Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ANGARA
272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997
Facts :
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine
ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of
herein respondents acting in their capacities as
Senators via signing the said agreement.
The WTO opens access to foreign markets,
especially its major trading partners, through the
reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly
agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides
new opportunities for the service sector cost and
uncertainty associated with exporting and more
investment in the country. These are the predicted
benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed
by the signatory Senators, a free market espoused
by WTO.
Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO
agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair
Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative
power. That the Filipino First policy of the
Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign
trading intervention.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its
concurrence of the said WTO agreement.
Held:
In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the
Constitution 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. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country
is bound by generally accepted principles of
international
law,
which
are
considered
automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt
servanda international agreements must be
performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral
league
vs
aquino
Enrile vs morales
In April 1982, Morales and some others were
arrested while driving a motor vehicle in Laong-Laan
St, QC. They were charged in CFI Rizal for rebellion
punishable under the RPC. Morales alleged that they
were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their
constitutional rights were violated, among them the
right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right
to a speedy and public trial, and the right to bail.
Respondents countered that the group of Morales
were already under surveillance for some time before
they were arrested and that the warrantless arrest
done is valid and at the same time the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus was already suspended.
ISSUE: Whether or not Morales et al can post bail.
HELD: Normally, rebellion being a non-capital
offense is bailable. But because the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus remains suspended with
respect to persons at present detained as well as other
who may hereafter be similarly detained for the
crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and
for all other crimes and offenses committed by them
in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, or in connection therewith, the
natural consequence is that the right to bail for the
commission of anyone of the said offenses is also
suspended. To hold otherwise would defeat the very
purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where the
offense for which the detainee was arrested is anyone
of the said offenses he has no right to bail even after
the charges are filed in court. The crimes of rebellion,
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith
constitute direct attacks on the life of the State. Just
as an individual has right to self-defense when his
life is endangered, so does the State. The suspension
of the privilege of the writ is to enable the State to
hold in preventive imprisonment pending
investigation and trial those persons who plot against
it and commit acts that endanger the States very
David vs GMA
ISSUES
LNMB?
RULING
The petitions must be dismissed.
Procedural issues
Political question
The Court agrees with the OSG that President
Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos
interred at the LNMB involves a political question
that is not a justiciable controversy. In the excercise
of his powers under the Constitution and the
Administrative Code of 1987 to allow the interment
of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the public
domain devoted for national military cemetery and
military shrine purposes, President Duterte decided a
question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall
Locus standi
FACTS
The
disposition,
exploration,
development, exploitation, and utilization of
indigenous petroleum in the Philippines are
governed by Presidential Decree No. 87 (PD
87) or the Oil Exploration and Development
Act of 1972. Although the Court finds that
PD 87 is sufficient to satisfy the requirement
of a general law, the absence of the two other
conditions, that the President be a signatory
to SC-46, and that the Congress be notified of
such contract, renders it null and void.
Facts:
In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the
maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
Archepelagic State pursuant to UNCLOS I of 9158,
codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their
territorial sea. Then in 1968, it was amended by R.A.
5446, correcting some errors in R.A. 3046 reserving
the drawing of baselines around Sabah.
In 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to be
compliant with the UNCLOS III of 1984. The
requirements complied with are: to shorten one
baseline, to optimize the location of some basepoints
and classify KIG and Scarborough Shoal as regime
of islands.
Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law
for three main reasons:
1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under
Article 1;
2. it opens the countrys waters to innocent and sea
lanes passages hence undermining our sovereignty
and security; and
3. treating KIG and Scarborough as regime of
islands would weaken our claim over those
territories.
Issue: Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
Ruling:
1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or
loss of territory. it is just a codified norm that
regulates conduct of States. On the other hand, RA
9522 is a baseline law to mark out basepoints along
coasts, serving as geographic starting points to
Other Issues
Claim for Damages Caused by Violation of
Environmental Laws Must be Filed Separately
The invocation of US federal tort laws and even
common law is improper considering that it is the
VFA which governs disputes involving US military
ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in
pursuance of the objectives of the agreement.
As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA
pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to
special civil actions. Since jurisdiction cannot be had
over the respondents for being immuned from suit,
there is no way damages which resulted from
violation of environmental laws could be awarded to
petitioners.
In any case, the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan provides
that a criminal case against a person charged with a
violation of an environmental law is to be filed
separately. Hence, a ruling on the application or nonapplication of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the
VFA to a US personnel who may be found
responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian,
would be premature and beyond the province of a
petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
Challenging the Constitutionality of a Treaty Via
a Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan is
Not Proper
The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine
Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the US
as attested and certified by the duly authorized
representative of the US government. The VFA
being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are
required as a matter of international law to abide by
its terms and provisions. A petition under the Rules
on Writ of Kalikasan is not the proper remedy to
assail the constitutionality of its provisions.
Veterans Federation Party v.
[G.R.
No.
136781. October
Facts:
COMELEC
6,
2000]
FOR
Issue:
Are the two percent threshold requirement and the
three-seat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA
7941
constitutional?
Held:
Yes. In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress
wanted to ensure that only those parties,
organizations and coalitions having a sufficient
number of constituents deserving of representation
are actually represented in Congress. This intent can
be gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed
bill. The two percent threshold is consistent not only
with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and
the law, but with the very essence of
"representation."
Under
a
republican
or
representative state, all government authority
emanates from the people, but is exercised by
representatives chosen by them. But to have
meaningful representation, the elected persons must
have the mandate of a sufficient number of people.
Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list
system, the result might be the proliferation of small
groups which are incapable of contributing
significant legislation, and which might even pose a
threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even
legislative districts are apportioned according to "the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure
meaningful
local
representation.
Issue:
How should the additional seats of a qualified party
be
determined?
Held:
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners,
the public and the private respondents, as well as the
members of this Court that the initial step is to rank
all the participating parties, organizations and
coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the
number of votes they each received. Then the ratio
for each party is computed by dividing its votes by
the total votes cast for all the parties participating in
the system. All parties with at least two percent of the
total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these
parties shall be considered in the computation of
additional seats. The party receiving the highest
number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as
the
first
party.
Step Two. The next step is to determine the number
of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be able
to compute that for the other parties. Since the
distribution is based on proportional representation,
the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties
cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is
entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of
votes.
Step Three The next step is to solve for the number
of additional seats that the other qualified parties are
entitled to, based on proportional representation.
Issue:
In aid of Legislation:
Ruling:
Question Hour: