G.R. No.

L-45081 July 15, 1936 department is the only constitutional organ which can be
JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner, vs. THE ELECTORAL called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers
COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO, between the several departments and among the
and DIONISIO C. MAYOR, respondents. integral or constituent units thereof.

1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SEPARATION OF 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MODERATING POWER OF THE
POWERS.—The separation of powers is a fundamental JUDICIARY is GRANTED, IF NOT EXPRESSLY, BY
principle in our system of government. It obtains not CLEAR IMPLICATION.—As any human production, our
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution is of course lacking perfection and
Constitution. Each department of the government has perfectibility, but as much as it was within the power of
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, our people, acting through their delegates to so provide,
and is supreme within its own sphere. that instrument which is the expression of their
sovereignty however limited, has established a
2.ID.; ID.; SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.— republican government intended to operate and function
But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers as a harmonious whole, under a system of checks and
are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution balances, and subject to specific limitations and
intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and restrictions provided in the said instrument. The
independent of each other. The Constitution has Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the
provided for an elaborate system of checks and restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers
balances to secure coordination in the workings of and agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are
various departments of government. For example, the transcended, it would be inconceivable if the Constitution
Chief Executive under our Constitution is so far made a had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the
check on the legislative power that his assent is required course of government along constitutional channels, for,
in the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the then, the distribution of powers would be mere verbiage,
further check that a bill may become a law the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and the
notwithstanding the refusal of the President to approve principles of good government mere political apothegms.
it, by a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case Certainly, the limitations and restrictions embodied in the
may be, of the National Assembly. The President has Constitution are real as they should be in any living
also the right to convene the Assembly in special constitution. In the United States where no express
session whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the constitu tional grant is found in their constitution, the
National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to
in the sense that its consent through its Commission on speak of its historical origin and development there, has
Appointments is necessary in the appointment of certain been set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of
officers; and the concurrence of a majority of all its more than one and a half centuries. In our case, this
members is essential to the conclusion of treaties. moderating power is granted, if not expressly, by clear
Furthermore, in its power to determine what courts other implication from section 2 of article VIII of our
than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define Constitution.
their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their
support, the National Assembly exercises to a certain 5.ID.; ID.; ID.; WHAT is MEANT BY "JUDICIAL
extent control over the judicial department. The SUPREMACY".—The Constitution is a definition of the
Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying powers of government. Who is to determine the nature,
impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself
Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as
other departments in the exercise of its power to the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to
determine the law, and hence to declare executive and allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. superiority over the other departments; it does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Legislature, but
3.ID.; ID. ; ID. ; JUDICIARY THE ONLY only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned
CONSTITUTIONAL ARBITER TO ALLOCATE to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES.—But in the main, authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in parties in an actual controversy the rights which that
bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in
legislative and the judicial departments of the truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial
government. The overlapping and interlacing of functions supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial
and duties between the several departments, however, review under the Constitution.
sometimes makes it hard to say just where the one
leaves off and the other begins. In times of social 6.ID.; ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL REVIEW LIMITED TO
disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks ACTUAL LITIGATION; WISDOM, JUSTICE OR
of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if EXPEDIENCY OF LEGISLATION.—Even then, this
not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and

1
cantroversies to be exercised after full opportunity of constitutional courts are established to pass upon the
argument by the parties, and limited further to the validity of ordinary laws.
constitutional question raised or the very lis mota
presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to 9.ID. ; JURISDICTION OVER THE ELECTORAL
dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile COMMISSION.—The nature of the present controversy
conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its shows the necessity of a final constitutional arbiter to
function is in this manner, the judiciary does not pass determine the conflict of authority between two agencies
upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of created by the Constitution. If the conflict were left
legislation. More than that, courts accord the undecided and undetermined, a void would be created in
presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments our constitutional system which may in the long run
not only because the Legislature is presumed to abide prove destructive of the entire framework. Natura
by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the vacuum abhorret, so must we avoid exhaustion in our
determination of actual cases and controversies must constitutional system. Upon principle, reason and
reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as authority, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the
expressed through their representatives in the executive Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the
and legislative departments of the government. present controversy for the purpose of deter mining the
character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to
7.ID.; ID.; ID.; SYSTEM ITSELF NOT THE CHIEF the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all
PALLADIUM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LlBERTY; contests relating to the election, returns and
SUCCESS MUST BE TESTED IN THE CRUCIBLE OF qualifications of the members of the National Assembly."
