Constitutional Law 1 - File No. 1
Download Constitutional Law 1 - File No. 1...
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I File No. 1
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. 1.
Is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77). Constitution – the document which serves as the fundamental law of the state; that written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. Constitutional Law – designates the law embodied in the Constitution and the legal principles growing out of the interpretation and application of its provisions by the courts in specific cases. 2. STATE a. Definition, distinguished from nation.
State – a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing a government ti which a great body of the inhabitants render habitual obedience; a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by ties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law (CIR v. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23). State is a political and geopolitical entity; while, Nation is a cultural and/ or ethnic entity. While the distinction may be useful for purposes of political sociology, it is of little consequence for purpose of constitutional law (Bernas) b. Territory
ARTICLE I NATIONAL TERRITORY The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. The national territory of the Philippines comprises: 1) the Philippine archipelago 2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction Philippine Archipelago – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of Paris (1898), as amended by the Treaty of Washington (1900) and the Treaty with Great Britain (1930). - consists of its a. Terrestrial
b. Fluvial c. Aerial domains a. b. c. d. e.
including its Territorial sea The seabed The subsoil The insular shelves; and The other submarine areas
Internal Water – the waters around, between and connecting the island of the archipelago, regardless of their breath and dimensions. All other Territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction – includes any territory that presently belongs or might in the future belong to the Philippines through any of the accepted international modes of acquiring territory. Archipelagic Principle Two elements: 1. The definition of internal waters (supra) 2. The straight baseline method of delineating the territorial sea – consists of drawing straight lines connecting the outermost points on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast. Important distances with respect to the waters around the Philippines Territorial Sea 12 nautical miles (n.m.) Contiguous Zone 12 n.m. from the edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone territorial sea 200 n.m. from the baseline (Includes T.S. and C.Z.) Note: There can be a Continental Shelf without an EEZ, but not an EEZ without a Continental Shelf. Territorial Sea – the belt of the sea located between the coast and internal waters of the coastal state on the one hand, and the high seas on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low water mark. (LOS) Contiguous Zone – extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea. Although not part of the territory, the coastal State may
exercise jurisdiction to prevent infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws. Exclusive Economic Zone – body of water extending up to 200 nautical miles, within which the state may exercise sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources. The State in the EEZ exercises jurisdiction with regard to: 1. the establishment and use of artificial island, installation, and structures; 2. marine scientific research; 3. the protection and preservation of marine environment United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The Convention has substantial provision which help in the understanding of the constitutional text. Some important concept found are the following; Archipelagic State - means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other island. Archipelago – means a group of islands… form an intrinsic geographical economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such. Territorial Sea - (supra) Baselines - is the law-water line along the coast as mark on large scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State. A state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea subject to the right of innocent passage by other states. Innocent passage -is a passage not prejudicial to the interests of the coastal State nor contrary to recognized principles of international law. Article 53 of the Convention says that “ archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes there above, suitable for the continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.”
