar2ed for the operation of the commission
$ecause, whatever funds the Congress has provided for the 1ffice of the 'resident will $e the ver% source
of the funds for the commission. *he amount that would $e allocated to the '*C shall $e su$ect to
e"isting auditing rules and regulations so there is no impropriet% in the funding.
3. '*C will not supplant the 1m$udsman or the D1J or erode their respective powers. If at all, the
investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two offices. *he function of
determining pro$a$le cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints $efore the courts remains to $e
with the D1J and the 1m$udsman. '*CEs power to investigate is limited to o$taining facts so that it can
advise and guide the 'resident in the performance of his duties relative to the e"ecution and enforcement
of the laws of the land.
6. Court finds difficult% in upholding the constitutionalit% of !"ecutive 1rder >o. 1 in view of its
apparent transgression of the e+ual protection clause enshrined in #ection 1, 4rticle III AFill of CightsB of
the 1907 Constitution.
!+ual protection re+uires that all persons or things similarl% situated should $e treated ali2e, $oth as to
rights conferred and responsi$ilities imposed. It re+uires pu$lic $odies and institutions to treat similarl%
situated individuals in a similar manner. *he purpose of the e+ual protection clause is to secure ever%
person within a stateEs urisdiction against intentional and ar$itrar% discrimination, whether occasioned $%
the e"press terms of a statue or $% its improper e"ecution through the stateEs dul% constituted authorities.
*here must $e e+ualit% among e+uals as determined according to a valid classification. !+ual protection
clause permits classification. #uch classification, however, to $e valid must pass the test of
reasona$leness. *he test has four re+uisites? A1B *he classification rests on su$stantial distinctionsG A.B It is
germane to the purpose of the lawG A3B It is not limited to e"isting conditions onl%G and A6B It applies
e+uall% to all mem$ers of the same class.
*he classification will $e regarded as invalid if all the mem$ers of the class are not similarl% treated, $oth
as to rights conferred and o$ligations imposed.
!"ecutive 1rder >o. 1 should $e struc2 down as violative of the e+ual protection clause. *he clear
mandate of truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft
and corruption during the previous administration onl%. *he intent to single out the previous
administration is plain, patent and manifest.
4rro%o administration is $ut ust a mem$er of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a
class of its own. >ot to include past administrations similarl% situated constitutes ar$itrariness which the
e+ual protection clause cannot sanction. #uch discriminating differentiation clearl% rever$erates to la$el
the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retri$ution. #uperficial differences do not
ma2e for a valid classification.
*he '*C must not e"clude the other past administrations. *he '*C must, at least, have the authorit% to
investigate all past administrations.
*he Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must
conform and in accordance with which all private rights determined and all pu$lic authorit% administered.
,aws that do not conform to the Constitution should $e stric2en down for $eing unconstitutional.
23
)&!C!F1C!, the petitions are @C4>*!D. !"ecutive 1rder >o. 1 is here$% declared
:>C1>#*I*:*I1>4, insofar as it is violative of the e+ual protection clause of the Constitution.
MMDA v. 1a#i(+ 234 SCRA 154+ 1R 167267 82773)
)a$t,' The issue arose from an incident in"ol"ing the respondent ,ante O! ?arin, a la-yer, -ho
-as issued a traffic "iolation receipt (T4= by <<,A and his dri"er@s license confiscated for
par7ing illegally along ?andara Street, 3inondo, <anila, on August #$$A!
Shortly before the e1piration of the T4=@s "alidity, the respondent addressed a letter to then
<<,A 'hairman Prospero Oreta requesting the return of his dri"er@s license, and e1pressing
his preference for his case to be filed in court!
=ecei"ing no immediate reply, ?arin filed the original complaint -ith application for preliminary
in;unction, contending that, in the absence of any implementing rules and regulations, Sec! A(f
of =ep! Act >o! &$BC grants the <<,A unbridled discretion to depri"e erring motorists of their
licenses, pre)empting a ;udicial determination of the "alidity of the depri"ation, thereby "iolating
the due process clause of the 'onstitution!
The respondent further contended that the pro"ision "iolates the constitutional prohibition
against undue delegation of legislati"e authority, allo-ing as it does the <<,A to fi1 and
impose unspecified : and therefore unlimited : fines and other penalties on erring motorists!