FILIPINO MINDS AND HEARTS.—But much as we
might postulate on the internal checks of power provided 10.ID.; THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION;
in our Constitution, it ought not the less to be CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER TO THE
remembered that, in the language of James Madison, ELECTORAL COMMISSION TO BE THE SOLE
the system itself is not "the chief palladium of JUDGE OF ALL CONTESTS RELATING TO THE
constitutional liberty * * * the people who are authors of ELECTION, RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF
this blessing must also be its guardians * * * their eyes MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.—The
must be ever ready to mark, their voice to pronounce * * original provision regarding this subject in the Act of
* aggression on the authority of their constitution." In the Congress of July 1, 1902 (sec. 7, par. 5) laying down the
last and ultimate analysis, then, must the success of our rule that "the assembly shall be the judge of the
government in the unfolding years to come be tested in elections, returns, and qualifications of its members",
the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts than in the was taken from clause 1 of section 5, Article I of the
consultation rooms and court chambers. Constitution of the United States providing that "Each
House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and
8.ID.; OUR CONSTITUTION HAS ADOPTED THE Qualifications of its own Members, * * *." The Act of
AMERICAN TYPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL Congress of August 29, 1916 (sec. 18, par. 1) modified
GOVERNMENT.—Discarding the English type and other this provision by the insertion of the word "sole" as
European types of constitutional government, the follows: "That the Senate and House of Representatives,
framers of our Constitution adopted the American type respectively, shall be the sole judges of the elections,
where the written constitution is interpreted and given returns, and qualifications of their elective members, * *
effect by the judicial department. In some countries *" apparently in order to emphasize the exclusive
which have declined to follow the American example, character of the jurisdiction conferred upon each House
provisions have been inserted in their constitutions of the Legislature over the particular cases therein
prohibiting the courts from exercising the power to specified. This court has had occasion to characterize
interpret the fundamental law. This is taken as a this grant of power to the Philippine Senate and House
recognition of what otherwise would be the rule that in of Representatives, respectively, as "full, clear and
the absence of direct prohibition courts are bound to complete". (Veloso vs. Boards of Canvassers of Leyte
assume what is logically their function. For instance, the and Samar [1919], 39 Phil., 886, 888.)
Constitution of Poland of 1921, expressly provides that
courts shall have no power to examine the validity of 11.ELECTORAL COMMISSION; HISTORICAL
statutes (article 81, chapter IV). The former Austrian INSTANCES.—The transfer of the power of determining
Constitution contained a similar declaration. In countries the election, returns and qualifications of the members of
whose constitutions are silent in this respect, courts the Legislature long lodged in the legislative body, to an
have assumed this power. This is true in Norway, independent, impartial and non-partisan tribunal, is by no
Greece, Australia and South Africa. Whereas, in means a mere experiment in the science of government.
Czechoslovakía (arts. 2 and 3, Preliminary Law to As early as 1868, the House of Commons in England
Constitutional Charter of the Czechoslovak Republic, solved the problem of insuring the non-partisan
February 29, 1920) and Spain (arts. 121-123, Title IX, settlement of the controverted elections of its members
Constitution of the Republic of 1931) especial by abdicating its prerogative to two judges of the King's
Bench of the High Court of Justice selected from a rota

2
in accordance with rules of court made for the purpose. familiar with the history and political development of
Having proved successful, the practice has become other countries of the world. When, therefore, they
imbedded in English jurisprudence (Parliamentary deemed it wise to create an Electoral Commission as a
Elections Act, 1868 [31 & 32 Vict. c. 125] as amended by constitutional organ and invested it with the exclusive
Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879 function of passing upon and determining the election,
[42 & 43 Vict. c. 75], s. 2; Corrupt and. Illegal Practices returns and qualifications of the members of the National
Prevention Act 1883 [46 & 47 Vict. c. 51], s. 70; Expiring Assembly, they must have done so not only in the light
Laws Continuance Act, 1911 [1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 22]; Laws of their own experience but also having in view the
of England, vol. XII, p. 408, vol. XXI, p. 787). In the experience of other enlightened peoples of the world.
