[State defined]

Province of North Cotabato and Vice Governor Piol vs. Government of

the Republic of the Philippines
Facts of the Case:
On August 5, 2008, Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the
MILF through their Chairpersons of respective peace negotiating panels were
scheduled to sign a memorandum of agreement on ancestral domains (MOA-AD)
aspect of GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia..
The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of negotiations and concluding of
prior agreements between MILF and GRP. On July 18, 1997, GRP and MILF Peace
Panels signed the agreement on General Cessation of Hostilities and the following
year, signed the General Framework of Agreement of Intent. However, it was
already evident that there was not going to be any smooth sailing in the GRP-MILF
peace process.
A series of attacks by MILF as well as declaration of an all-out war by the
Government was declared. Eventually, attacks ceased and negotiations resumed
and several exploratory talks were held which eventually led to the crafting of the
draft of MOA-AD in its final form.
On July 27, 2008, Province of North Cotabato and Vice Governor Piol filed a
petition for mandamus and prohibition with prayer for issuance of writ for
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order invoking right to
information on matters of public concern and of declaring MOA-AD to be
unconstitutional hence, present petitions.
Issue/s:
-WON there is a violation of people's rights to inform on matters of public concern
under a state of policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest (Art. 3, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 28, 1987 Constitution)
-WON the MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws
Held:
1) Yes. As provided in Section 7 of Article 3 of the Constitution
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.

As well as Section 28, Article 2 of the Constitution

Section 28. 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.

The Constitution grants among the people the right to know matters and issues
involving public interest. Upon the disclosure of such trivial matters concerning
public interest, it establishes a concrete and ethical principle for the conduct of
public affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the people's right to know as
the main objective. These provisions are vital to the exercise of the freedom of
expression and essential to hold public officials at all times accountable to the
people.
In the present case, since the MOA-AD unequivocally and unilaterally vests
ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro People, which could pervasively
and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of
inhabitants from their total environment with the provision in the MOA-AD stating
that it covers provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays in the ARMM.
Therefore, it is only just and rightful for the petitioners to invoke their right to
information.
2) Yes. The case invoked an international law on the concept of association to
which Keitner and Reisman states that
An association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily
establish
durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate,
delegates certain
responsibilities to the other, the principal, while
maintaining its international status as a
state. Free association represent a
middle ground between integration and
independence
In illustration of the theory of association, let's take the example between Marshall
Islands and the US Government wherein the Marshall Islands shall generally have the
capacity to conduct foreign affairs in their own name and right, such capacity extending
to matters such as law of the sea, marine resources, trade, banking, postal, civil aviation
and cultural relations. In the event of attacks or threats against the Marshall Islands the
US government has authority and obligation to defend them as if they were just part of
the US territory.

Similarly in the present case, MOA-AD contains many provisions which are
consistent with the international legal concept of association specifically:
-Bangsamoro Juridical entity's capacity to enter into economic and trade relations
with foreign countries,
-the commitment of the Central Government (PH Government) to ensure
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity's participation in meetings and events in the ASEAN
and specialized UN Agencies and,
-continuing responsibility of the Central Government over external defense.
Moreover, the BJE's right to participate in Philippine Official missions bearing on
negotiation of border agreements, environmental protection, and sharing of
revenues pertaining to bodies of water adjacent or between islands forming part
of the ancestral domain resembles the right of the government of Marshall Islands
to be consulted by the US government.

This concept of association is NOT recognized under the present Constitution. It

can then be said that the proposed BJE is not merely an expanded version of
ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid
down in the Montevideo Convention namely a permanent population, a defined
territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Even assuming that BJE would not sever any portions of the Philippine territory,
the spirit animating it which has betrayed itself in use of the concept of
association runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Republic.
[Sovereign Immunity: Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State; Consent]
USA vs. RUIZ
Facts of the case:
The United States of America (USA) had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The
base was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between
Philippines and USA. Sometime in May 1972, US invited the submission of bids for
the repair projects of damaged wharves in the said naval base.
Eligio de Guzman & Co. Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids and
that the company received from US telegrams requesting it to confirm its price
proposals and for the name of its bonding company to which Eligio de Guzman &
Co. complied with. The company then alleges that US had already accepted its
bids because a request to confirm a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a
bid pursuant to US' bidding practices. The company then received a letter which
was signed by the Director of the Department of Navy of US stating that the
company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its
previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract. Further, it has
already awarded the bid to third parties.
The company then sued United States of America and all members of the
Engineering Command of US Navy ordering them to allow Eligio de Guzman & Co.
to perform the work on the projects or if specific performance is no longer
possible, to pay damages to the company. Company also asked for preliminary
injunction to restrain US from entering into contracts with third parties to which
US only appeared for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court with
the subject matter of the complaint being acts and omissions of individuals of
agents of America, a sovereign which has not given her consent to the suit or any
other suit. US filed a motion to dismiss but to no avail hence, the present petition.
Issue/s:
-WON the US Naval Base in bidding for the said contracts exercise governmental
functions to be able to invoke State immunity