The trial court rendered the assailed decision in fa"or of herein respondent!
I,,-e'
1. .!N MMDA, t/ro-g/ e$. 5"0% o0 Re1. A$t No. 7922 $o-ld val3dly e4er$3,e 1ol3$e
1o5er.
(E+D' Police Po-er, ha"ing been lodged primarily in the >ational Degislature, cannot be
e1ercised by any group or body of indi"iduals not possessing legislati"e po-er! The >ational
Degislature, ho-e"er, may delegate this po-er to the president and administrati"e boards as
-ell as the la-ma7ing bodies of municipal corporations or local go"ernment units (D?Es! Once
delegated, the agents can e1ercise only such legislati"e po-ers as are conferred on them by
the national la-ma7ing body!
Our 'ongress delegated police po-er to the D?Es in the Docal ?o"ernment 'ode of #$$#! #A A
local go"ernment is a Fpolitical subdi"ision of a nation or state -hich is constituted by la- and
has substantial control of local affairs!F #G Docal go"ernment units are the pro"inces, cities,
24
municipalities and barangays, -hich e1ercise police po-er through their respecti"e legislati"e
bodies!
<etropolitan or <etro <anila is a body composed of se"eral local go"ernment units! With the
passage of =ep! Act >o! &$BC in #$$A, <etropolitan <anila -as declared as a Fspecial
de"elopment and administrati"e regionF and the administration of Fmetro)-ideF basic ser"ices
affecting the region placed under Fa de"elopment authorityF referred to as the <<,A! Thus5
The <<,A is, as termed in the charter itself, a Fde"elopment authority!F 2t is an agency created
for the purpose of laying do-n policies and coordinating -ith the "arious national go"ernment
agencies, people@s organizations, non)go"ernmental organizations and the pri"ate sector for the
efficient and e1peditious deli"ery of basic ser"ices in the "ast metropolitan area! All its functions
are administrati"e in nature and these are actually summed up in the charter itself
H Section A of =ep! Act >o! &$BC enumerates the F*unctions and Po-ers of the <etro <anila
,e"elopment Authority!F The contested clause in Sec! A(f states that the petitioner shall Finstall
and administer a single tic7eting system, fi1, impose and collect fines and penalties for all 7inds
of "iolations of traffic rules and regulations, -hether mo"ing or non)mo"ing in nature, and
confiscate and suspend or re"o7e dri"ers@ licenses in the enforcement of such traffic la-s and
regulations, the pro"isions of =ep! Act >o! C#IG and P!,! >o! #GJA to the contrary
not-ithstanding,F and that F(for this purpose, the Authority shall enforce all traffic la-s and
regulations in <etro <anila, through its traffic operation center, and may deputize members of
the P>P, traffic enforcers of local go"ernment units, duly licensed security guards, or members
of non)go"ernmental organizations to -hom may be delegated certain authority, sub;ect to such
conditions and requirements as the Authority may impose!F
1. Dagan v. Philippine Racing Commission, G.R. No. 175220, Februar 12,
200!
Lesson: Requisites, explained.
SCs words: The validity of an administrative issuance, such as the assailed
uidelines, hines on compliance with the followin requisites:
!. "ts promulation must #e authori$ed #y the leislature%
&. "t must #e promulated in accordance with the prescri#ed procedure%
'. "t must #e within the scope of the authority iven #y the leislature%
(. "t must #e reasona#le.
)ll the prescri#ed requisites are met as reards the questioned issuances.
*hilracoms authority is drawn from *.+. ,o. (&-. The deleation made in the
presidential decree is valid. *hilracom did not exceed its authority. )nd the
issuances are fair and reasona#le. .xx
*.+. ,o. (&- hurdles the tests of completeness and standards sufficiency.
25
*hilracom was created for the purpose of carryin out the declared policy in Section
! which is /to promote and direct the accelerated development and continued
rowth of horse racin not only in pursuance of the sports development proram
#ut also in order to insure the full exploitation of the sport as a source of revenue
and employment.0 1urthermore, *hilracom was ranted exclusive 2urisdiction and
control over every aspect of the conduct of horse racin, includin the framin and
schedulin of races, the construction and safety of race trac3s, and "he securi" o#
racing. *.+. ,o. (&- is already complete in itself.