Dominion of Canada, election contests which were The creation of the Electoral Commission was designed
originally heard by the Committee of the House of to remedy certain evils of which the framers of our
Commons, are since 1922 tried in the courts. Likewise, Constitution were cognizant. Notwithstanding the
in the Commonwealth of Australia, election contests vigorous opposition of some members of the Convention
which were originally determined by each house, are to its creation, the plan was approved" by that body by a
since 1922 tried in the High Court. In Hungary, the vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said now is that,
organic law provides that all protests against the election upon the approval of the Constitution, the creation of the
of members of the Upper House of Diet are to be Electoral Commission is the expression of the wisdom
resolved by the Supreme Administrative Court (Law 22 and "ultimate justice of the people". (Abraham Lincoln,
of 1916, chap. 2, art. 37, par. 6). The Constitution of First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.) '
Poland of March 17, 1921 (art. 19) and the Constitution
of the Free City of Danzig of May 13, 1922 (art. 10) vest 14.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; PURPOSE WAS TO TRANSFER IN
the authority to decide contested elections to the Diet or ITS TOTALITY POWER EXERCISED PREVIOUSLY
National Assembly in the Supreme Court. For the BY THE LEGISLATURE OVER THE CONTESTED
purpose of deciding legislative contests, the Constitution ELECTIONS OF THE MEMBERS TO AN
of the German Reich of July 1, 1919 (art. 31), the INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL.—From
Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic of February the deliberations of our Constitutional Convention it is
29, 1920 (art. 19) and the Constitution of the Grecian evident that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all
Republic of June 2, 1927 (art. 43), all provide for an the powers previously exercised by the Legislature in
Electoral Commission. matters pertaining to contested elections of its members,
to an independent and impartial tribunal. It was not so
12.ID. ; ELECTORAL COMMISSION IN THE UNITED much the knowledge and appreciation of contemporary
STATES.—The "creation of an Electoral Commission constitutional precedents, however, as the long-felt need
whose membership is recruited both from the legislature of determining legislative contests devoid of partisan
and the judiciary is by no means unknown in the United considerations which prompted the people acting
States. In the presidential elections of 1876 there was a through their delegates to the Convention to provide for
dispute as to the number of electoral votes received by this body known as the Electoral Commission. With this
each of the two opposing candidates. As the Constitution end in view, a composite body in which both the majority
made no adequate provision for such a contingency, and minority parties are equally represented to off-set
Congress passed a law on January 29, 1877 (United partisan influence in its deliberations was created, and
States Statutes at Large, vol. 19, chap. 37, pp. 227-229), further endowed with judicial temper by including in its
creating a special Electoral Commission composed of membership three justices of the Supreme Court.
five members elected by the Senate, five members
elected by the House of Representatives, and five 15.ID. ; ID. ; lD.; THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION is
justices of the Supreme Court, the fifth justice to be AN INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION
selected by the four designated in the Act. The decision ALTHOUGH FOR PURPOSES OF CLASSIFICATION
of the commission was to be binding unless rejected by IT is CLOSER TO THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
the two houses voting separately. Although there is not THAN TO ANY OTHER.—The Electoral Commission is
much moral lesson to be derived from the experience of a constitutional creation, invested with the necessary
America in this regard, the experiment has at least authority in the performance and execution of the limited
abiding historical interest. and specific function assigned to it by the Constitution.
