BIRAOGO vs PTC

FACTS:

Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated
July 30, 2010. PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with the primary task to
investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their co-
principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration, and to submit its finding and
recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. PTC has all the powers of an
investigative body. But it is not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or
render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of
graft and corruption and make recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite
people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from
such facts if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law.
Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its
functions.
ISSUES:
1. WON the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions and question E. O. No. 1;
2. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of Congress to
create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions;
3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
4. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause.
RULING:
The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue
of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which they
belong as members. To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member
thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.
Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the
Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of any official
action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.
With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, any personal and
direct injury attributable to the implementation of E. O. No. 1.
Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. In private suits,
standing is governed by the real-parties-in interest rule. It provides that every action must be prosecuted
or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Real-party-in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff who asserts a public
right in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general public. He has
to show that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. He has to make out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a citizen or taxpayer.
The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result. The Court, however, finds
reason in Biraogos assertion that the petition covers matters of transcendental importance to justify the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. There are constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the
attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents
The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. The powers
of the President are not limited to those specific powers under the Constitution. One of the recognized
powers of the President granted pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad
hoc committees. This flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been
faithfully executed. The purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into
matters which the President is entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and guided in the
performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.
2. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already
appropriated. There is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate
funds. There is no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for the operation of the commission
because, whatever funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the President will be the very source of
the funds for the commission. The amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be subject to existing
auditing rules and regulations so there is no impropriety in the funding.
3. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers. If at all, the
investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two offices. The function of
determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be with
the DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTCs power to investigate is limited to obtaining facts so that it can advise
and guide the President in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the
laws of the land.
4. Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 in view of its
apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
1987 Constitution.
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both
as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly
situated individuals in a similar manner. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every
person within a states jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the
express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the states duly constituted authorities.
There must be equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Equal protection
clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness.
The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the
purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of
the same class.
The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not similarly treated,
both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed.
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate
of truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and
corruption during the previous administration only. The intent to single out the previous administration is
plain, patent and manifest.
Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is
not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which
the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label
the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution. Superficial differences do not make
for a valid classification.
The PTC must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the
authority to investigate all past administrations.
The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must
conform and in accordance with which all private rights determined and all public authority administered.
Laws that do not conform to the Constitution should be stricken down for being unconstitutional.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

MMDA vs CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA BAY

In 1999, the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (CROMB) filed an action for mandamus to compel
the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and other government agencies to clean up the
Manila Bay. CROMB argued that the environmental state of the Manila Bay is already dangerous to their
health and the inaction of MMDA and the other concerned government agencies violates their rights to life,
health, and a balanced ecology guaranteed by the Constitution. CROMB also averred under the
Environmental Code, it is MMDAs duty to clean up the Manila Bay.
The trial court agreed with CROMB and ordered MMDA et al to clean up the Manila Bay. MMDA
assailed the decision on the ground that MMDAs duty under the Environmental Code is merely a
discretionary duty hence it cannot be compelled by mandamus. Further, MMDA argued that the RTCs order
was for a general clean up of the Manila Bay yet under the Environmental Code, MMDA was only tasked to
attend to specific incidents of pollution and not to undertake a massive clean up such as that ordered by the
court.
ISSUE: Whether or not MMDA may be compelled by mandamus to clean up Manila Bay.
HELD: Yes. It is true that in order for MMDA to implement laws like the Environmental Code, the process of
implementing usually involves the exercise of discretion i.e., where to set up landfills. But this does not mean
that their function or mandate under the law is already discretionary. Looking closer, MMDAs function to
alleviate the problem on solid and liquid waste disposal problems is a ministerial function. In short, MMDA
does not have the discretion to whether or not alleviate the garbage disposal problem in Metro Manila,
particularly in the Manila Bay area. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a
decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done
is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
Anent the issue on whether or not MMDAs task under the Environmental Code involves a general
clean up, the Supreme Court ruled that MMDAs mandate under the Environmental Code is to perform
cleaning in general and not just to attend to specific incidents of pollution. Hence, MMDA, together with the
other government agencies, must act to clean up the Manila Bay as ordered by the RTC.

TANADA vs ANGARA

FACTS: The Philippines joined World Trade Organization as a founding member with the goal of improving
Philippine access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on
its exports. The President also saw in the WTO the opening of new opportunities for the services sector, the
reduction of costs and uncertainty associated with exporting and the attraction of more investments into the
country. On April 15, 1994, respondent Navarro, then DTI Secretary, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the
Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. On December 14, 1994,
the Senate concurred in the ratification of the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the
WTO which includes various agreements and associated legal instruments. On December 16, 1994,the
President signed the Instrument of Ratification.

ISSUES
1. Whether the WTO Agreement violated the mandated economic nationalism by the Constitution
2. Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement restricts and impairs Philippine sovereignty, specifically
the legislative power vested in the Congress
3. Whether the Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and its annexes but not in the other documents
referred to in the Final Act is defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of discretion.

RULING
1. No. The Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. In fact, it allows an
exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. The
constitutional policy of a self-reliant and independent national economy does not necessarily rule out the
entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither economic seclusion nor
mendicancy in the international community.
2. No. While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines,
expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not
envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world. By the doctrine of incorporation, the
country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be
automatically part of our laws. A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation on the parties. By their
inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. The Philippines has
effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power.
The underlying consideration in this partial sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other contracting
states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens. The same
reciprocity characterizes the same commitments under WTO-GATT. The point is that a portion of
sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.
3. No. The petitioners submit that concurrence in the WTO Agreement alone is flawed because it is in
effect a rejection of the Final Act. The Court held that a final act is an instrument which records the winding
up of the proceedings of a diplomatic conference and not the treaty itself. On the other hand, the WTO
Agreement itself expresses what multilateral agreements are deemed included as its integral parts. It should
be added that the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the members
deliberation.

STA. ROSA DEVT. vs CA

Facts: Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the registered owner of two parcels of
land with a total area of 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which
provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community. Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its
rights over the property, thereby destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed
a civil case with the Regional Trial Court seeking an easement of a right of way to and from Barangay
Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private respondents. After the
filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian Reform for the compulsory
acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. The landholding of SRRDC was placed under
compulsory acquisition. Petitioner objected to the compulsory acquisition of the property contending that the
area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and
above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as beneficiaries.
The DARAB ruled against the petitioner. On appeal the CA affirmed the decision of DARAB.

Issue: Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the entire property
formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657

Held: Watershed is one of those enumerated by CARP to be exempt from its coverage. We cannot ignore
the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed
purposes. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the
control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an
intergenerational responsibility that needs to be answered now.