CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
DUAL ALLEGIANCE
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship,
unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced
it.
 1987 provision makes no reference to sex thus making the rule applicable
to both males and females on the chance that some country might have a
law which divest a foreign husband of his citizenship
 Prospective – does not serve to restore citizenship already lost by marriage
under the old law.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall
be dealt with by law.
Dual citizenship
 Constitution allows for the possibility of dual citizenship (Child also follows
the citizenship of the mother, Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship
when she marries an alien)
 If Philippine citizenship is acquired by naturalization and not by operation
of the Constitution, it is well within the power of Philippine law to require
prior renunciation of foreign nationality as a condition.
 Often a function of the accident referred to that birth on foreign soil.
Dual allegiance
 Larger and more threatening than that of mere double citizenship which is
seldom intentional and, perhaps, never insidious.
 Referred to that unsettled kind of allegiance of persons who are already
Filipinos but who, by their acts, may be said to be bound by a second
allegiance to another state.
AZNAR vs. COMELEC [May 25, 1990]
Petition for Certiorari to review COMELEC resolution
 Nov. 19, 1987 – Emilio Osmena filed certificate of candidacy (COC) for pos of
Prov’l Gov. of Cebu for Jan. 18, 1988 elections
 Jan. 22, 1988 – Cebu PDP-Laban thru provincial chairman Jose Aznar filed
w/COMELEC petition to disqualify Osmena on ground that he’s an American &
not a Filipino citizen.
 Jan. 27, 1988 – Aznar submitted following to COMELEC:
1. Immigration certificate stating Osmena is an American & a holder of an
Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigration Certificate of
Residence (ICR)
2. Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to issue TRO enjoining Cebu Provincial Board of
Canvassers from tabulating/canvassing Osmena’s votes and proclaiming
him until final resolution has been issued
 Jan. 28, 1988 – COMELEC resolution: continue canvassing,
suspend proclamation
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
1
 Additional evidence presented by Aznar during hearing: Osmena’s
Application for Alien Registration, ACR, permit to re-enter
Philippines
 Osmena: maintained he’s a Filipino citizen w/ Philippine passport
& continuously residing in RP. He claims he has not gone out of RP
for more than 6 mos. & he’s a registered voter.
 March 3, 1988 – COMELEC directed canvassers to proclaim
winner, Osmena won.
 June 11, 1988 – petition dismissed by COMELEC
ISSUE: WON Osmena should be disqualified
HELD: No.
RATIO:
1. Pursuant to Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 78, a petition to disqualify a
registered candidate before the election may be filed by any person
exclusively on the ground that any material representation of requirements
under Sec. 74 is false. It should be filed not later than 25 days from time
of filing COC & should be decided not later than 15 days before election.
Petition was filed more than 2 mos after Osmena filed his COC. A petition
for quo warranto stated in Sec. 253 is only applicable for petitions after the
election. Thus, it cannot be invoked for such is premature considering that
Osmena was proclaimed only on March 3, 1988.
2. No substantial & convincing evidence presented to prove Osmena is no
longer a Filipino citizen & disqualified from running. Filipino citizenship is
lost by naturalization in a foreign country or by express renunciation of
citizenship or by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support another
country’s consti or laws (CA No. 63). No proof that Osmena did any of
those. Aznar assumed that the ACR & permit to re-enter were proof of
such. However, only RP courts are allowed to determine whether one is a
Filipino citizen or not, regardless of whether that person is considered an
American under US laws. His father is Filipino thus, without proof of
contrary, the presumption that he is a Filipino remains.
3. Frivaldo & Labo cases not applicable because they have both admitted that
they are foreign citizens whereas Osmena vehemently denies his American
citizenship.
4. He has a Philippine passport & he has continuously participated in electoral
process in RP both as a voter & as a candidate.
5. Certificate stating that he’s American is just a certificate. It doesn’t say
that he’s not a Filipino nor is there any express or implied renunciation of
his Filipino citizenship.
6. Art. 4, Sec. 5 ’87 Consti: dual allegiance will be dealt w/by law. (They
raised this because Osmena is both Filipino & American) However, no
implementing rules have been enacted yet.
Melencio-Herrera, dissenting: If Osmena had dual citizenship, he had the chance
to elect his citizenship upon majority. He did elect such when he was 24 & 45 by
obtaining an ACR w/c is a clear & unambiguous proof that he’s no longer a citizen.
He claims he was compelled by past regime to change his citizenship but he could
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
have asked for its cancellation before he ran for office. We need not wait for the
implementing guidelines of the dual allegiance law to consider giving up legal
convenience of dual citizenship.
Cruz, Dissenting: When one voluntarily registers as a citizen, he in effect affirms
that he’s not a citizen. There was express renunciation on his part when he took his
oath as a naturalized US citizen. Even if naturalization is revoked, his renunciation
still lies (Labo vs. COMELEC). There was an express renunciation of citizenship as
defined in CA No. 63 w/c is an unequivocal & deliberate act w/full awareness of its
significance & consequences (Yu vs. CID). Osmena was not required to register as
an alien but he chose to do so despite having a land willing to consider him as its
own. Philippine citizenship is lost as long as repudiation is categorical enough &
preference for foreign state in unmistakable, such as in this case. His efforts in
improving Cebu and the fact that majority of the people voted for him are
immaterial owing to the fact that it is unlawful to keep him, a non-Filipino citizen, in
office.
Padilla, Dissenting: He was a dual citizen at one point. His ACR application is
tantamount to an express renunciation of his Filipino citizenship & proof that he’s
an alien under RP laws. If he were truly a Filipino citizen, he should have not
applied for a re-entry permit since it’s every Filipino citizen’s rt to return to his
country. He has been a registered alien since 1958 and another registration took
place in 1979. The first registration is an express renunciation because this is under
the provision requiring aliens 14 yrs or above to elect their citizenship and if they
choose to remain an alien, they must register personally & acquire an ACR. Osmena
was about 20 during the time of the first registration. Dual citizenship should be
prohibited because it is a necessary complement of dual allegiance. It results in
questionable loyalties & leads to international conflicts. Citizens can choose their
nationality but limited to one choice only. If Labo was declared an alien, how come
Osmena’s not? SC is inconsistent in its rulings.
Sarmiento, Concurring: Impt to know how he obtained US citizenship. If by
naturalization, then he has lost his Filipino citizenship. If by jus soli, it’s by force of
circumstances & not by choice, then he doesn’t lose RP citizenship if he were born
of Filipino parents. Without any evidence re this, presumption of his Filipino
citizenship remains. ACR is not equal to an express renunciation.
Gutierrez: Stand in Labo & Yu cases remain. He can’t participate coz he’s related
to one of the counsels w/in 4th civ degree.
Mercado vs. Manzano [May 26, 1999]
Special Civil Actio in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
Facts:
 Eduardo Manzano and Ernesto Mercado were candidates for vice-mayor of
the City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. Manzano received by the
highest number of votes.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
2
 The proclamation of Manzano was suspended in view of a pending petition
for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mamaril who alleged that Manzano was
not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States.
 May 7, 1998 the Second Division of Comelec granted the petition on the
ground that Manzano is a dual citizen and, under section 40 (d) of the
Local Government Code, persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from
running for any elective position. A motion for reconsideration was filed
but it remained pending until the May 11, 1998 elections.
 May 19, 1998 – Mercado sought to intervene in the case for
disqualification this motion for intervention was opposed by Manzano.
 August 31, 1998 – the Comelec en banc reversed the ruling of the second
division on the grounds that when Manzano registered himself as a voter
and voted in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998 he effectively
renounced his US citizenship under the American Law. Under Philippine
law, he no longer had US citizenship.
 August 31, 1998 Manzano was proclaimed as the vice mayor of the City of
Makati.
 Mercado file a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the resolution of
the Comelec en banc.
Issues:
1. WON Mercado has the right to bring the suit. YES
 When can a person intervene? If he has legal interest in the matter of
litigation, or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by such
action or proceeding
 When Mercado sought to intervene in the proceedings before the Comelec
there had been no proclamation of the results of the election for the vice
mayoralty contest for Makati City. Mercado had an interest in ousting
private respondent from the race at the time he sought to intervene.
 Under RA 6646 section 6 intervention may be allowed in proceedings for
disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgement
rendered.
2. WON dual citizenship is a ground for disqualification. NO
 Section 40 of the local government code declares as disqualified from
running for any elective position those with dual citizenship. Petitioner
contends that through section 40(d) command in explicit terms the
ineligibility of persons possessing dual allegiance to hold elective official.
Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship.