Although it is not a power in our tripartite scheme of
13.ID.; ID.; FAMILIARITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE government, it is, to all intents and purposes, when
COSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WITH THE HlSTORY acting within the limits of its authority, an independent
AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER organ. It is, to be sure, closer to the legislative
COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD; ELECTORAL department than to any other. The location of the
COMMISSION is THE EXPRESSION OF THE WlSDOM provision (sec. 4) creating the Electoral Commission
AND ULTIMATE JUSTICE OF THE PEOPLE.—The under Article VI entitled "Legislative Department" of our
members of the Constitutional Convention who framed Constitution is very indicative. Its composition is also
our fundamental law were in their majority men mature in significant in that it is constituted by a majority of
years and experience. To be sure, many of them were

3
members of the Legislature. But it is a body separate provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing
from and independent of the Legislature. protests before the Electoral Commission, therefore, the
incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for
16.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; GRANT OF POWER TO THE the proper exercise of its exclusive powers to judge all
ELECTORAL COMMISSION INTENDED TO BE AS contests relating to the election, returns and
COMPLETE AND UNIMPAIRED AS IF IT HAD qualifications of members of the National Assembly,
REMAINED ORIGINALLY IN THE LEGISLATURE.— must be deemed by necessary implication to have been
The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge lodged also in the Electoral Commission.
all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is 18.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE NO
intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had ARGUMENT AGAINST GRANT OF POWER.—The
remained originally in the Legislature. The express possibility of abuse is not an argument against the
lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission is an concession of the power as there is no power that is not
implied denial of the exercise of that power by the susceptible of abuse. If any mistake has been committed
National Assembly. And this is as effective a restriction in the creation of an Electoral Commission and in
upon the legislative power as an express prohibition in investing it with exclusive jurisdiction in all cases relating
the Constitution (Ex parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep., 1; to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of
State vs. Whisman, 33 S. D., 260; L. R. A., 1917B, 1). If the National Assembly, the remedy is political, not
the power claimed for the National Assembly to regulate judicial, and must be sought through the ordinary
the proceedings of the Electoral Commission and cut off processes of democracy. All the possible abuses of the
the power of the Electoral Commission to lay down a government are not intended to be corrected by the
period within which protest should be filed were judiciary. The people in creating the Electoral
conceded, the grant of power to the commission would Commission reposed as much confidence in this body in
be ineffective. The Electoral Commission in such a case the exclusive determination of the specified cases
would be invested with the power to determine contested assigned to it, as it has given to the Supreme Court in
cases involving the election, returns, and qualifications the proper cases entrusted to it for decision. All the
of the members of the National Assembly but subject at agencies of the government were designed by the
all times to the regulative power of the National Constitution to achieve specific purposes, and each
Assembly. Not only would the purpose of the framers of constitutional organ working within its own particular
our Constitution of totally transferring this authority from sphere of discretionary action must be deemed to be
the legislative body be frustrated, but a dual authority animated with same zeal and honesty in accomplishing
would be created with the resultant inevitable clash of the great ends for which they were created by the
powers from time to time. A sad spectacle would then be sovereign will. That the actuations of these constitutional
presented of the Electoral Commission retaining the agencies might leave much to be desired in given
bare authority of taking cognizance of cases referred to, instances, is inherent in the imperfections of human
but in reality without the necessary means to render that institutions. From the fact that the Electoral Commission
authority effective whenever and wherever the National may not be interfered with in the exercise of its legitimate
Assembly has chosen to act, a situation worse than that power, it does not follow that its acts, however illegal or
intended to be remedied by the framers of our unconstitutional, may not be challenged in appropriate
Constitution. The power to regulate on the part of the cases over which the courts may exercise jurisdiction.
National Assembly in procedural matters will inevitably
lead to the ultimate control by the Assembly of the entire 19.ID.; ID.; ID.; FACTS OF THE CASE; EQUITABLE
proceedings of the Electoral Commission, and, by CONSIDERATIONS.—The Commonwealth Government
indirection, to the entire abrogation of the constitutional was inaugurated on November 15, 1935, on which date
grant. It is obvious that this result should not be the Constitution, except as to the provisions mentioned
permitted. in section 6 of Article XV thereof, went into effect. The
new National Assembly convened on November 25, of
17.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; THE POWER TO PROMULGATE that year, and the resolution confirming the election of
INCIDENTAL RULES AND REGULATIONS LODGED the petitioner was approved by that body on December
ALSO IN THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION BY 3, 1935. The protest by the herein respondent against
NECESSARY IMPLICATION.—The creation of the the election of the petitioner was filed on December 9 of
Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the the same year. The pleadings do not show when the
power regulative in character to limit the time within Electoral Commission was formally organized but it does
which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be appear that on December 9, 1935, the Electoral
filed. It is a settled rule of construction that where a Commission met for the first time and approved a
general power isconferred or duty enjoined, every resolution fixing said date as the last day for the filing of
particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or election protests. When, therefore, the National
the performance of the other is also conferred (Cooley, Assembly passed its resolution of December 3, 1935,
Constitutional Limitations, eighth ed., vol. I, pp. 138, confirming the election of the petitioner to the National
139). In the absence of any further constitutional Assembly, the Electoral Commission had not yet met;

4
neither does it appear that said body had actually been Jones Law making each House the sole judge of the
organized. As a matter of fact, according to certified election, returns and qualifications of its members, as
copies of official records on file in the archives division of well as by a law (sec. 478, Act !No. 3387) empowering
the National Assembly attached to the record of this each House respectively to prescribe by resolution the
case upon the petition of the petitioner, the three justices time and manner of filing contest \a the election of
of the Supreme Court and the six members of the members of said bodies. As a matter of formality, after
National Assembly constituting the Electoral the time fixed by its rules for the filing of protests had
Commission were respectively designated only on already expired, each House passed a resolution
December 4 and 6, 1935. If Resolution No. 8 of the confirming or approving the returns of such members
National Assembly confirming nonprotested elections of against whose election no protest had been filed within
members of the National Assembly had the effect of the prescribed time. This was interpreted as cutting off
limiting or tolling the time for the presentation of protests, the filing of further protests against the election of those
the result would be that the National Assembly—on the members not theretofore contested (Amistad vs.
hypothesis that it still retained the incidental power of Claravall [Isabela], Second Philippine Legislature,
regulation in such cases—had already barred the Record—First Period, p. 89; Urgello vs. Rama [Third
presentation of protests before the Electoral Commission District, Cebu], Sixth Philippine Legislature; Fetalvero vs.
had had time to organize itself and deliberate on the Festin [Romblon], Sixth Philippine Legislature, Record—
mode and method to be followed in a matter entrusted to First Period, pp. 637-640; Kintanar vs. Aldanese [Fourth
its exclusive jurisdiction by the Constitution. This result District, Cebu], Sixth Philippine Legislature, Record—
was not and could not have been contemplated, and First Period, pp. 1121, 1122; Aguilar vs. Corpus
should be avoided. [Masbate], Eighth Philippine Legislature, Record—First
Period, vol. III, No. 56, pp. 892, 893). The Constitution
20.ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; CONFIRMATION BY THE NATIONAL has expressly repealed section 18 of the Jones Law. Act
ASSEMBLY CAN NOT DEPRIVE THE ELECTORAL No. 3387, section 478, must be deemed to have been
COMMISSION OF ITS AUTHORITY TO FIX THE TlME impliedly abrogated also, for the reason that with the
WITHIN WHICH- PROTESTS AGAINST THE power to determine all contests relating to the election,
ELECTION, RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF returns and qualifications of members of the National
MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD Assembly, is inseparably linked the authority to prescribe
BE FILED.—Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly regulations for the exercise of that power. There was
confirming the election of members against whom no thus no law nor constitutional provision which authorized
protests has been filed at the time of its passage on the National Assembly to fix, as it is alleged to have fixed
December 3, 1935, can not be construed as a limitation on December 3, 1935, the time for the filing of contests
upon the time for the initiation of election contests. While against the election of its members. And what the
there might have been good reason for the legislative National Assembly could not do directly, it could not do
practice of confirmation of members of the Legislature at by indirection through the medium of confirmation.