c. Sovereignty and jurisdiction – Article II, Sec. 1-2, CONSTITUTION Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. 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. i. Sovereignty – definition, aspects, situs, essential qualities •
Sovereignty - is the power of the State to regulate matters within its own territory. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. This power resides in the “people” understood as those who have a direct hand in the formulation, adoption, and amendment or alteration of the Constitution. Political writer distinguish between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. The former is described as the supreme power to make laws and the latter as the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the course of law. Sovereign authority, moreover, is not always directly exercised by the people. It is normally delegated by the people to the government and to the concrete persons in whose hands the powers of government temporarily reside. Such authority continues with the consent of the people. Finally, is recognition by other states a constitutive element of a state such that even it has all four elements of the Montevideo Convention it is not a state if it has not been recognized? In International law, there are two views on this. One view, the constitutive theory, is that recognition “constitutes” a state. The other view, “the declaratory theory, is that recognition is merely “declaratory” of the existence of
the state. In practice, however, whether recognize or not is largely a political decision. Republican State - It is one wherein all government authority emanates form the people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people. Democratic State – This merely emphasizes that the Philippines has some aspect of direct democracy such as initiative and referendum. •
Effect of Belligerent Occupation – No change in sovereignty. However, political laws, except those of treason, are suspended; municipal laws remain in force unless changed by the belligerent occupant. Principle of Jus Postiminium – At the end of the occupation, political laws are automatically revived. Effect of Change of Sovereignty – political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or nor with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by the affirmative act of the new sovereign. Municipals laws remain in force (Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77). •
Essential qualities CASES
The Court held: “Section 21, Article VII deals with treaties or international agreements in general, in which case, the concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the Senate is required to make the subject treaty, or international agreement, valid and binding on the part of the Philippines. This provision lays down the general rule on treaties or international agreements and applies to any form of treaty with a wide variety of subject matter, such as, but not limited to, extradition or tax treaties or those economic in nature. All treaties or international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage, or particular designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.
In contrast, Section 25, Article XVIII is a special provision that applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines. Under this provision, the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines. Section 25, Article XVIII further requires that "foreign military bases, troops, or facilities" may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by Congress, and recognized as such by the other contracting state. It is our considered view that both constitutional provisions, far from contradicting each other, actually share some common ground. In both instances, the concurrence of the Senate is indispensable to render the treaty or international agreement valid and effective. It is a finely-imbedded principle in statutory construction that a special provision or law prevails over a general one. Lex specialis derogat generali. Thus, where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which, in its most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language which are not within the provision of the particular enactment. Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty: they are equally binding obligations upon nations. Worth stressing too, is that the ratification, by the President, of the VFA and the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as a clear and unequivocal expression of our nation's consent to be bound by said treaty, with the concomitant duty to uphold the obligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder. In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the
Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Beyond this, Article 13 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by the International Law Commission in 1949 provides: "Every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty." Equally important is Article 26 of the Convention which provides that "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith." This is known as the principle of pacta sunt servanda which preserves the sanctity of treaties and have been one of the most fundamental principles of positive international law, supported by the jurisprudence of international tribunals (Bayan vs. Zamora, GR 138570, Oct. 10, 2000).” ii) Jurisdiction – concept, classes •
Jurisdiction – is the manifestation of sovereignty. •
1. Territorial – authority to have all persons and things within its territorial limits be completely subject to its control and protection. 2. Personal – authority over its nationals, their persons, property, or acts, whether within or outside its territory. 3. Extraterritorial – authority over persons, things or acts, outside its territorial limits by reason of their effects to its territory. CASES •
The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty (Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 968).
Principle of auto – limitation: “any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. Philippine government has not abdicated it sovereignty over the American bases in the Philippine as part of the Philippine territory (People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476). d. Prerogatives i) imperium – Article II, Secs. 3-8, CONSTITUTION
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. 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. Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. STATE POLICIES 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. Imperium the State’s authority to govern embraced in the concept of sovereignty: includes passing laws governing a territory, maintaining peace and order over it, and defending it against foreign invasion. CASES •
Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self – preservation or public interest. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people (Harvey vs. Commissioner, 162 SCRA 840).
Issue: R.A. No. 1180 violated the UN Charter and the Philippine – Chinese Treaty of Amity, therefore against the principle of Pacta sunt servanda. The Court held that the Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals ‘upon the same term as the nationals of any other country. But the nationals of China are not discriminated against because nationals of all other countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. The Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 155).
Principle of Pacta sunt servanda – “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” •
Issue: Validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No. 299, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, premised and based on the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Sings and Signals. The Court held that the LOI in question is deemed not unconstitutional as it was in the exercise of police power as such
was established to promote public welfare and public safety. In fact, the LOI is based on the constitutional provision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land (Agustin vs. Edu, 88 SCRA 195). •
Issue: The validity of the National Defense Law which establishes compulsory military service is unconstitutional. The Court held that the National Defense Law does not go against this constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein (People vs. Lagman, et al., 66 Phil 13).