Held:
Yes. The traditional role of State immunity exempts a state from being sued in the
courts of another State without its consent. Such rule is a necessary consequence
of the principles of independence and equality of States. However since the
activities of the States have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish
between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private commercial
and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). It is said though that State immunity only
extends to sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) for if a State enters into
a contract or commiting private commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis)
with a private individual or organization it is said to have descended to the level of
an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued
which is adhering to that of Article 16, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution.
In the present case, the reparation projects are an integral part of the Naval Base
which is devoted to the defense of both the US and the Philippines, which is
considerably a function of the government and cannot be said to be utilized for or
dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
Therefore, US Naval Base exercised governmental functions as to the repair
projects in invoking State immunity and therefore cannot be sued.
Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos
Facts of the Case:
Sometime in 1924, the Government took the parcel of land situated in Cebu City
owned by Victoria Amigable for road-right-of-way purposes. The land has since
become the streets known as Mango and Gorordo Avenue in Cebu City.
Victoria Amigable then filed in the Court of First Instance a complaint to recover
ownership and possesion of land and for damages for the alleged illegal
occupation of the land by the Government.
Issue:
WON Amigable can sue the Cebu City government in the alleged illegal
occupation of land to recover her ownership and possession of said land
Held:
No.
Sec. 3, Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution states that a State may not be sued
without its consent. State immunity however extends only to government or
sovereign acts and not to proprietary acts as held in National Airports Corporation
vs. Teodoro,
Not all government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from suits.
Immunity from suits is
determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was
organized

In the present case however, Amigable filed a suit against Commission of Public

Highways a government agency in performance of its governmental function

through the road of right of way purposes. It only means that since the agency is
in its performance of its government vested duty it cannot be sued taking also
from the case of Metran vs. Paredes stating that:
In a republican state like the Philippines, government immunity from suit without its
consent
is derived from
the will of the people themselves in freely creating a
government of the people, by the people, and for the
people- a representative
government through which they have agreed to exercise the powers and discharge the
duties
of their sovereignty for the common good and general welfare. In so agreeing the citizens have
solemnly
undertaken to surrender some of their private rights and interest which were
calculated to conflict with higher rights and larger interests of the people as a whole

wherein in this case, larger interests pertains to the road-right-of-way projects and
higher rights pertaining to state immunity. Therefore, Cebu City government
cannot be sued upon the intention of Amigable to recover her ownership and
possession of land.

US vs. Dorr
Facts:
Dorr et. al., have been convicted upon a complaint charging them with the offense
of writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous libel against the Government of
United States and Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. The alleged libel
was published as an editorial in the issue of Manila Freedom of April 6, 1982 under
the caption of a few hard facts in violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 of the
Commission which states that:
Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish or
circulate scurrilous libel against Government of US or Insular Government of PH...
Issue:
WON the article cited when it provided Insular Government of PH islands
mean in a general and abstract sense the existing laws and institutions of the
Islands or the aggregate of the individuals by whom Government is being
administered?
Held:
The article of the Commission in question contains no attack upon Governmental
system of United States and Government of PH Islands. It is understood in modern
political science by the term government which is an institution or aggregate of
institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out rules of action
which are unnecessary to enable men to hire in a social state or which are
imposed upon people forming that society by those who possess power or
authority prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule
a society. By administration, it is understood as the aggregate of persons in whose
hands the reins of the government are of the time being. In the present case, the
editorial article was directed towards the character of men who are entrusted with
the administration of government and not on the governmental system by which

the authority of United States is enforced in these lands.