the time the power to decide election contests was still
lodged in the Legislature, confirmation alone by the
Legislature cannot be construed as depriving the
Electoral Commission of the authority incidental to its
constitutional power to be "the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
members of the National Assembly", to fix the time for
the filing of said election protests. Confirmation by the
National Assembly of the returns of its members against
whose election no protests have been filed is, to all legal
purposes, unnecessary. Confirmation of the election of
any member is not required by the Constitution before
he can discharge his duties as such member. As a
matter of fact, certification by the proper provincial board
of canvassers is sufficient to entitle a member-elect to a
seat in the National Assembly and to render him eligible
to any office in said body (No. 1, par. 1, Rules of the
National Assembly, adopted December 6, 1935).

21.ID. ; EFFECT OF CONFIRMATION UNDER THE

JONES LAW.—Under the practice prevailing when the
Jones Law was still in force, each House of the
Philippine Legislature fixed the time when protests
against the election of any of its members should be
filed. This was expressly authorized by section 18 of the

5
 G.R. No. 192935 December 7, 2010 derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 can be questioned by a member of Congress.—The
Court disagrees with the OSG in questioning the legal
Public Officers; Philippine Truth Commission (PTC); standing of the petitioners-legislators to assail Executive
Words and Phrases; Truth commissions have been Order No. 1. Evidently, their petition primarily invokes
described as bodies that share the following usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to
characteristics: (1) they examine only past events; which they belong as members. This certainly justifies
(2) they investigate patterns of abuse committed their resolve to take the cudgels for Congress as an
over a period of time, as opposed to a particular institution and present the complaints on the usurpation
event; (3) they are temporary bodies that finish their of their power and rights as members of the legislature
work with the submission of a report containing before the Court. As held in Philippine Constitution
conclusions and recommendations; and (4) they are Association v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 (1994)—“To the
officially sanctioned, authorized or empowered by extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the
the State; The Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is power of each member thereof, since his office confers a
different from the truth commissions in other right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that
countries which have been created as official, institution. An act of the Executive which injures the
transitory and non-judicial fact-finding bodies “to institution of Congress causes a derivative but
establish the facts and context of serious violations nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned
of human rights or of international humanitarian law by a member of Congress. In such a case, any member
in a country’s past.”—The PTC is different from the of Congress can have a resort to the courts.”
truth commissions in other countries which have been
created as official, transitory and non-judicial fact-finding Same; Same; The Supreme Court leans on the
bodies “to establish the facts and context of serious doctrine that the rule on standing is a matter of
violations of human rights or of international procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional
humanitarian law in a country’s past.” They are usually plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and
established by states emerging from periods of internal legislators when the public interest so requires,
unrest, civil strife or authoritarianism to serve as such as when the matter is of transcendental
mechanisms for transitional justice. Truth commissions importance, of overreaching significance to society,
have been described as bodies that share the following or of paramount public interest.—The Court leans on
characteristics: (1) they examine only past events; (2) the doctrine that “the rule on standing is a matter of
they investigate patterns of abuse committed over a procedure, hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional
period of time, as opposed to a particular event; (3) they plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators
are temporary bodies that finish their work with the when the public interest so requires, such as when the
submission of a report containing conclusions and matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
recommendations; and (4) they are officially sanctioned, significance to society, or of paramount public interest.”
authorized or empowered by the State. “Commission’s Thus, in Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres,
members are usually empowered to conduct research, 465 SCRA 47 (2005), the Court held that in cases of
support victims, and propose policy recommendations to paramount importance where serious constitutional
prevent recurrence of crimes. Through their questions are involved, the standing requirements may
investigations, the commissions may aim to discover and be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even
learn more about past abuses, or formally acknowledge where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the
them. They may aim to prepare the way for prosecutions right of judicial review. In the first Emergency Powers
and recommend institutional reforms.” Cases, 84 Phil. 368 (1949), ordinary citizens and
taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality
Judicial Review; Requisites.—Like almost all powers of several executive orders although they had only an
conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial indirect and general interest shared in common with the
review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be public.
an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of
judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must Presidency; Philippine Truth Commission (PTC);
have the standing to question the validity of the subject Reorganizations; Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O.
act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a 292); Words and Phrases; To say that the Philippine
personal and substantial interest in the case such that Truth Commission (PTC) is borne out of a
he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result restructuring of the Office of the President under
of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality Section 31, Chapter 10, Book III, of Executive Order
must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the (E.O.) No. 292, is a misplaced supposition, even in
issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the the plainest meaning attributable to the term
case. “restructure”—an “alteration of an existing
structure”—the PTC was not part of the structure of
Same; Locus Standi; An act of the Executive which the Office of the President prior to the enactment of
injures the institution of Congress causes a Executive Order No. 1.—The question, therefore,

6
before the Court is this: Does the creation of the PTC fall offices and transfer appropriations pursuant to one of the
within the ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed purposes of the decree, embodied in its last “Whereas”
in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code? clause: WHEREAS, the transition towards the
Section 31 contemplates “reorganization” as limited by parliamentary form of government will necessitate
the following functional and structural lines: (1) flexibility in the organization of the national government.
restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the Clearly, as it was only for the purpose of providing
President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging manageability and resiliency during the interim, P.D. No.
units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1772, became functus
another; (2) transferring any function under the Office of oficio upon the convening of the First Congress, as
the President to any other Department/Agency or vice expressly provided in Section 6, Article XVIII of the 1987
versa; or (3) transferring any agency under the Office of Constitution.
the President to any other Department/Agency or vice
versa. Clearly, the provision refers to reduction of Same; Same; Faithful Execution Clause; The
personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof creation of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC)
by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. finds justification under Section 17, Article VII of the
These points to situations where a body or an office is Constitution, imposing upon the President the duty
already existent but a modification or alteration thereof to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.—
has to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere While the power to create a truth commission cannot
mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision. pass muster on the basis of P.D. No. 1416 as amended
Accordingly, the answer to the question is in the by P.D. No. 1772, the creation of the PTC finds
negative. To say that the PTC is borne out of a justification under Section 17, Article VII of the
restructuring of the Office of the President under Section Constitution, imposing upon the President the duty to
31 is a misplaced supposition, even in the plainest ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Section 17
meaning attributable to the term “restructure”—an reads: Section 17. The President shall have control of all
“alteration of an existing structure.” Evidently, the PTC the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
was not part of the structure of the Office of the shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
President prior to the enactment of Executive Order No. (Emphasis supplied). As correctly pointed out by the
1. respondents, the allocation of power in the three
principal branches of government is a grant of all powers
Same; Same; Same; Same; Power of Control; The inherent in them. The President’s power to conduct
power of control is entirely different from the power investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful
to create public offices—the former is inherent in the execution of laws—in this case, fundamental laws on
Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a public accountability and transparency—is inherent in
valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty the President’s powers as the Chief Executive. That the
to faithfully execute the laws.—In the same vein, the authority of the President to conduct investigations and
creation of the PTC is not justified by the President’s to create bodies to execute this power is not explicitly
power of control. Control is essentially the power to alter mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does not
or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate mean that he is bereft of such authority.
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former with that of the Same; Same; Same; Residual Powers; The powers
latter. Clearly, the power of control is entirely different of the President are not limited to those specific
from the power to create public offices. The former is powers under the Constitution—one of the
inherent in the Executive, while the latter finds basis recognized powers of the President granted
from either a valid delegation from Congress, or his pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated duty is
inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. the power to create ad hoc committees, a power
which flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutes; The and determine if laws have been faithfully executed.