 Dual Citizenship – result of the concurrent application of the different laws
of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by
the said states.
o Born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which
follow the principle of jus soli
o Born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by
law of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that
country
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
o Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the
former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission
they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
 Dual Allegiance – when a person simultaneously owes, by some positive
act, loyalty to two or more states. Result of an individual’s volition
 Article IV (5) of the constitution provides: “Dual Allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by the law”. The
concern of the constitutional commission was not with dual citizens per se
but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their
countries of origin even after their naturalization. Therefore, dual
citizenship im RA 7160 section 40 (d) refers to dual allegiance.
 Dual citizenship is just a reality on us because we have no control of the
laws on citizenship of other countries. We recognize a child of a Filipino
mother. But whether or not she is considered as a citizen of another
country is something completely beyond our control.
3. WON Manzano has effectively elected Philippine citizenship. YES
 By voting in the Philippine elections Manzano renounced his American
citizenship. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present
post, private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect
renounce his American citizenship.
 Frivaldo vs. Comelec: Frivaldo lost his American citizenship when he took
his oath of allegiance to the Philippine government when he ran for
Governor in 1988, 1992 and 1995. Every certificate of candidacy contains
an oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government.
 Aznar vs. Comelec: The mere fact that he has a certificate stating that he
is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. The
certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a
Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenship.
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not
a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and
support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance
thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as
far as the laws of this country is concerned, effectively repudiated his American
citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen.
ARTICLE V – SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not
otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall
have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No
literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the
exercise of suffrage.
Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and
sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
3
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to
vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to
vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may
promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
 Suffrage is a privilege granted by the State to such persons or classes as
are most likely to exercise in for the public good.
 1935 Constitution – a right granted by the sovereign people to a definite
portion of the population possessing certain qualifications.
 1973 Constitution – imposed the obligation
MACALINTAL v. COMELEC
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court, Certiorari and Prohibition (July 2003)
Ponencia was penned by J. Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez. The case used the debates
in the constitutional convention to determine the intent of the framers re Absentee
Voting. Nine other justices gave their separate opinions. This is held to be a
momentous case because the core issue is the enfranchisement of some 7 million
overseas Filipinos.
FACTS:
→ This is a case filed by petitioner Atty. Romulo Macalintal, as taxpayer, against
COMELEC, Exec Sec Alberto Romulo and Hon. Emilia Boncodin, Sec of Dept of
Budget and Mgmt. Petitioner, also a member of the Phil Bar, seeks a
declaration that certain provisions of RA No 9189 suffer from constitutional
infirmity. Such Act appropriates funds under its Sec 29 to carry out the
provisions and as taxpayer, petitioner Macalintal also seeks to restrain officials
from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional
statute, w/c results to a misapplication of funds.
→ RA No 9189, more commonly known as The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003, was enacted in lieu of Sec 2, Art V of the Consti. It provides Congress
the system in w/c absentee voting should be done by qualified Filipinos abroad.
→ Absentee voting- a relatively new concept, completely separable and distinct
from the regular system of voting. It is an exception to the customary and
usual manner of voting. Such right of absentee and disabled voters to cast
their ballots at an election is purely statutory. It is devised to accommodate
those engaged in military or civil life whose duties make it impracticable for
them to attend their polling places on the day of election.
→ Overseas Absentee Voter- a citizen of the Phils, at least 18 yrs of age, who is
qualified to register and vote under RA No 9189, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who is abroad on the day of the elections.
→ Absentee- not a resident. A person cannot be simultaneously a resident and
an absentee under normal conditions. However, an absentee remains attached
to his residence in the Phils as residence is considered synonymous to domicile.
→ Residence- a temporary/permanent place of abode; not a domicile. It implies
factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical
presence of a person in a given area, community or country.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
→ Domicile- a fixed permanent residence to w/c, when absent, one has the
intention of returning.
→ Difference between residence & domicile- A person can only have a single
domicile but he may have numerous places of residence. The essential
distinction is the intent to return or the intent to leave when the purpose for
w/c the resident has taken up his abode ends.
ISSUES (Resolved in seriatim):
1) WON Sec 5 of RA No 9189 allowing immigrants or permanent residents to
register as voters is violative of the residency requirement in Sec 1 Art V of
Consti?
2) WON Sec 18.5 of RA w/c empowers COMELEC to proclaim all the winning
candidates violates Sec 4 Art VI of Consti, w/c states that the Congress
proclaim the winning candidates for Pres & VP?
3) WON Congress, via the JCOC, can exercise certain powers over the COMELEC,
w/o violating the latter’s independence under Sec 1 Art IX-A of the Consti?
HELD: Petition partly granted. The ff portions (4) of RA No 9189 are declared VOID
for being unconstitutional:
(a) The phrase in the 1st sentence of 1st par of Sec 17.1, to wit: subject to the
approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee;
(b) The portion of the last par of Sec 17.1, to wit: only upon review and approval
of the JCOC;
(c) The 2nd sentence of par 1 of Sec 19, to wit: The IRR shall be submitted to the
JCOC created by virtue of this Act for prior approval; and
(d) The 2nd sentence in par 2 of Sec 25, to wit: It shall review, revise, amend and
approve the IRR promulgated by the Commission.
RATIO:
1) No. Sec 5 of RA No 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting under
this Act. It disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country. However, an exception is provided i.e.
unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Phils not later than 3 yrs from approval of
registration. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for
citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be cause for the removal
of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the Natl Registry of
Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
Petitioner claims this is violative of the residency requirement in Sec 1 Art V of
the Consti w/c requires the voter must be a resident in the Phils for at least
one yr, and a resident in the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 mos
immediately preceding an election. He presents the ruling in Caasi v. CA
wherein Court held that a “green card” holder US immigrant is deemed to have
abandoned his domicile and residence in the Phils.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
4
However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold water at present, and
that the Court may have to discard that particular ruling.
Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit for w/o it, the presumption of
abandonment of Phil domicile shall remain. The qualified Filipino abroad who
executed an affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the Phils and
presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this
country. Sec 5 of RA No 9189 does not only require the promise to resume
actual physical permanent residence in the Phils not later than 3 yrs after
approval of registration but it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON he is a
green card holder, a temporary visitor or even on business trip, must declare
that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Thus, he/she
must return to the Phils otherwise consequences will be met accdg to RA No
9189.
Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not return after he has
exercised his right to vote, the Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom
of the law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found impractical. However, it
can be said that the Congress itself was conscious of this probability and
provided for a deterrence w/c is that the Filipino who fails to return as
promised stands to lose his right of suffrage. Accordingly, the votes he cast
shall not be invalidated because he was qualified to vote on the date of the
elections.
Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets down plainly its whole
meaning, the Court is prevented from making it mean what the Court pleases.
In fine, considering that underlying intent of the Constitution, as is evident in
its statutory construction and intent of the framers, w/c is to grant Filipino
immigrants and permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to
exercise the right of suffrage (Sec 1 Art V), the Court finds that Sec 5 of RA No
9189 is not constitutionally defective.
2) Yes, Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to usurp a power that
constitutionally belongs to it. The canvassing of the votes and the
proclamation of the winning candidates for President and VP for the entire
nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its duty and power under Sec
4 ART VII of the Consti. COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the winning
candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps.
3) No, by vesting itself w/ the powers to approve, review, amend and revise the
Implementing Rules & Regulations for RA No 9189, Congress went beyond the
scope of its constitutional authority. Congress trampled upon the constitutional
mandate of independence of the COMELEC. Under such a situation, the Court
is left w/ no option but to withdraw from its usual reticence (silence) in
declaring a provision of law unconstitutional.
Unlike the first 2 issues where it remained silent, this is the sole issue reacted
to by COMELEC.
Bellosillo, J., Concurring Opinion:
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
→ Opined his views on WON Sec 5 of RA NO 9189 is violative of the residency
requirement.
→ Actual and physical residence abroad should not ipso jure result or
automatically be equated w/ abandonment of Phil domicile. The values of
animus manendi (intent to remain) and animus revertendi (intent to return)
must not be brushed off in determining WON immigrants and permanent
residents should be denied of their right to vote.
→ Domicile is a question of intention and circumstances. 3 rules to be
considered:
1) a man must have a residence/domicile somewhere;
2) domicile is not easily lost, once established it is retained until a new one is
acquired; and
3) a man can have but 1 residence/domicile at a time.
Puno, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
→ Elements of domicile:
♦ Fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place
♦ Animus manendi: intention of returning there permanently
→ The mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence w/o the
intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile.
→ To successfully effect change in domicile, its actual removal or change must be
demonstrated.
→ Where he concurs:
♦ Congress could not have allowed COMELEC to exercise a power exclusively
bestowed upon it by the Consti in its constitutional duty to canvass and
proclaim the winning candidates for Pres and VP
♦ Congress should not have been given power over IRR of COMELEC for the
latter was granted the power to strengthen its independence. Hence, its
exercise is beyond invasion by Congress.
