You are on page 1of 2

Case No. 1: Magallona vs.

Ermita, 655 SCRA 476

About constitutionality of RA 9522, which complies with terms of UNCLOS III because it alleged
decreased our national territory and abandoned our claims in Kalayaan Island Groups (KIG) and
Scarborough Shoal. Court decided that RA 9522 is constitutional since RA 9522 in itself is not a means to
acquire or lose territory. The bases of acquiring or losing territory is based on international law and not
the execution of multilateral treaties. It is merely a notice to the international community of the scope of
the maritime space and submarine area within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights.

Case No. 2: Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines, 568 SCRA
402

About constitutionality of Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF
Tripoli Agreement of Peace of 2001 (MOA). Questioning the constitutionality of said MOA is moot since
the Executive Department has already decided on abandoning said MOA.

Case No. 3: Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540

About the validity of the Equipment Lease Agreement between PCSO and PGMC. Kilosbayan contends
that said ELA is invalid based on the previous decision of the court invalidating the Contract of Lease
between said parties. The court ruled in favor of PCSO since the ELA is a valid contract under the Civil
Code and is in unison with the charter (RA 1169) of PCSO.

Case No. 4: Tanada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18

About the constitutionality of the concurrence by the Senate of the Presidents ratification of the
International Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization since it is in conflict with the
mandate of the 1987 Constitution which gives preference to domestic materials/goods and the use of
Filipino labor to promote self-reliance and independent national economy. The court ruled in favor of
Angara on the ground that it is not intended by the Constitution to promote an isolationist policy. Giving
preference to Filipino products does not necessarily translates to prohibiting entry of foreign goods not
does it prohibit foreign investments. Furthermore, the action of the Senate concurring the Presidents
ratification of the International Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization is within its
sovereign duty and power. Also, it is in adherence with the generally accepted principle of international
law as part of the law of the land and the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.

Case No. 5: PKSMMN vs. Executive Secretary, 669 SCRA 49

About Coco Levy Fund

Case No. 6: Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, 710 SCRA 1

About constitutionality of Pork Barrel of both congress and the President. The PDAF is an article in GAA
which provides for the realignment of funds. Such provision is being used to misappropriate said fund to
alleged ghost projects as exposed by six (6) whistle blowers. The act of dictating which projects their
pork barrel funds go is violating the separation of powers, since the said act is only delegated in the
executive branch of the government. However, in the case of PHILCONSA vs Enriquez, it was ruled that
the CDF is constitutional since the legislators only suggested where said funds go. When it comes to the
Presidential pork barrel however, it is within the Presidents power to realign funds being the executory
of enacted laws.