Issue: Deployment of US troops in Basilan and Mindanao as part of “Balikatan” exercises for being illegal and in violation of the Constitution. The Court held that “in the absence of concrete proof , petitioners’ allegation that the Arroyo government is engaged in “doublespeak” in trying to pass off as a mere training exercise an offensive effort by foreign troops on native soil. The petitions invite us to speculate on what is really happening in Mindanao. Wherefore, the petition and the petition-in-intervention were dismissed (Lim vs. Exec. Sec’y., GR 151445, April 11, 2002).” ii)
Dominium – the capacity of the State to own and acquire property. Regalian Doctrine – all lands of the public domain belong to the State – the source of any asserted rights to ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly of public dominium presumptively belong to the State. Public Dominion - are those property intended for public use for public service. They are outside the commerce of men and therefore not subject for appropriation. Note: • Property of public dominion when no longer needed for public use or public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the state.
Public Land is equivalent to Public Domain.
• Government Lands include public land and all other lands of the government already reserved or devoted to public use or subject to private rights. Classification of Lands of the Public Domain: 1. Agricultural Lands 2. Forest or Timber Lands 3. Mineral Lands 4. National Parks CASES •
Issue: The provision of the joint venture agreement for transfer of title to AMARI of some of the submerged land which had been reclaimed were unconstitutional. The Court held that such lands were “alienable or disposable lands of the public domain” which could be disposed of by PEA under certain conditions (such as public bidding). However such lands could only be disposed of by means of an absolute transfer to private individuals who were Philippine citizens, Under Sec.3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution a disposal to a corporation could only be by way of a lease, not a sale. Accordingly the JVA was declared null and void ab initio (Chavez vs. PEA & AMARI, GR 133250, July 9, 2002).
Issue: Whether the agreement entered into by Pasay City Council and the Republic Real Estate Corporation which involved the transfer of reclaimed foreshore lands is constitutional. The Court held that the agreement cannot operate to give title to “foreshores”, the areas between the high tide and low tide marks, rendering the agreement null and void for being ultra vires (Republic vs CA, GR No. 103882, Nov. 25, 1998).
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) was challenged as unconstitutional for allegedly colliding with the principle of jura regalia (Regalian Doctrine). Under IPRA, indigenous peoples may obtain the recognition of their right of ownership over ancestral lands and ancestral domains by virtue of native title. Seven members of the Supreme Court voted to dismiss the petition while seven others voted to grant the same. As the votes were equally divided, the petition was dismissed pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court with the result that the constitutionality of the IPRA is deemed upheld (Cruz vs DENR, GR No. 135385, Dec. 06, 2000).
Issue: R.A. 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act, along with DENR AO No. 96-04 and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) is unconstitutional for: allowing foreign-owned companies to extend more than mere financial or technical assistance to the State, and even permitting to “operate and manage mining activities”; and allowing both technical and financial assistance, instead of “either technical or financial assistance.” The Court held certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO No. 96-40, as well as of the entire FTAA as unconstitutional, mainly on the finding that FTAAs are “service contracts” prohibited by the 1987 Constitution for being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of Filipino nation ( La Bugal-B’laan TA vs DENR, GR No. 127882, Jan. 27, 2004).
iii) parens patriae – Article II, Secs. 9-28,
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. Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
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. 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. Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nationbuilding, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. 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. 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. Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Section 19. independent Filipinos.
The State shall develop a self-reliant and national economy effectively controlled by
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. Section 24. The State recognizes the vital communication and information in nation-building.
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. 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. Doctrine of Parens Patriae – government as guardian of the rights of people (Gov’t. of Phil. Island v. El Monte de Piedad). CASES •
The funds collected as a result of the national subscription opened in Spain by royal order of the Spanish Government and which were remitted to the Philippine government to be distributed among the earthquake sufferers by the Central Relief Board constituted, under article 1 of the law of June 20, 1849, and article 2 of the instructions of April 27, 1875, a special charity of a temporary nature as distinguished from a permanent public charitable institution. As the Spanish Government initiated the creation of the fund and as the donors turned their contributions over to that Government, it became the duty of the latter, under article 7 of the instructions, to exercise supervisions and control over the monies thus collected to the end that the will of the donors should be carried out. The relief board had no power whatever to dispose of
the funds confided to its charge for other purposes than to distribute them among the sufferers, because paragraph 3 of article 11 of the instructions conferred the power upon the secretary of the interior of Spain, and no other, to dispose of the surplus funds, should there be any, by assigning them to some other charitable purpose or institution. The secretary could not dispose of any of the funds in this manner so long as they were necessary for the specific purpose for which they were contributed. The secretary had the power, under the law above mentioned to appoint and totally or partially change the personnel of the relief board and to authorize the board to defend the rights of the charity in the courts. The secretary of the interior, as the representative of His Majesty's Government, exercised these powers and duties through the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands. The Governments of Spain and of the Philippine Islands in complying with their duties conferred upon them by law, acted in their governmental capacities in attempting to carry out the intention of the contributors. It will thus be seen that those governments were something more, as we have said, than mere trustees of the fund. Effect of laws on transfer of sovereignty: there is abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substitute sovereign (political law); great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler (Gov’t of PI vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728). •
Issue: Questioning the validity of EO No. 30 creating a trust under the name and style of the Cultural Center of the Philippines. The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the funds administered by the Center came from donations and contributions, not by taxation. The duty of caring for governmental property is neither judicial nor legislative in character is it as surely executive. In behalf of the State as parens patriae, the President has authority to implement for the benefit of the Filipino people to administer the private contributions and donations. It would be an unduly narrow or restrictive view of such a principle if the public funds that accrued by way of donation from the US and financial contributions for the Cultural Center project could not be legally considered as “governmental property” (Gonzales vs Marcos, 65 SCRA 624).
Issue: Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the Director of Public Works prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles from passing along specifically designated place and time infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all people. The Court held that social justice must be founded on recognition of the
necessity of interdependence diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the State of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest good to the greatest number” (Calalang vs Williams, 70 Phil 726). •
Issue: Whether the CHR has the power to issue the “order to desist” against the demolition of Fermo et. al.'s stalls, and to cite Mayor Simon et. al. for contempt for proceeding to demolish said stalls despite the CHR order. The Court held as a reiteration in Export Processing Zone Authority vs CHR that “the constitutional provision directing the CHR to 'provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection' may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution of by law. It is never derived by implication. Not being a court of justice, the CHR has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued by the judge of any court in which the action is pending, or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court (Simon vs CHR, GR No. 100150, January 5, 1994).
Issue: Whether or not the exercise of the freedom of assembly on the part of a certain students could be a basis for their being barred from enrollment. The Court held that respect for the constitutional rights of peaceable assembly and free speech could not be a basis for barring students from enrollment. The academic freedom enjoyed by “institutions of higher learning” includes the right to set academic standards. Once it has done so, however, that standard should be followed meticulously and cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students which exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. The constitutional provision also maintains “a system of free public elementary education and, in areas where finances permit, establish and maintain a system of free public education (Villar vs TIP, 135 SCRA 706).
Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent's doctoral degree cannot be recalled without violating her right to enjoyment of intellectual property and to justice and equity. The Court held that academic freedom is guaranteed to institutions of higher learning by Art. XIV of the 1987 Constitution.