→ Where he dissents:
♦ The affidavit merely proves the intent to return but not other requisites for
reacquiring the domicile of origin. Domicile could not be established as soon as
the old is abandoned even though the person has not yet arrived at the new
domicile.
♦ The burden of establishing a change in domicile is upon the party who asserts
it. It should not merely rely on a person’s declarations as to what he considers
his home, residence or domicile.
♦ Therefore, the burden rests on an immigrant or a permanent resident to prove
that he has abandoned his foreign domicile and reestablished his domicile in
the Phils. Until the intent is fulfilled upon one’s return to the Phils, he
continues to be a domiciliary of another country and cannot be considered a
qualified voter. Physical presence is not a mere test of intent but the Principal
confirming evidence of the intention of the person.
→ Extent of exercise of Congress of its oversight powers in the implementation of
RA No 9189:
♦ Power of oversight: embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance
its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
5
enacted. It is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the
checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of govt.
♦ Categories: congressional scrutiny (determine economy & efficiency of
operation of govt activities), congressional investigation (inherent power w/c
involves a more intense digging of facts), legislative supervision (most
encompassing; allows Congress to supervise over executive agencies through
its veto power).
→ COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial powers but it is not part of the judiciary. The
Court has no general power of supervision over it except those specifically
granted by the Consti. However, the COMELEC is subject to congressional
scrutiny especially during budget hearings. Congress cannot abolish it as it can
other agencies under the executive branch. COMELEC is not a mere creature
of the legislature, it owe its origin from the Constitution.
Vitug, J., Concurring Opinion:
→ COMELEC’s power is limited only to proclaiming Senators and Party-list Reps as
winners. The election returns for the positions of Pres & VP should be certified
by the Bd of Canvassers to Congress & not COMELEC.
Panganiban, J., Concurring Opinion:
→ 3 Requisites of Voters: citizenship, age and residence.
→ Importance of residence: enables one to know the needs and the problems of
the locality/area.
→ Nowadays, through e-age communication facilities, actual presence is no longer
necessary to make Fils abroad aware of the country’s conditions and the
suitability of candidates for natl offices.
Ynares-Santiago, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
→ Immigrant defined: a person who removes into a country for the purpose of
permanent residence
→ Dissent: Sec 5 of RA No 9189 grants the right of suffrage to a category of
voters who do not possess the constitutional requirement of residence and
therefore should be declared UNconstitutional. Immigrants have voluntarily
and unambiguously chosen actual, physical and permanent residence in a
foreign country.
→ Concurs in the rest of the decisions on the given issues.
Sandoval-Gutierez, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
→ Since the Consti fixes qualifications of voters, such cannot be increased,
diminished or changed by legislative enactment, unless the power to do so is
expressly granted or necessarily implied.
→ Residency requirement aims to serve as an invaluable protection against fraud
and interference. It is not competent for Congress to diminish or alter such
qualification. Thus, Sec 5 of RA No 9189 is Unconstitutional.
Callejo, Sr., J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
→ Sec 5 of RA No 9189 Unconstitutional insofar that qualifications of voters set in
Sec 1 Art V is clear and unambiguous.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
1.
Carpio, J., Carpio-Morales, J., and Azcuna, J. Concur.
AKBAYAN-YOUTH v. COMELEC
355 SCRA 318 (2001)
Nature: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari and Mandamus
Facts: Akbayan-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II - Youth, ALYANSA, KALIPI,
Patricia Q. Picar, Myla Gail Z. Tamondong, Emmanuel E. Ombao, Johnny Acosta,
Archie John Talaue, Ryan Dapitan, Christopher Oarde, Jose Mari Modesto, Richard
M. Valencia, Edben Tabucol and Michelle D. Betito—invoking the right of suffrage—
seek to direct COMELEC to conduct a special registration before the May 14, ‘01
General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21 as 4M youth failed to register on or
before the Dec. 27, ‘00 deadline set by COMELEC under R.A. No. 8189 (Voter's
Registration Act of 1996).
Senator Roco, Chairman if the Committee on Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and
People's Participation, through a Letter invited the COMELEC to a public hearing for
the purpose of discussing the extension of the registration of voters to
accommodate those who were not able to register before the COMELEC deadline.
Commissioners Tancangco and Lantion, together with Consultant Borra (now
Commissioner) attended the public hearing called by the Senate Committee headed
by Senator Roco, held at the Senate. On Jan. 29, ‘01, Commissioners Tancangco
and Lantion submitted Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on the Request
for a Two-day Additional Registration of New Voters Only which stated that
participating students and civic leaders along with Comelec Representatives were in
agreement that is legally feasible to have a two-day additional registration of voters
to be conducted preferably on February 17 and 18, 2001 nationwide. Certain
restrictive parameters were discussed and it further stated that the rationale for the
additional two-day registration is the renewed political awareness and interest to
participate in the political process generated by the recent political events in the
country among the youth. In viewing of the foregoing, the Commission en banc has
to discuss all aspects regarding this request with directives to the Finance Services
Department (FSD) to submit certified available funds for the purpose, and for the
Deputy Executive Director for Operations (DEDO) for estimated costs of additional
two days of registration.
Immediately, Commissioner Borra called a consultation meeting among regional
heads and representatives and it was the decided to disapprove the request for
additional registration of voters on the ground that Section 8 of R.A. 8189 explicitly
provides that no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one
hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and that the Commission has
no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities.
On Feb. 8, 2001, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 3584 which stated the
Commission’s decision to deny the two-day additional registration request. Petitions
filed before the SC in response to said decision were consolidated.
Issues:
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
6
WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Feb. 8
COMELEC Resolution
No. The right to suffrage is not absolute as its exercise, as in the enjoyment of
all other rights, is subject to existing substantive and procedural requirements
embodied in our Constitution, statute books and other repositories of law.
Substantive requirement: Constitution, Art. V, Sec. 1: Suffrage may be
exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who
are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines
for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least
six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Procedural requirement: A citizen in order to be qualified to exercise his right
to vote, in addition to the minimum requirements set by fundamental charter, is
obliged by law to register, at present, under the provisions of Republic Act No.
8189, otherwise known as the "Voter's Registration Act of 1996." The act of
registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage for
registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element
in the election process. Thus, registration cannot and should not be denigrated
to the lowly stature of a mere statutory requirement.
The State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to
safeguard and regulate the act of voter's registration for the ultimate purpose of
conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally
important end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly
constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner.
RA 8189, Sec. 8: System of Continuing Registration of Voters. - The Personal
filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office
of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration shall, however,
be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before
a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election,"
RA 8189, Sec. 35: Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List - Any registered
voter, representative of a political party x x x may file x x x except one hundred
(100) days prior to a regular election x x x."
RA 8189, Sec. 8 and Sec. 35 provide prohibitive periods where no registration
shall be conducted and the one within which to file a sworn petition for the
exclusion of voters from the permanent voter’s list.
The petition for exclusion is a necessary component to registration since it is a
safety mechanism that gives a measure of protection against flying voters, non-
qualified registrants, and the like. The prohibitive period, on the other hand
serves the purpose of securing the voter's substantive right to be included in
the list of voters. This means that if a special voter's registration is conducted,
then the prohibitive period for filing petitions for exclusion must likewise be
adjusted to a later date. If we do not, then no one can challenge the Voter's list
since we would already be well into the 100-day prohibitive period. Aside from
being a flagrant breach of the principles of due process, this would open the
registration process to abuse and seriously compromise the integrity of the
voter's list, and consequently, that of the entire election. The short cuts that will
have to be adopted in order to fit the entire process of registration within the
last 60 days will give rise to haphazard list of voters, some of whom might not
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
even be qualified to vote, the very possibility that we shall be conducting
elections on the basis of an inaccurate list is enough to cast a cloud of doubt
over the results of the polls. If that happens, the unforgiving public will disown
the results of the elections, regardless of who wins, and regardless of how many
courts validate our own results.
Still, petitioners invoke the so called "standby" powers or "residual" powers of
the COMELEC, as provided under the relevant provisions of RA 6646, Sec. 29
and adopted verbatim in RA 8436, Sec. 28 where COMELEC shall fix other
periods and dates in order to ensure accomplishments of the activities so voters
shall not be deprived of their right to suffrage, if it should no longer be possible
to observe the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre-election acts.
Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application
for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or
municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered
voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board. (RA 8189, Sec 3(a))
Reconciling RA 8436, Sec. 28 and RA 8189, Sec. 8: Every new statute should
be construed in connection with those already existing in relation to the same
subject matter and all should be made to harmonize and stand together, if they
can be done by any fair and reasonable interpretation. Interpretare et
concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi. Accordingly, courts, when
confronted with apparently conflicting statutes, should endeavor to reconcile
them instead of declaring outright the invalidity of one against the other as they
are equally the handiwork of the same legislature.
Court thus held that Sec. 8 of R.A. 8189 applies in present case, for purpose of
upholding assailed COMELEC Resolution and denying the instant petitions,
considering that the aforesaid law explicitly provides that no registration shall
be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a regular election. Sec.
28, RA 8436 applies in cases where the pre-election acts may be performed
within the available period prior to election day. In more categorical language,
Sec. 28, RA 8436 is anchored on the sound premise that these certain "pre-
election acts" are still capable of being reasonably performed vis-a-vis the
remaining period before the date of election and the conduct of other related
pre-election activities required under the law.
COMELEC—the constitutional body tasked by no less that the fundamental
charter (Sec 2, par. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution) to decide, except those
involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including
registration of voters—painstakingly and thoroughly emphasized the 2.
"operational impossibility of conducting a special registration, which in its own
language, "can no longer be accomplished within the time left to (us) the
Commission." Even without the legal obstacles, the Comelec has much to do
(such as complete project of precincts, constitute BEI, inspect, verify and seat
Book of Voters etc.) and with very little time to accomplish them.
Since it is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the determination of
administrative agency as to the operation, implementation and application of a
law would be accorded great weight considering that these specialized
government bodies are, by their nature and functions, in the best position to
know what they can possible do or not do, under prevailing circumstances and
since the law does not require that the impossible be done, the court held that
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
7
the "stand-by power" of COMELEC under Sec. 28 of R.A. 8436, presupposed the
possibility of its being exercised or availed of, and not otherwise.
On the allegation that petitioners were disfranchised when COMELEC set the
registration deadline on Dec. 27, ‘00 instead of the day before prohibitive period
before May 14, ‘01 regular elections commences: Petitions and records show
that none of the petitioners has filed an application to be registered as a voter
which was denied by COMELEC or has filed a complaint before COMELEC
alleging that he or she proceeded to the Office of the Election Officer to register
between period from Dec. 28, ‘00 to Jan. 13, ‘01, and that he or she was
disallowed or barred by COMELEC from filing such application.
Though COMELEC set the registration deadline on Dec. 27, ‘00, petitioners
were not denied the opportunity to avail of the continuing registration under
R.A. 8189. Petitioners in instant case are not without fault or blame—they admit
that they failed to register, for whatever reason, within the period of
registration. They are denied of the Court’s protective mantle because “Let no
one come to court with unclean hands” and “the law aids the vigilant and not
those who slumber on their rights”.
Held: COMELEC did not commit an abuse of discretion, much less be adjudged
to have committed the same in some patent, whimsical and arbitrary manner, in
issuing Resolution No, 3584. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of laws.
COMELEC in denying petitioners’ request to hold special registration, acted
within the bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter – Sec. 8, RA
8189. In issuing the assailed Resolution, COMELEC simply performed its
constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election. Whatever action COMELEC takes in the exercise of
its wide latitude of discretion, specifically on matters involving voters'
registration, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act. Thus, in
the absence of clear showing of grave abuse of power or discretion on the part
of COMELEC, Court is precluded from meddling with affairs exclusively within
the province of COMELEC - a body accorded with independence by the
Constitution.
WON SC can compel COMELEC, through the extraordinary writ of
mandamus, to conduct a special registration of new voters during the
period between the COMELEC's imposed Dec. 27, ‘00 deadline and the
May 14, ‘01 general elections.
No. As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an
officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not
issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law
imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner
in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised
and not that of the court.
The court held that petitioners failed to satisfactorily establish that they are
entitled to the issuance of this extraordinary writ so as to effectively compel
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
COMELEC to conduct a special registration of voters. For the determination of
whether or not the conduct of a special registration of voters is feasible,
possible or practical within the remaining period before the actual date of
election, involves the exercise of discretion and thus, cannot be controlled by
mandamus.
Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Zamora: Court's function (Art. VIII, Sec. 1) is
"merely [to] check, WON the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond
the constitutionally limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different
view. In the absence of a showing ...[of] grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective
power...It has no power to look into what it thinks is apparent error.
President’s issuance of Proc. No. 15 calling Congress to a Special Session on
March 18, 2001, to allow the conduct of Special Registration of new voters and
filing of House Bill No., 12930 (and similarly Senate Bill No. 2276 before Senate)
before the Lower House, which bills seeks to amend R.A. 8189 as to the 120-
day prohibitive period provided for under said law, are clear intimations on the
part of both the executive and legislative departments that a legal obstacle
indeed stands in the way of the conduct by the COMELEC of a special
registration before May 14, 2001 General Elections.
PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to
build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our
ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence
and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
ARTICLE II – DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
PRINCIPLES
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE AND THE REPUBLICANISM
 Direct and Indirect Democracy
 Representation and renovation
 Accountability to the people
 Rule of the majority
 The rule of law
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
(Sovereignty resides in the people)
ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
8
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation,
and amity with all nations.
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations
with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
 Renunciation of war
Article VI section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in
joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war.
 Adoption of international law
 Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, amity
SUPREMACY OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITY
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed
Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to
secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.
Article VII, Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call
out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he
may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within
forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person
or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize
the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected
with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall
be released.
Article XVI, Section 5(4) No member of the armed forces in the active service
shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position
in the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any
of their subsidiaries.
Article XVI, Section 5(2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and
nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people's rights in the
performance of their duty.
GOVERNMENT AS PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLE AND PEOPLE AS DEFENDERS OF
THE STATE
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people.
The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law,
to render personal, military or civil service.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and
property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by
all the people of the blessings of democracy.
SEPARATION OF CURCH AND STATE
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Article III, Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever
be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights. (Freedom of religious clause)
Article IX-C, 2(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present
their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens' arms of the
Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered.
Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or
refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any
foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
9
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political
parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections, constitute
interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground
for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other
penalties that may be prescribed by law. (Political party ban on sects)
Article VI, Section 5(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list.
For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the
seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law,
except the religious sector. (no sectoral representation from religious sector)
Exceptions
Article VI, Section 28(3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (tax exemption
of churches)
Article VI, Section 29 (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated,
applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of
any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of
any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces,
or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. (No
appropriations for sects; exemptions)
Article XIV, Section 3(3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or
guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public
elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors
designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the
children or wards belong, without additional cost to the Government. (Optional
religious instructions)
Article XIV, Section 4(2) Educational institutions, other than those established by
religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the
Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of
which is owned by such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased
Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.
The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens
of the Philippines.
No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of
aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The
provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools established for foreign
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law,
for other foreign temporary residents. (Filipino ownership for schools, except
religious groups and mission boards)
POLICIES
Independent foreign policy and a nuclear-free Philippines
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations
with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Article XVIII, Section 4. All existing treaties or international agreements which
have not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended without the concurrence of
at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
Article XVIII, Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between
the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military
bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a
national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State.
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) vs. Zamora [Oct. 10, 2000]
Special Civil Actions in the SC. Certiorari & Prohibition
Nature: This involves 5 consolidated petitions for certiorari & prohibition regarding
an agreement forged by the government with the USA – the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA).
Facts:
 March 14, 1947: RP-US forged Military Bases Agreement (MBA) w/c included
US military use of installations in RP
 Aug. 30, 1951: RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) wherein they agreed to
respond to external armed attack on their territories, armed forces, public
vessels & aircraft
 MBA expired in 1991. Parties negotiated for extension however, Senate
rejected proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation & Security,
extending US stay. MDT continued.
 July 18, 1997: US & RP met and discussed their complementing strategic
interests in the Asia-Pacific. They discussed possible elements of VFA.
Negotiations & conferences took place on Jan. 12-13, 1998.
 Feb. 10, 1998: then Pres. Ramos, DFA Sec. Siazon & US Ambassador Thomas
Hubbard approved & signed VFA.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
10
 Oct. 5, 1998: Erap ratified VFA thru DFA Sec.
 Oct. 6, 1998: Exec. Sec. Ronaldo Zamora transmitted Instrument of
Ratification (includes info that VFA is the framework to strengthen RP-US
relations, to give life to MDT, to hold regular joint military exercises, info on
guidelines re admission, prosecution of US personnel, importation &
exportation of US materials) to the Senate. Including letter of President & VFA.
This is in pursuant to Art. VII, Sec. 21 of 87 Consti.
 Senate referred VFA to Committee on Foreign Relations (Ople, head) and
Committee on National Defense & Security (Biazon, head). Both committees
had joint public hearings & deliberations.