Clearly, there is a proper leislative deleation of rule4ma3in power to *hilracom.
Clearly too, for its part *hilracom has exercised its rule4ma3in power in a proper
and reasona#le manner. 5ore specifically, its discretion to rid the facilities of 56C"
and *RC" of horses afflicted with 7") is aimed at preservin the security and
interity of horse races.
*etitioners also question the supposed deleation #y *hilracom of its rule4ma3in
powers to 56C" and *RC".
There is no deleation of power to spea3 of #etween *hilracom, as the deleator
and 56C" and *RC" as deleates. The *hilracom directive is merely instructive in
character. *hilracom had instructed *RC" and 56C" to /immediately come up with
Clu#s 8ouse Rule to address the pro#lem and rid their facilities of horses infected
with 7").0 *RC" and 56C" followed4up when they ordered the racehorse owners to
su#mit #lood samples and su#2ect their race horses to #lood testin. Compliance
with the *hilracoms directive is part of the mandate of *RC" and 56C" under
Sections !! of R.). ,o. 9:;' and Sections ! and & of <(-9.
)s correctly proferred #y 56C", its duty is not derived from the deleated authority
of *hilracom #ut arises from the franchise ranted to them #y Conress allowin
56C" /to do and carry out all such acts, deeds and thins as may #e necessary to
ive effect to the foreoin.0 )s 2ustified #y *RC", /o#eyin the terms of the
franchise and a#idin #y whatever rules enacted #y *hilracom is its duty.0
)s to the second requisite, petitioners raise some infirmities relatin to *hilracoms
uidelines. They question the supposed #elated issuance of the uidelines, that is,
only after the collection of #lood samples for the Coggins Test was ordered. =hile
it is conceded that the uidelines were issued a month after *hilracoms directive,
this circumstance does not render the directive nor the uidelines void. The
directives validity and effectivity are not dependent on any supplemental
uidelines. *hilracom has every riht to issue directives to 56C" and *RC" with
respect to the conduct of horse racin, with or without implementin uidelines.
>n pu#lication: *etitioners also arue that *hilracoms uidelines have no force and
effect for lac3 of pu#lication and failure to file copies with the ?niversity of the
*hilippines @?*A Law Center as required #y law.
26
)s a rule, the issuance of rules and reulations in the exercise of an administrative
aency of its quasi4leislative power does not require notice and hearin, "n
Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, this Court had the occasion to rule that prior
notice and hearin are not essential to the validity of rules or reulations issued in
the exercise of quasi4leislative powers since there is no determination of past
events or facts that have to #e esta#lished or ascertained.
The third requisite for the validity of an administrative issuance is that it must #e
within the limits of the powers ranted to it. The administrative #ody may not
ma3e rules and reulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administerin or which
created it, or which are in deroation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.
The assailed uidelines prescri#e the procedure for monitorin and eradicatin 7").
These uidelines are in accord with *hilracoms mandate under the law to reulate
the conduct of horse racin in the country.
)nent the fourth requisite, the assailed uidelines do not appear to #e unreasona#le
or discriminatory. "n fact, all horses sta#led at the 56C" and *RC"s premises
underwent the same procedure. The uidelines implemented were undou#tedly
reasona#le as they #ear a reasona#le relation to the purpose souht to #e
accomplished, i.e., the complete riddance of horses infected with 7").
"t also appears from the records that 56C" properly notified the racehorse owners
#efore the test was conducted. Those who failed to comply were repeatedly warned
of certain consequences and sanctions.
1urthermore, extant from the records are circumstances which allow respondents to
determine from time to time the elii#ility of horses as race entries. The lease
contract executed #etween petitioner and 56C contains a proviso reservin the riht
of the lessor, 56C" in this case, the riht to determine whether a particular horse is
a qualified horse. "n addition, *hilracoms rules and reulations on horse racin
provide that horses must #e free from any contaious disease or illness in order to
#e elii#le as race entries.
)ll told, we find no rave a#use of discretion on the part of *hilracom in issuin the
contested uidelines and on the part 56C" and *RC" in complyin with *hilracoms
directive.

27
28