This freedom includes deciding whom a university will confer degrees on. If the degree is procured by error or fraud then the Board of Regents, subject to due process being followed, may cancel that degree. The CA decision was wrong and was reversed (UP Bd. Of Regents vs. CA, GR No. 134625, August 31, 1999). •
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in upholding respondent's contention that they qualify as small property owners and are thus exempt from expropriation. The question now is whether respondents qualify as “small property owners” as defined in Sec. 3 (q) of RA 7279. “Small-property owners” are defined by two elements: (1) those owners of real property whose property consists of residential lands with an area of not more than 300 square meters in highly urbanized cities and 800 square meters in other urban areas; and (2) that they do not own real property other than the same. The share of each respondents did not exceed 300, and they also claim that the subject lots are their only real property. Thus, the Court denied the petition (Mandaluyong vs. Francisco, GR No. 137152, January 29, 2001).
The deceased insured himself and instituted as beneficiary, his child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his death, the proceeds were paid to him. Hence filed complaint by the mother, with whom the child is living, seeking the delivery of such sum. The lower court rendered a decision ordering the uncle to deliver the proceeds of the policy in question to the mother. In an appeal from a question of law, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, emphasizing that “the State shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution. If , as the Constitution so wisely dictates, it is the family as a unit that has to be strengthened, it does not admit of doubt that even if a stronger case were presented for the uncle, still deference to a constitutional mandate would have led the lower court to decide as it did (Cabanas vs Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94).
A college, or any school for that matter, has a dual responsibility to its students. One is to provide opportunities for learning and the other is to help them grow and develop into mature, responsible, effective and worthy citizens of the community. Discipline is one of the means to carry out the second responsibility. The general rule is that the authority of the school is co-extensive with its territorial jurisdiction, or its school grounds, so that any action taken for acts committed outside the school premises should, in general, be left to the police authorities, the court of justice, and the family concerned. However, this rule is subject to following exceptions: (1) violations of school policies and regulations occurring in connection with a
school-sponsored activity off-campus; and (2) misconduct of student involves his status as a student or affects the good name or reputation of the school. The true test of a school's right to investigate, or otherwise, suspend or expel a student for a misconduct committed outside the school premises and beyond school hours is not the time or place of the offense, but its effect upon the morale and efficiency of the school and whether it, in fact, is adverse to the school's good order welfare and advancement of its students (Angeles vs Judge Sison, 112 SCRA 26). •
The concern of the government is not necessarily to maintain profits of business firms. In the ordinary sequence of events, it is profits that suffer as a result of Government regulation. The interest of the State is to provide a decent living to its citizen. The government has convinced the court that it is its intent. The Court did not find the impugned Order to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion (PASEI vs Drilon, 163 SCRA 386).
The right of government employees to organize does not include the right to strike. But the current ban on them against strikes is statutory and may be lifted by statute (SSSEA vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686).
Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. The case at bar is the minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment, and at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generation to come (Oposa vs Factoran, GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993).
The United States Supreme Court liberalizes abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy at the discretion of the mother anytime during the first six months when it can be done without danger to the mother (Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113).
The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is self-executing without the need for any ancillary act of legislation. When the question is one of public right and the object of mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party interest, and the person at whose instigation the proceeding are instituted need not show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws (Legaspi vs CSC, 150 SCRA 530).
Issue: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was challenged as an unconstitutional treaty for placing foreign investors on the same level as Filipinos. The Court held that while the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino interests only against foreign competition and trade practices that are 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 (Tanada vs Angara, GR No. 118295, May 02, 1997).”
The interconnection which has been required of PLDT is a form of ‘intervention’ with property rights dictated by ‘the objective of the government to promote the rapid expansion of telecommunications services in all areas of the Philippines… at an acceptable standard of service at reasonable cost.’… The decisive considerations are public need, public interest, and the common good…. A modern and dependable communications network rendering efficient and reasonably priced services is also indispensable for accelerated economic recovery and development to these public and national interests, public utility companies must bow and yield (PLDT vs NTC,190 SCRA 717).
The applicable provision of law requiring publication in the Official Gazette is found in Art, 2 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. The court succinctly construed that cited provision of law in point, holding that “all statutes including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectively, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectively date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published (De Jesus vs. COA, GR 1090023, August 12, 1998).