Constitutional Law

Case Digests for Fundamental State Principles and Policies

1. Oposa vs. Factoran - Lance

2. Marcos vs Manglapus - Mico
3. Hongkong v. Olalia - Reina
4. Abra valley college v aquino- jd
5. Laguna Lake DA vs. CA - Gab
6. Secretary of Defense vs Manalo - Grace
7. Resident Marine Mammals v. reyes - donna
8.Lung center vs QC- Chloe
9. Carino vs CHR - Japa
10. Mejoff v Director of Prisons - Kate
11.
12. Garcia vs drilon - jp
 1. Oposa vs Factoran
FACTS: The petitioners, all minors duly represented and joined by their respective
parents, initiated a taxpayer suit alleging they "are all citizens of the Republic of
the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the
natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical rainforests”. They
prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant Factoran, then Secretary of
the DENR, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to
cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist
from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements. The defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint for having no
cause of action and the issue being a political question which the court affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the said petitioners have a cause of action?
HELD: YES. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides
that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. This right
unites with the right to health which is provided for in SEC. 15 of Article 2 stating
the right found in Sec. 16 of Art. II is as important as the rights in the Bill of Rights
and need not be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist since the
inception of mankind. This explicit mention of the right itself by the framers
imposes a duty on the State to preserve and protect our ecology not just for the
present but also for the coming generations who stand to inherit it creating the
concept of Intergenerational Responsibility and Intergenerational Justice. E.O.
No.192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which serve
as the bases for policy formulation and have defined the powers and functions of
the DENR, who is the primary government agency for the protection of natural
resources. The right of the petitioners and all they represent, including the future
generations, to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR‘s duty to
protect and advance the said right and a denial or violation of that right by the
owner who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same
gives rise to a cause of action such as what is attested here.
2. Marcos v Manglapus
FACTS: Marcos was deposed from presidency via the non-violent “people power”
revolution and forced into exile. Aquino banned the Marcos family from coming
back to the Philippines. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return to
the Philippines is guaranteed under the bill of rights, and that the President may not
impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. Article 13 of
the UDHR also states that everyone has the right to leave any country including his
own and to return to his country.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos have the right to return to the Philippines
HELD: The right to return to one’s country is a distinct right under international
law. The right to enter into one’s country is one that cannot be arbitrarily deprived.
Right to return to one’s country is not protected by the Bill of Rights but is a
generally accepted principle of international law. The maintenance of peace and
order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all of the blessings of democracy. The
President has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them.
The President under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles
in arriving at the decision. If the President believes that the return of the Marcos
family would be a disturbance to the public policy, then banning the return of the
Marcos family would be valid.
3. Laguna Lake DA vs. CA
FACTS: On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of
Lourdes Parish, Caloocan City, filed a letter-complaint with the Laguna Lake
Development Authority seeking to stop the operation of the 8.6-hectare open
garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its
harmful effects on the health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the
water content of the surrounding area. The LLDA, filed on October 2, 1992 a
motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that under Republic Act No. 3931,
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 984, the cease and desist order issued by it
which is the subject matter of the complaint is reviewable both upon the law and
the facts of the case by the Court of Appeals and not by the Regional Trial Court.
However, the City Government of Caloocan filed with the RTC an action for the
declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order with prayer for the issuance of a
writ of injunction. LLDA then filed a motion of Dismiss on the ground that their
order was merely subject to review of the CA and not the RTC.
ISSUE: W/N the LLDA have the power and authority to issue a cease and desist
order.
HELD: Yes. The LLDA, is specifically mandated to carry out and make effective
the declared national policy of promoting and accelerating the development and
balanced growth of the Laguna Lake including Caloocan City with due regard and
adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of
the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue
ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Under RA 4850, as amended,
it authorizes LLDA to “make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance
of pollution.”
4. Hong Kong vs. Olalia
FACTS: Juan Antonio Munoz was charged with 3 counts of offense of "accepting
an advantage as agent" in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery
Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense
of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by common law of Hong Kong. The DOJ then
received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional
arrest of private respondent. The DOJ forwarded to NBA, RTC Branch 19 Manila
issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, NBI agents
arrested and detained him. SC granted the petition and sustained the validity of the
Order of Arrest. As early as November 22, 1999, petitioner Hong Kong Special
Admin Region filed with RTC a petition for the extradition of private respondent.
For the part of petitioner, he also filed in the same case a petition for bail.
Petitioner said that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; there is
nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has
a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. Private
respondent maintained that the right to bail is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights
extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting
in a prolonged deprivation of one's liberty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent has the right to bail
HELD: The right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction
must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines
concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these
treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines
should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired. If bail
can be granted in deportation cases, the Court sees no justification why it should
not also be allowed in extradition cases-clearly the right of a prospective extraditee
to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of a prospective extraditee to apply for
bail must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines
concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights.
5. Abra Valley College vs. Aquino

Facts: Abra Valley College is an educational corporation and institution of higher

learning in Bangued, Abra. CFI of Abra a branch 1 ordered for the seizure and sale
of lot and building of the abra valley junior college for the non payment of real
property tax. Petitioner contends that the primary use of the lot and building for
educational purposes and not the incidental use thereof, determines an exemption
from property taxes under Section 22 (3) or Art VI of 1935 Constitution. On the
other hand, private respondents maintain that the college lot and building in
question to answer for the unpaid taxes are used for educational purposes,
permanent residence of the school director, and commercial purposes because the
ground floor of the college was used and rent d by commercial establishment.

