CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ASSIGNMENT

Ada Abellera

1. PORK BARREL ISSUE

ISSUE: WON the issue on Pork barrel system is dependent upon the wisdom of the political branches of
the government.

Answer:

In the case of BELGICA V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, the intrinsic constitutionality of the Pork Barrel
System is not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of the political branches of government but rather
a legal one which the Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing the
contours of the system along constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of government are
incapable of rendering precisely because it is an exercise of judicial power.

More importantly, the present Constitution has not only vested the Judiciary the right to exercise
judicial power but essentially makes it a duty to proceed therewith. Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution cannot be any clearer: "The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law. [It] includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."

A political question refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon
the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

2. CAN RH LAW BE FACIALLY CHALLENGED?

Answer: Yes.

The principle that a facial challenge to a statute is allowed only when it operates in the area of freedom
of expression has already been modified.

In the case of IMBONG V. OCHOA, a facial challenge also known as a first amendment challenge is one
that is launched to assail the validity of statutes concerning not only protected speech but also all other
fundamental rights. The scope of facial challenge test has already been expanded to cover all other
fundamental rights such as religious freedom, freedom of the press, etc.

The reason for the expansion is mandated by the fundamental law not only to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

In this case of RH law, considering that in this case it was alleged that the constitutional right to life,
speech, religion and other fundamental rights have been violated by the assailed legislation, the court
has authority to take cognizance of this petition.

3. VFA/WAIVER OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT/LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

Issue: WON Warships are immune from suit.

Answer:

Warships and other government ships of other States operated for non-commercial purposes, enjoy
immunity from the jurisdiction of local courts and administrative tribunals, subject to the provisions of
Arts. 30-31

Warships continue to enjoy sovereign immunity subject, subject to the provisions of Art. 30
(noncompliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal state) and Article 31
(responsibility of the flag State for damages caused by a warship or other government ship operated for
non-commercial purposes) of Unclos.

In the case of ARIGO V. SWIFT, the SC said that in a suit filed against the US naval officials to hold them
liable for the damage caused to Tubbataha reefs by USS guardian, a US warship, the petitioners argued
that there is a waiver of immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
civil actions such as the present petition.

In any case, the application or nonapplication of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to personnel
who may be found responsible for the grounding of USS Guardian would be premature and beyond the
province of a petition for a writ of kalikasan.

Moreover, a foreign warships unauthorized entry in our internal waters with resulting damage to
marine resources is one situation in which Arts. 30-31 may apply, even if the flag state of the offending
warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, such as the U.S. Nonmembership in UNCLOS does not mean that
the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a coastal State over its internal waters and territorial
sea.