 May 3, 1999: Committees submitted Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443
recommending Senate concurrence to the VFA & creation of Legislative
Oversight Committee to oversee implementation. They agreed w/VFA because
it: 1)promoted common security of RP & US, 2) doesn’t give US unrestricted
access or unhampered mov’t in RP, 3) not a basing agreement nor does it
revive US bases & facilities, 4) these are only temporary visits, 5) RP courts
have primary jurisdiction over US personnel unless it only involves US
prop/person, 6) US commits to respect RP laws, 7) enhance RP political,
economic & security partnership & cooperation w/ US. It was also stated that
RP has rt to terminate agreement unilaterally if it’s no longer part of national
interest.
 May 27, 1999: VFA approved by a vote of 18-5. Became Sen. Resolution. No.
18
 June 1, 1999: VFA enforced after US (Hubbard) & RP (Siazon) exchange of
notes. It has a preamble & 9 articles providing for mechanism that will govern
USAF & defense personnel in RP. (pls. see pp. 469 – 476 for whole VFA text)
 Petitioners assail constitutionality of VFA as legislators, NGOs, citizens &
taxpayers. They allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON petitioners have locus standi. NO
 For one to have standing, one must prove that law is invalid & that he/she
has/wills sustain some direct injury if law will be enforced. It also involves
denial of rights/privileges one is entitled to. Petitioners were not able to prove
this.
 Taxpayers – failed to establish that VFA involves taxing or spending powers of
Congress. For such to be appreciated, it should involve illegal disbursement of
public funds derived from taxation. NO public funds are involved here. They
didn’t allege that public funds are being misspent or illegally expended either.
 Legislators (Representatives Wigberto Tanada, Butz Aquiino, Joker Arroyo) – no
standing either for they failed to prove that they or Congress will sustain direct
injury due to VFA. Alleged impairment of legislative power such as delegation
of Congress power to grant tax exemptions, more apparent than real.
 Integrated Bar of the Philippines – no standing either since there is no board
resolution from Board of Governors authorizing its President to file this suit.
 But then again, since it is of paramount importance & constitutional
significance, procedural barrier will be brushed aside & SC will take cognizance
of case.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
2. What is the applicable constitutional provision to the case at bar? Art.
18, Sec. 25.
 Petitioners: Sec. 25, Art. XVIII is applicable (“After the expiration in 1991 of
the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States
of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that
purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”) because
it involves foreign military troops.
 Respondents: Sec. 21, Art. VII applicable (“No treaty or international
agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”) since VFA is not a basing agreement
but an agreement involving temporary visits of US personnel for joint military
exercises.
 SC says Art. VII, Sec. 21 involves treaties or international agreements in
general w/c needs 2/3 concurrence of Senate members. Examples are
extradition or tax treaties or those economic in nature or any other treaty or
international agreement entered into by RP of any subject. Whereas, Art.
XVIII, Sec. 25 is a special provision applicable to foreign military bases, troops
or facilities in RP. It requires concurrence of Senate by a treaty, ratification of
majority of voters in national referendum if required by Congress & recognition
as treaty by other contracting state. Both are in the negative, prohibitory in
mandate & character & require Senate concurrence.
 VFA: agreement w/c defines treatment of US troops & personnel visiting RP.
Provides guidelines & rts of both parties. Sec. 25, Art. XVIII is then
applicable. Sec. 21, Art. VII will be applicable in the sense that it states the
number of votes required to obtain valid Senate concurrence w/c is 2/3.
 LEX SPECIALIS DEROGANT GENERALI: Special provision such as Art. XVIII,
Sec. 25, prevails over a general one like Art. VII, Sec. 21. General enactment
will only be suppletory to the special provision.
 UBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT NEC NOS DISTINGUIRE DEBEMOS: When no
distinction is made by law, the Court should not distinguish. Art. XVIII, Sec. 25
does not distinguish between a permanent or transient stay of troops, thus
duration of US military stay in RP is immaterial.
 A18 S25 is applicable even if only foreign troops & facilities and not bases are
involved. Disjunctive “or” is used with a comma, meaning, the 3 are
independent from each. Provision contemplates 3 different situations. Fr.
Bernas expressly stated during Con Con that even if only one situation arises,
the requirements would still be the same. Military bases are actually no longer
viable because of other alternatives such as nuclear weapons, warships, etc.
which are mobile & no longer require presence in a territory.
3. WON the requirements of A18 S25 were complied with. YES
 Requirement #1 met. It is under a treaty.
 Requirement #2 met. It obtained 2/3 concurrence of Senate thru Resolution
No. 18. National referendum is not necessary because Congress didn’t require
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
11
it. 2/3 means at least 16 should have voted in favor. There were 18 votes in
favor of the VFA. Even if there were only 23 incumbent senators at that time,
2/3 would still be met.
 Petitioners allege that 3rd requisite of the contracting party recognizing the
agreement as a treaty has not been met. They claim that VFA should have
advice & consent of US Senate & not be considered merely as an executive
agreement by the US. Respondents on the other hand presented a letter from
Hubbard saying that VFA is binding on the US gov’t. They say that for VFA to
be binding, it must only be accepted as a treaty by the US. SC view:
recognition only means accepting or acknowledging the agreement as a treaty.
Requiring US Senate concurrence would accord a strict meaning to the phrase.
Remember verba legis, ordinary meaning/common use unless technical terms
are employed. Besides, under International Law, an executive agreement is
binding as a treaty. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defined a treaty
as an internat’l instrument concluded between States in written form &
governed by international law whatever its particular designation. Name is
immaterial as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained w/in their
powers. A treaty can be called differently (act, protocol, agreement, concordat,
convention, declaration, etc.) & still mean the same. RP recognizes binding
effect of executive agreements w/o Senate or Congress concurrence. We
recognize power of executive to enter into binding agreements w/o
concurrence. US SC has recognized such too. (Commissioner of Customs vs.
Eastern Sea Trading) Con Con deliberations also show that ratification by the
other state should be governed by their own laws. Hubbard’s letter is also proof
of US acceptance & acknowledgment. (see p. 491 for the letter) Ratification is
generally held to be an executive act undertaken by head of state or gov’t. In
RP, such power is vested on President. Senate is only limited to giving or
w/holding consent or concurrence to ratification. Since VFA has been ratified
and there has been an exchange of notes bet. RP & US, such agreement is
already binding on us. We can’t plead the Consti as a convenient excuse for
non-compliance of our obligations, duties & responsibilities. Such is prohibited
by Art. 13 of the Declaration of rts & duties.
4. WON there was grave abuse of discretion on part of respondents. NO
 It is w/in president’s power to enter into & ratify treaties. Consti grants him
such powers. He is the sole organ & authority in country’s external affairs. He
is the chief architect of our nation’s foreign policy. Senate & Congress cannot
intrude into the President’s power to negotiate. SC believes it is w/in
President’s power to ratify & w/in Senate’s power to concur with VFA. Senate is
an independent body & wisdom of its actions are beyond SC’s jurisdiction. SC
can only check WON other branches went beyond their jurisdiction & not that it
erred or has a different view.
Holding: Case dismissed.
Puno Dissent
Only issue for him is WON A18 S25 was violated. This agreement can be classified
as permanent there being no mention of duration of joint military exercises. It is
open-ended. Only states that it will expire 180 days from date on w/c either party
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
notifies the other in writing of its desire to terminate agreement. It can be in force
indefinitely. Siazon said VFA will continue until there is no longer a possible threat
to our national security. Training will be on a larger scale according to Defense Sec.
Mercado. Then, escalation of duration & frequency are highly probable too. This is
w/in A18 S25 & such is ripe for adjudication.
To ascertain if VFA has complied w/ consti’l provision, we should look at intent of
Consti framers. Con Con deliberations show that such provision was enacted to
remove flaws of the 1947 MBA. By the phrase “recognized as a treaty,” they meant
that other party must perform all acts required for the agreement to reach the
status of a treaty in their country. Thus, we should go back to US Consti. US Consti
allows president to make treaties provided that 2/3 of senate concurs. US
recognizes 4 types of international agreements: treaty, executive agreement
pursuant to a treaty, congressional-executive agreements & sole executive
agreements. Exec. Agreement is a convenient catch-all to subsume all international
agreements intended to bind US & another gov’t other than those w/c receive
consent of 2/3 of US Senate. This is recognized by all branches of the gov’t. This is
used to come up with decisions & actions expediently using force or diplomacy. It
may be treaty-authorized (authority conferred in prior treaty), congressional-
executive (either negotiated w/prior Congressional authorization or confirmed by
Congress after negotiation), or presidential or sole (exclusive presidential powers
such as commander-in-chief). VFA falls under the presidential or sole executive
agreement accdg to Puno but respondents failed to quality under which category
VFA falls. This is important in determining criminal jurisdiction over US forces
stationed abroad. Sole executive agreements and treaties, although both superior
over state laws, have different effects when pitted against prior inconsistent acts of
Congress. A treaty can supersede a prior act of Congress and vice-versa. The one
with later date will prevail. Sole executive agreements cannot prevail over prior
inconsistent federal legislation. It can only do so if it is supported by an appropriate
legislation. President does not have the power to repeal existing federal laws, thus
he can’t make an indirect appeal thru a sole executive agreement. SC can’t equate
the VFA to a treaty since it is only an executive agreement. A treaty has a greater
dignity due to its constitutional effectiveness. It commits the Senate & people of the
US & its subsequent abrogation is less likely. VFA can’t climb to the same lofty
height that the dignity of treaty can reach. It does not meet the 3rd requisite.