ESTRADA vs. ARROYO
(guys huhu nibasa ko sa case kanang wala man koy nakit-an nga definition sa
Government of the Philippines however as an alternative):
*Section 2, Administrative Code of the Philippines (E.O. 292)
Government of the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental
entity through which the functions of the government are exercised
throughout the Philippines, including, save as contrary appears from the
context, various arms through which political authority is made effective
in Philippines whether pertaining to autonomous regions, provincial,
city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local
government.
CO KIM CHAN VS. TAN KEH
Facts:
Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case initiated during the Japanese occupation
and that after the liberation of Manila, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue
hearings on the said case saying that a proclamation issued by Gen. Douglas
McArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of
the Court of Philippines under Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic
of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation and that
furthermore, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue
judicial proceedings in the courts of the defunct Republic of Philippines in the
absence of an enabling law granting such authority. Additionally, he contends that
the government established in Philippines during Japanese occupation were no de
facto governments. Hence, present petition.
Issue/s:
-WON under the rules of international law, judicial acts and proceedings of courts
established in Philippines were good and valid and remained as such even after
the liberation or reoccupation of Philippines by US and Filipino forces
-If said judicial acts and proceedings have not been invalidated by said
proclamation, WON the present courts may continue those proceedings pending
in said courts at the time Philippines was reoccupied and liberated
Held:
1) Yes.
It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and
proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de
facto government are good and valid. The question to be determined is
whether or not the governments established in these Islands under the
names of the Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the
Philippines during the Japanese military occupation or regime were de facto
governments. If they were, the judicial acts and proceedings of those
governments remain good and valid even after the liberation or
reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces.
There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first, or government

de facto in a proper legal sense, is that government that gets possession

and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the
rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter.
The second is that which is established and maintained by military forces
who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and
which is denominated a government of paramount force, and the third is
that established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection against the parent state.
According to that well-known principle in international law, the fact that a
territory which has
been occupied by an enemy comes
again into
the power of its legitimate government of
sovereignty, "does not, except in a
very few cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an
invader, which for one
reason or another it is within his competence to do. Thus judicial acts done under
his control, when they are not of a political complexion, administrative acts so
done, to the extent that they take effect during the continuance of his
control, and the various
acts done during the same time by private persons
under the sanction of municipal law, remain
good.
Therefore, in this case judicial acts and proceedings of court are good and
valid for only
political laws are abrogated and not that of judicial as well as
administrative acts.
2) Yes.
The proceedings in cases pending in the said courtmay continue without
necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them to continue
said proceedings. The laws and courts of the Philippines did not become
laws and courts of Japan. Same Courts may continue exercising the same
jurisdictions and cases pending therein before the restoration of
commonwealth until abolished and replaced by the said government.
[DOCTRINE OF PARENS PATRIAE]
Government of Philippines vs. Monte de Piedad
Facts:
An earthquake has happened in the Philippine islands on June 3, 1863 to which
the Government of Spain provided $400, 000 as aid for the victims and was
received by the Philippine Treasury. After the distribution of the allotments to
victims, $80, 000 was left untouched and was then invested in Monte de Piedad
bank which in turn invested it in jewelries.
On account of various petitions of the persons, and heirs of others to whom the
above-mentioned allotments were made by the central relief board for the
payment of those amounts, the Philippine Islands to bring suit against the Monte
de Piedad a recover, "through the Attorney-General and in representation of the
Government of the Philippine Islands," the $80.000, together with interest, for the
benefit of those persons or their heirs appearing in the list of names published in
the Official Gazette. Monte de Piedad bank argued that the Philippine government
is not an affected party and has no right to institute a complaint and further

provides that the government was not the intended beneficiary of the said
amount.
Issue:
WON the Philippine Government is competent to file a complaint against the
Monte de Piedad Bank
Held:
Yes. The Philippine Government is competent to institute an action against Monte
de Piedad Bank. The state as a sovereign is the paren patriae of the people which
means that the government being the protector of the rights of the people has the
inherent supreme power to enforce such laws that will promote public interest. No
other party has been entrusted with such rights hence as parents of the people
the government has the right to take back the money intended for the people.
Moreover, if the said loan was for ecclesiastical pious work, then Spain would not
exercise its civil capabilities.