Issue: whether or not the lot and building in question are used exclusively for
educational purposes and thus exempted from paying tax?

Held: Exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable purposes is

not limited to property actually indispensable therefor but extends to facilities
which are incidental to or reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said
purposes. Test for exemption from taxation is the use of the property for the
purposes mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise stated, the use of the school
building for lot commercial purposes is neither contemplated by law nor by
jurisprudence. Under 1935 Constitution, the trial court correctly arrived at a
conclusion that the school building as well as the lot where it is built should be
taxed because the first floor thereof is being used for commercial purposes. Since
only a portion is used for purposes of commerce, it is only fair that half of the
assessed tax should be returned to the school involved. The court hereby affirmed
the premises of the decision of CFI subject to modification.
6. Secretary of Defense vs Manalo
FACTS: Respondent brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted by
military officers who they claim to be members of the CAFGU. Respondents were
subjected to repetitive torture but after 18 months they were able to escape.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals promulgated respondent’s petition for the Writ
of Amparo.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Writ of Amparo is applicable to protect respondent’s
right to security?
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court in upholding the CA’s decision explained that a
Writ of Amparo serves as both a preventive and curative role in addressing the
problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearance. The court elaborated on
the right of security and established that right to security constitute the following:
(1) Freedom of Fear, (2) A guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or
security and (3) a guarantee of protection of one’s right by the government.
Following the circumstances of the case, it is clear that all three stipulations are
present. The circumstances of respondent’s abduction, detention, torture, and
escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they
will be again subjected to such because the implicated officers are still in office.
Further, it was evident that aside from the failure of military elements to provide
protection to respondents by themselves perpetrating the abduction, detention, and
torture, they also miserable failed in conducting an effective investigation of the
respondents’ abduction. Finally, the Court concluded that respondent’s right to
security as “freedom of threat” is violated by the apparent threat to their life,
liberty and security of person.
7. Resident Marine Mammals vs Reyes

Facts: The Government of the Philippines (DOE) entered into a Geophysical

Survey and Exploration Contract-102 with JAPEX which involved geological and
geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait. The EMB of DENR Region VII granted
the offshore oil and gas exploration project in Tañon Strait. JAPEX began to drill
an exploratory well. Resident Mammals and stewards seek to enjoin
implementation SC-46 for violation of the 1987 Constitution. The respondents
countered among others, the “Resident Marine Mammals” and “Stewards” have no
legal standing to file the petition.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing.
Held: Yes. The petitioners are given a legal standing. In Oposa, we allowed the
suit to be brought in the name of generations yet unborn “based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned.” Furthermore, we said that the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, a right that does not even need to be stated in our Constitution as
it is assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The need to give the
Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which
allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real
parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species.
The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that there
may be possible violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine
Mammals, are therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file this petition.
10. Mejoff vs Director of Prisons

FACTS: Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this
country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces. The
deportation Board taking his case up found out that he illegally entered the country
and therefore it ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to
Russia. For two years, the Government has not found ways and means of
removing the petitioner out of the country because no ship nor country would take
him. Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best interest of the country
to keep him under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner may be detained indefinitely pending
arrangements for his deportation
HELD: Foreign nationals, not enemy against whom no charge has been made
other than that their permission to stay has expired, may not indefinitely be kept in
detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law
and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to
Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of
nationality. The petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was
brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government. Moreover,
the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of Nation. And in a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration of Human
Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which the
Philippines is a member, the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental
rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed.
11. Garcia vs Drilon

FACTS: Respondent filed issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)

against her husband pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of
physical abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result
of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of
custody of her children and of financial support. Petitioner's infidelity
spawned a series of fights that left private respondent physically and
emotionally wounded that leads to the attempted suicide by cutting her wrist
Petitioner simply fled the house instead of taking her to the hospital. Private
respondent was hospitalized for about seven (7) days in which time petitioner
never bothered to visit, nor apologized.
ISSUE: Whether the C.A. failed to conclude that R.A. 9262 is
discriminatory, unjust, and violative of equal protection clause.
HELD: No. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The
Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be
treated in law as though they were the same. It does not prohibit legislation
which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the
territory within which it is to operate. R.A. 9262 is based on a valid
classification and did not violate the equal protection clause by favoring
women over men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the State
extends its protection. VAWC may likewise be committed "against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly,
the use of the gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual or
dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships.
Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or connected
to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of
conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
12. EPZA vs. CHR

Facts: A parcel of Phase IV was bought by Filoil Refinery Corporation,

formerly Filoil Industrial Estate, Inc. The same parcel was later sold by
Filoil to the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). Before EPZA could
take possession of the area, several individuals had entered the premises and
planted agricultural products therein without permission from EPZA or its
predecessor, Filoil. To convince the intruders to depart peacefully, EPZA
paid a P10, 000 financial-assistance to those who accepted the same and
signed quit claims. Ten years later respondent Teresita Valles, Loreto Aledia
and Pedro Ordoñez filed in the respondent Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) a joint complaint (Pinagsamahang Salaysay) praying for "justice and
other reliefs and remedies" ("Katarungan at iba pang tulong").
Issue: Does the CHR have jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or
restraining order against supposed violators of human rights, to compel them
to cease and desist from continuing the acts complained of?
Held: No. The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for
preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose
human rights have been violated or need protection" may not be construed
to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ
of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have
expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by
law." It is never derived by implication. Evidently, the "preventive measures
and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial
and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the
CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human
rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no
jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction mayn only
be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is pending, or by
a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court.