Lim vs. Executive Secretary [April 11, 2002]
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the
joint exercise
Facts:
 This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a
petition-in-intervention, praying that respondents be restrained with the
Balikatan 02-1 and after due notice and hearing, that judgement be
rendered issuing a permanent writ of injunction and/or prohibition against
the deployment of US troops in Basilan and Mindanao for being illegal and
in violation of the Constitution.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
12
 January 2002 – Armed forces of the US started arriving in Mindano to take
part in the Balikatan exercises. Balikatan exercises are a simulation of
joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).
The MDT is a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines
and The US in 1951.
 February 11, 2002 - Sanlakas and Partido ng Manggagawa (party list
organizations) filed a petition-in-intervention.
 The petitioners contend that the MDT is applicable only when there is an
armed attack by an external aggressor and that the attacks of ASG cannot
be considered as external. Also, the VFA does not authorize the American
soldiers to engage in combat operations in the Philippine territory, not
even to fire back if fired upon.
 In the reply filed by the Solicitor General he pointed out the following:
o They may not file suit in their capacities as taxpayers because it
has not been shown that Balikatan 02-1 involves the exercise of
Congress’ taxing or spending power
o Cannot file suit in their capacities as lawyers because being
lawyers does not invest them with sufficient personality to initiate
the case
o The petitioners have failed to demonstrate the requisite showing
of direct personal injury
Issue:
1. WON the petitioners have the legal standing to file the suit. NO
 The court agreed with the solicitor general that the petitioners
cannot file suit in their capacity as taxpayers and as lawyers.
Also the petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite showing of
direct injury.
2. WON the court can take cognizance of the case. YES
 The court ruled that they can take cognizance of the case because
of its transcendental importance to the public. The court cites
cases wherein the court ruled that in cases of transcendental
importance, the Court may relax the standing requirements and
to allow a suit to prosper even when there is no direct injury to
the party claiming the right of judicial review (Kilosbayan vs.
Guingona Jr.)
3. WON the Balikatan -02-1 is covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement. YES
 The VFA permits US personnel to engage, on an impermanent
basis, in “activities.” The exact meaning of activities was left
undefined. The court used the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties to aid them in interpreting the word “activities”.
 From a reading of the Vienna Convention it is clear that the
cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of the
text, which is presumed to verbalize the intention of the parties.
The text of a treaty is presumed to be the authentic expression of
the intentions of the parties. The starting point of interpretation
is the elucidation of the meaning of the text, not an investigation
ab initio into the intentions of the parties.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
 With the aid of the Vienna Convention it appears farfetched that
the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word “activities”
arose from accident. The US forces may sojourn in Philippine
territory for purposes other than military.
 VFA legitimizes the Balikatan exercises. Also, Balikatan 02-1 is
authorized by the MDT and VFA. Both history and intent of the
MDT and VFA support the conclusion that combat-related
activities as opposed to combat itself are authorized.
4. WON American troops are prohibited from engaging in an offensive war on
the Philippine territory. NO
 Neither the MDT nor the VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an
offensive war on the Philippine territory.
 1987 Constitution: Declaration of Principle and State Policies
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation,
and amity with all nations.
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations
with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of
the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except
under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State
 From the provision of the constitution it can be seen that foreign
troops are allowed entry into the Philippines only by way of direct
exception. Conflict arises between the fundamental law and our
obligations from International agreements. In Philip Morris, Inc.
v. CA the court ruled that the fact that international law has been
made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the
primacy of international law over national law. Rules of
international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to
national legislation
 In Gonzales vs. Hechanova the court ruled that the SC may not
be deprived of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify,
or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or rules
of court may provide, final judgements and decrees of inferior
courts. Our constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty,
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
13
not only when it conflicts the fundamental law, but, also when it
runs counter to an act of Congress.
5. WON the American troops actively engaged in combat alongside Filipino
soldiers under the guise of an alleged training assistance exercise.
 The court does not take cognizance of newspaper or electronic
reports per se, not because of any issue as to their truth,
accuracy, or impartiality, but for the simple reason that facts must
be established in accordance with the rules of evidence.
 Determination of this issue involves basically a question of fact.
This present action is not a fit topic for a special civil action for
certiorari. SC is not a trier of facts.
Dissenting Opinion: J. Kapunan
 There is no treaty allowing US troops to engage in combat – MDT does not
authorize the US military troops to engage the ASG in combat. MDT
contemplates only an external armed attack.
 There is no evidence that the ASG is connected with “global terrorism” –
ASG committed mostly crimes of kidnapping for ransom and murder which
are common crimes that are punishable under the penal code but which,
by themselves, hardly constitute terrorism.
 Balikatan exercises are not covered by VFA as US troops are not allowed to
engage in combat – Military exercise that are contemplated in the VFA are
those in accordance with the National Defense Plan (NDP) of the Philippine.
NDP is directed against potential foreign aggressors, not designed to deal
with internal disorders.
 US military presence is essentially idenfinite and open-ended – J. Kapunan
enumerated various newspaper clipping and speeches delivered by US
President Bush. He stated that the Court can take judicial notice of the
pronouncements because they are of public knowledge, having been
circulated in all channels of the media. Neither have they been denied.
Separate Opinion: J. Panganiban
 J. Panganiban voted to dismiss the petition because in the absence of a
firm factual findings that the Americans will stay indefinitely in our country
or are engaged in actual offensive combat with local insurgents as alleged
by the petitioners, respondent Philippine officials who are hosting the
Balikatan exercise cannot possibly be imputed with grave abuse of
discretion – an indispensable element of certiorari.
A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to
build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence
and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure
the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty
through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a
rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN DIGNITY
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.
Article XIII, Section 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called
the Commission on Human Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must
be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be
members of the Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of
the Members of the Commission shall be provided by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on
Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically
and regularly released.
Article XIII, Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the
following powers and functions:
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt
for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all
persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for
preventive measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human
rights have been violated or need protection;
(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to
enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
(6) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to
provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
14
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty
obligations on human rights;
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine
the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the
performance of its functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
Article XIII, Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations
of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into
account its recommendations.
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
full respect for human rights.
Article XVI, Section 5(2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and
nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people's rights in the
performance of their duty.
FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY OF WOMEN AND MEN
Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts,
culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress,
and promote total human liberation and development.
Article III, Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATION
Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or
sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
Article XIII, Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's
organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic
framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through
peaceful and lawful means.
People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated
capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership,
membership, and structure.
Article XIII, Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to
effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic
decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the
establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
THE PRIORITY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE & SPORTS
Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts,
culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress,
and promote total human liberation and development.
Article XIV, Section 2. The State shall:
(1) Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system
of education relevant to the needs of the people and society;
(2) Establish and maintain, a system of free public education in the elementary and
high school levels. Without limiting the natural rights of parents to rear their
children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age;
(3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs,
subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in
both public and private schools, especially to the under-privileged;
(4) Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well as
self-learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that
respond to community needs; and
(5) Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training in
civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills.
URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSING
Article XIII, Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good,
undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban
land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent
housing and basic services to under-privileged and homeless citizens in urban
centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment
opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State
shall respect the rights of small property owners.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
15
Article XIII, Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor
their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane
manner.
No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate
consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.
REFORM IN AGRICULTURE AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES
Article XIII, Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless,
to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject
to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe,
taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject
to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State
shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide
incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Article XIII, Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers,
farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent
farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and
management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through
appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production,
marketing, and other support services.
Article XIII, Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under
lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights
of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural
estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
Article XIII, Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence
fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to
such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial,
production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to
offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine
and fishing resources.
Article XIII, Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest
the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization,
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial
instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in
enterprises of their choice.
PROTECTION OF LABOR
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall
protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Article XIII, Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality
of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining
and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions
of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster
industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing
the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of
enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.
The right of government workers to form unions
Article III, Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes
not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Article IX-B, Section 2(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees.
PROMOTION OF HEALTH AND ECOLOGY
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people
and instill health consciousness among them.
Section 16. 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.
Article XIII, Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods,
health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There
shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged, sick, elderly, disabled,
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
16
women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to
paupers.
Article XIII, Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food
and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health, manpower
development, and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems.
Article XIII, Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled
person for their rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance, and their
integration into the mainstream of society.
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals
(December 7, 1995)
Ponentia: Hermosisima, Jr., J.
Facts:
1. Republic Act No. 4850 created the “Laguna Lake Development Authority”
(Authority) – a Government Agency that works toward environmental
protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development. This
agency is responsible for the development of the Laguna Lake area and the
surrounding provinces, cities and towns in view of the national and regional
plans.
2. President Ferdinand E. Marcos then passed Presidential Decree No. 813
amending certain sections of R.A. No. 4850 as response to the deteriorating
environmental condition of the Metropolitan Manila area and the surrounding
areas of the Laguna de Bay. Problems include the environmental impact of
development of water quality, inflow of polluted water, increasing urbanization
and floods in Metropolitan Manila.
3. Sec. 1 of P.D. 813 established a policy of development with environmental
management and control, among others for the Laguna Lake Development
Authority. Special powers, pertinent to this case, were also granted under Sec.
3. which include the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority to issue new
permit for the use of the lake waters for any projects or activities in or
affecting the said lake including navigation, construction, and
4. operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like. The Authority
also has the power to collect fees for these activities and projects which may
be shared with other governmental agencies and political sub-divisions.
5. The Authority was further empowered by Executive Order No. 927 which
enlarged its functions and powers. Said Order also named and enumerated
towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term “Laguna de Bay Region.”
The Chief Executive based this Order on an assessment that the land and
waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring
judicious management.
6. Under Sec. 2 of E.O. 927, the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
issue permit for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or
affecting the said region. Coverage for “Laguna de Bay Region” included
several provinces, cities and towns around the Laguna Lake. Under Sec. 3, the
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
collection of fees for the use of the lake water and its tributaries were enforced
by the Authority.
7. Then, Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991 was
enforced. Municipalities around the Laguna Lake Region interpreted this law as
delegating the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their
municipal waters.
8. Municipal governments started issuing fishing privileges and fishing permits to
big fishpen operators. These unregulated issuances of Mayor’s permits to
construct fishpens were clear violations of the policies implemented by the
Authority.
9. To solve the problem, the Authority issues a notice to the general public
declaring as illegal all fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in
the Bay Region that were not registered with the Authority. The notice includes
a threat of penalty of demolition and imprisonment and/or fine. After a month,
the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners stating that demolition shall
be effected within 10 days.
10. Affected fishpen owners filed seven injunction cases against the Authority in
various trial courts. Authority filed a motion to dismiss the cases on
jurisdictional grounds which was denied by the lower court. Temporary
restraining order/writs of preliminary injunction was issued enjoining the
Authority from demolishing the structures in question. Authority appealed the
case to the Court of Appeals but the Court dismissed the consolidated petitions
of the Authority. CA established that LLDA is not a quasi-judicial agency of the
government and it cannot exercise quasi-judicial functions as far as fishpens
are concerned. CA the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed the provisions
of the LLDA Charter thereby devolving the power to grant permits to the local
government units concerned. Authority appealed to the Supreme Court with
petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction against the respondents.
Issue: WON the Laguna Lake Development Authority should exercise jurisdiction
over the Laguna Lake insofar as the issuance of permits for fisheries privileges is
concerned.
Held: Yes. The LLDA should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake insofar as
the issuance of permits for fisheries is concerned.
Petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction are hereby granted,
insofar as they related to the authority of the LLDA to grant fishing privileges within
the Laguna Lake Region.
Restraining orders and/or writs of injunction issued against the LLDA are
declared null and void and ordered set aside for having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion.
Municipal Mayors of the Laguna Lake Region are hereby prohibited from
issuing permits to construct and operate fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture
structures within the Laguna Lake Region. Previous issuances are null and void.
The fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures put by operators
by virtue of permits issued by Municipal Mayors within the Laguna Lake Region are
hereby declared illegal structures subject to demolition by the LLDA.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
17
Ratio:
(1) Provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA No. 7160) do not repeal
the laws creating the LLDA. Therefore, LLDA maintains its exclusive authority
over issuances of permits.
- The charter of the LLDA is a SPECIAL LAW while the Local Government Code of
1991 is a GENERAL LAW. A basic rule of statutory construction is that the
enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to
have repealed a special law.
- When there is conflict between a general law and a special law, the special law
will prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general
statute.
- A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent law by
mere implications.
- In Manila Railroad Company v. Rafferty, this basic rule is upheld with an
exception when the subsequent general law has a manifest intent to repeal or
alter the special law. In this case, such intent is not proven in this case.
(2) Legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission of
environmental protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development for
the Laguna Lake Region.
- The power of the local government units, exercised through fragmented
management policies, is interested in fishing privileges for REVENUE
PURPOSES. In contrast, the power of the Authority is aimed at effectively
regulating and monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay Region for QUALITY
CONTROL and MANAGEMENT. Thus, the Authority is in a better position to
manage the issuance of permits.
(3) Charter of the Authority prevails because it is a valid exercise of POLICE
POWER of the State.
(4) Although the LLDA is not co-equal to the RTCs, LLDA is still a quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution cases that can issue ‘cease and desist order’
(Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA).
Padilla, J. (Concurring Opinion):
I fully concur. But I just want to say guys that the LGUs can still impose on those
who apply for permit with an additional local permit or license for revenue
purposes. This would harmonize RA No. 4850 with RA No. 7160 (LGC 1991).
OPOSA v. FACTORAN
224 SCRA 792
Facts:
Petitioners—all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents–
filed before the Manila RTC a civil case impleading the DENR Secretary
(originally Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. but later properly substituted by the new
Secretary, the Angel C. Alcala) and the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
(PENI)—a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation geared for the
protection of our environment and natural resources.
Petitioners pray that the court order the defendant, his agents, representatives
and other persons acting in his behalf to: (1) cancel all existing timber license
agreements in the country; and (2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements; and
Complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit where plaintiffs as Philippine
citizens and taxpayers are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the
country's virgin tropical rainforests. Not only do they file the case for
themselves and for the numerous others equally concerned with the
preservation of rainforests, but the petitioners aver that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn.
Complaint first avers that deforestation has distorted and disturbed the balance
and health of the ecology of our well endowed country, resulting in a host of
environmental tragedies.
They then allege that public records reveal that defendant's predecessors have
granted timber license agreements (TLAs) to various corporations to cut the
aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes.
Moreover, the continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and
deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable
injury to the petitioners, especially the minors and their successors, who may
never see, use, benefit from and enjoy rainforests as a natural resource. This
act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the
natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of petitioner minors
and succeeding generations.
Petitioners claim to have exhausted all administrative remedies with the
defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, they served upon defendant a final
demand to cancel all logging permits in the country. But the defendant,
however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's, to the continuing serious
damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs—an act which the petitioners claim
is violative of the rights of petitioners and of public and constitutional policies as
well as the right to self-preservation and perpetuation found in natural law.
On 22 June 1990, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
grounds that (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the
issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question.
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge granted the motion to dismiss, and not
only sustained defendant’s claims but further ruled that the granting of the
reliefs prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited
by the fundamental law of the land. Hence this instant special civil action for
certiorari.
Issues:
1. WON petitioners have locus standi
Yes. Petitioners’ civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the
complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all
Filipino citizens. Thus, since the parties are so numerous, it becomes
impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court.
Moreover, the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
18
ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. All requisites for filing of
a valid class suit under Sec. 12, Rule 3 of the RROC are present both in the
civil case and in this petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
Court upholds petitioners minors’ special and novel assertion that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn, explaining that
petitioners minors’ personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations
can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar
as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Every
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. In fact,
the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at
the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection
of that right for the generations to come.
2. WON Judge’s challenged order was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
Yes. Respondent Judge alleged that petitioners had no cause of action and
had failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved
or a specific legal wrong committed. The court disagrees. The complaint
focuses on one specific fundamental legal right—the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional
history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law in Art.2§16. This
right unites with the right to health found in Art.2§15.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of
Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and
political rights enumerated in the latter. It belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-
perpetuation—the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions.
These basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. They are now explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution cause the framers feared that if it were not
mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, all else might be lost
for both the present and the coming generations
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment (which can be seen in one of
the plenary sessions of the 1986 Con-Com)
Conformably with the right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to
health, as well as other constitutional provisions concerning the
conservation, development and utilization of our natural resources, E.O. No.
192 (Aquino) was promulgated, Sec. 4 of which expressly mandates that the
DENR shall be the primary government agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's
environment and natural resources as well as the licensing and regulation of
all natural resources. State policy, as given in Sec. 3, shall be to ensure the
sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of
the country's natural resources.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
This is restated in Sec. 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Admin Code which
stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Sec. 2 of the
same Title specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR with particular
reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher
authority
Both E.O. No. 192 and 1987 Admin Code have set the objectives which will
serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and
functions of the DENR.
Moreover, even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific
statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the
present and future generations, namely P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine
Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code)
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a
balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its
mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and
the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty
or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.
Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was
done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further
TLAs should be renewed or granted.
Cause of action – act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right
or rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of plaintiff,
correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of defendant in
violation of said legal right.
The Court held that the petitioners were able to adequately show, prima
facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may
thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing,
however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is
the need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are
indispensable parties.
3. WON the case raises a political question
No. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative
branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally
involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated
and expressed in legislation. Besides, under the expanded power of review
in the constitution, courts may take cognizance of cases where there may
have been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
4. WON canceling all existing timber license agreements in the
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements
would amount to 'impairment of contracts'
No. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious
reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
19
cause if he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the
Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages
to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the
Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and
conditions regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest
and welfare. He was aware that Sec. 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D.
No. 705) provides that when the national interest so requires, the President
may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit,
licenses or any other form of privilege granted.
All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is an
instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of
forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license
is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by
public interest or public welfare as in this case. (Tan v. Director of Forestry)
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are
contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive
issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber
licenses. Even granting further that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be
stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause, because by its very
nature and purpose, such a law could have only been passed in the exercise
of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and
enhancing the general welfare. The constitutional guaranty of non-
impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police
power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general
welfare.
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-
impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the
respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract
would have as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect
to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right.
Judgment: Petition GRANTED, challenged Order of respondent Judge
dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is set aside. Petitioners may therefore amend
their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the
questioned timber license agreements.
Feliciano, J., concurring: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology cannot be
characterized as "specific." It is in fact very comprehensive in scope and
generalized in character. The list of particular claims which can be subsumed
under this rubric appears to be entirely open-ended. Other statements pointed
out by the Court—Sec. 3, E.O. No. 192; Sec. 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151—all appear to be formulations of policy,
as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Art.
II, Sec 16 and 15. Thus, neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the
particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment code
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
which give rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce.
Also, the Philippine Environment Code does not appear to contemplate action on
the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that
Code. His suggestion: petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more
specific legal right—a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of
generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution—that is or may be violated by
the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so
that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief
prayed for.
It is important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of
action be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory
policy because (1) unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or
disregarded is given specification in operational terms, defendants may well be
unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are
due process dimensions to this matter; and (2) if the case turns out to have no
specific legal right as a cause of action, the court will be devoid of jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the case.
THE FAMILY AS BASIC AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government
ARTICLE XV – THE FAMILY
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development.
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.
Section 3. The State shall defend:
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and
special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other
conditions prejudicial to their development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and
implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State
may also do so through just programs of social security.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
20
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and
shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social
well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage
their involvement in public and civic affairs.
FAMILY CODE: Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between
a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not
subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property
relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a)
PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
NATURAL RIGHT AND DUTY OF PARENTS
A SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC ORDER
Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector,
encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
ARTICLE XII – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and
services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding
productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the under-
privileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises
against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the
country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be
encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and
other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.
The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general
terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance
with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or
timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain
may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.
Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development,
and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine,
by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed,
held, or leased and the conditions therefor.
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, by law, the specific
limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the
ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and
may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide for
such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in endangered
forests and watershed areas.
Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national
development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
21
communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural
well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing
property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral
domain.
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents
shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right
to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the
State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so
demands.
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified
to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
Section 9. The Congress may establish an independent economic and planning
agency headed by the President, which shall, after consultations with the
appropriate public agencies, various private sectors, and local government units,
recommend to Congress, and implement continuing integrated and coordinated
programs and policies for national development.
Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic and Development
Authority shall function as the independent planning agency of the government.
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and
planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the
Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may
prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned
by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy
and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its
national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.
Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the
operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or
to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least
sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; nor shall such
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer
period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except
under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by
the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity
participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign
investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to
their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers
of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.
Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic
materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them
competitive.
Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare
and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity.
Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting
of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level technical
manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the
State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer
for the national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens,
save in cases prescribed by law.
Section 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and
growth of cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic development.
Section 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the
formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned
or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the
interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability.
Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires,
the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it,
temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or
business affected with public interest.
Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish
and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to
public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the
Government.
Section 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition
shall be allowed.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
22
Section 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary
authority, the members of whose governing board must be natural-born Filipino
citizens, of known probity, integrity, and patriotism, the majority of whom shall
come from the private sector. They shall also be subject to such other qualifications
and disabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shall provide policy
direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit. It shall have supervision over
the operations of banks and exercise such regulatory powers as may be provided by
law over the operations of finance companies and other institutions performing
similar functions.
Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of the Philippines operating
under existing laws, shall function as the central monetary authority.
Section 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the
regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or
guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public.
Section 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this Article
shall be considered inimical to the national interest and subject to criminal and civil
sanctions, as may be provided by law.
COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION IN NATION-BUILDING
Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information
in nation-building.
Article XVI, Section 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the
full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication
structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow
of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that
respects the freedom of speech and of the press.
Article XVI, Section 11. (1) The ownership and management of mass media shall
be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or
associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when
the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
competition therein shall be allowed.
(2) The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be
regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general
welfare.
Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the
advertising industry.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such
industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all
the executive and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the
Philippines.
Article XVIII, Section 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2), Section
11 of Article XV1 of this Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to
comply on a graduated and proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino
ownership requirement therein.
AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
ARTICLE X – LOCAL GOVERNMENT
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines
are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide
for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative,
and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers,
responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election,
appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local
officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local
units.
Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities,
and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays, shall ensure
that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed
powers and functions.
Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own
sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines
and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of
local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local
governments.
Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law,
in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them.
Section 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the
proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
23
respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with
the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.
Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials,
which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall
serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of
his service for the full term for which he was elected.
Section 9. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral
representation as may be prescribed by law.
Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with
the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
Section 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political
subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The
component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be
entitled to their own local executive and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of
the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic
services requiring coordination.
Section 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component
cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective
officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within
a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of
their right to vote for elective provincial officials.
Section 13. Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial
to them in accordance with law.
Section 14. The President shall provide for regional development councils or other
similar bodies composed of local government officials, regional heads of
departments and other government offices, and representatives from non-
governmental organizations within the regions for purposes of administrative
decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate
the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region.
RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS PF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity and development.
Article VI, 5(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law,
except the religious sector.
Article XII, Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution
and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic,
social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing
property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral
domain.
Article XIII, Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under
lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights
of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural
estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
Article XIV, Section 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights
of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of
national plans and policies.
Article XVI, Section 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise
the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of
the members of which shall come from such communities.
HONEST PUBLIC SERVICE AND FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service
and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
Article XI, Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan
shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be
provided by law.
Article XI, Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the
Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one
overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A
separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.
Article XI, Section 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the
Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman,
according to the Civil Service Law.
LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ
24
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.
Article XI, Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of
office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration
under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the
Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the
armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the
public in the manner provided by law.
Article VII, Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall
be informed of the state of his health. The members of the Cabinet in charge of
national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.
Article VII, Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary
Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary
Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year,
submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to
be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and
controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt,
and containing other matters as may be provided by law.
Article XII, Section 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with
law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans
obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public.
Article XII, Section 2(5) The President may enter into agreements with foreign-
owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral
oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific
and technical resources.
Article VII, Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall
be informed of the state of his health. The members of the Cabinet in charge of
national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.
Article VII, Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary
Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary
Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year,
submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – September 1, 2004 25

be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and

controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt,
and containing other matters as may be provided by law.

Article IX-D, Section 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the
Congress, within the time fixed by law, an annual report covering the financial
condition and operation of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and non-
governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend measures necessary to
improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may
be required by law.

Article III, 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.

LUIS, PASCUAL, SOLIDON, SOLIVAS, VELASQUEZ