Court declines to recognize Presidential Decree —The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that
(P.D.) No. 1416 as a justification for the President to our laws are faithfully executed. As stated above, the
create a public office—P.D. No. 1416, as amended by powers of the President are not limited to those specific
P.D. No. 1772, became functus oficio upon the powers under the Constitution. One of the recognized
convening of the First Congress, as expressly powers of the President granted pursuant to this
provided in Section 6, Article XVIII of the 1987 constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad
Constitution.—The Court, however, declines to hoc committees. This flows from the obvious need to
recognize P.D. No. 1416 as a justification for the ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully
President to create a public office. Said decree is executed. Thus, in Department of Health v. Camposano,
already stale, anachronistic and inoperable. P.D. No. 457 SCRA 438 (2005), the authority of the President to
1416 was a delegation to then President Marcos of the issue Administrative Order No. 298, creating an
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the investigative committee to look into the administrative
national government including the power to create charges filed against the employees of the Department

7
of Health for the anomalous purchase of medicines was legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance
upheld. with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing
and administering the same law.” In simpler terms,
Same; Same; Same; The purpose of allowing ad hoc judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of these
investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry quasi-judicial power, such that it is exclusively vested in
into matters which the President is entitled to know the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the
so that he can be properly advised and guided in the legislature in the case of administrative agencies.
performance of his duties relative to the execution
and enforcement of the laws of the land.—It should Same; Same; Same; “Power to Investigate,” and
be stressed that the purpose of allowing ad hoc “Power to Adjudicate,” Distinguished.—The
investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into distinction between the power to investigate and the
matters which the President is entitled to know so that power to adjudicate was delineated by the Court in
he can be properly advised and guided in the Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 483
performance of his duties relative to the execution and (1991). Thus: “Investigate,” commonly understood,
enforcement of the laws of the land. And if history is to means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe
be revisited, this was also the objective of the into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of
investigative bodies created in the past like the PCAC, “investigate” is “to observe or study closely: inquire into
PCAPE, PARGO, the Feliciano Commission, the Melo systematically: “to search or inquire into: x x to subject to
Commission and the Zenarosa Commission. There an official probe x x: to conduct an official inquiry.” The
being no changes in the government structure, the Court purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find
is not inclined to declare such executive power as non- out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or
existent just because the direction of the political winds intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a
have changed. controversy involved in the facts inquired into by
application of the law to the facts established by the
Same; Same; Appropriations; There is no usurpation inquiry. The legal meaning of “investigate” is essentially
on the part of the Executive of the power to the same: “(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry
appropriate funds where there is only allotment or or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to
allocations of existing funds already appropriated.— examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find
On the charge that Executive Order No. 1 transgresses out by careful inquisition; examination; the taking of
the power of Congress to appropriate funds for the evidence; a legal inquiry;” “to inquire; to make an
operation of a public office, suffice it to say that there will investigation,” “investigation” being in turn described as
be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations “(a)n administrative function, the exercise of which
of existing funds already appropriated. Accordingly, ordinarily does not require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm L
there is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the Sec. 257; x x an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the
power of Congress to appropriate funds. Further, there is discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain
no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for the matter or matters.” “Adjudicate,” commonly or popularly
operation of the commission because, in the words of understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide,
the Solicitor General, “whatever funds the Congress has determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The dictionary defines
provided for the Office of the President will be the very the term as “to settle finally (the rights and duties of the
source of the funds for the commission.” Moreover, since parties to a court case) on the merits of issues raised: x
the amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be x to pass judgment on: settle judicially: x x act as judge.”
subject to existing auditing rules and regulations, there is And “adjudge” means “to decide or rule upon as a judge
no impropriety in the funding. or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers: x x to award or
grant judicially in a case of controversy x x.” In the legal
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; No quasi-judicial sense, “adjudicate” means: “To settle in the exercise of
powers have been vested in the Philippine Truth judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous with
Commission (PTC) as it cannot adjudicate rights of adjudge in its strictest sense;” and “adjudge” means: “To
persons who come before it; Quasi-judicial powers pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to
involve the power to hear and determine questions sentence or condemn. x x. Implies a judicial
of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment.”
to decide in accordance with the standards laid
down by law itself in enforcing and administering Same; Same; Same; Ombudsman; The Philippine
the same law.—Invoking this authority, the President Truth Commission (PTC) will not supplant the
constituted the PTC to primarily investigate reports of Ombudsman or the Department of Justice (DOJ) or
graft and corruption and to recommend the appropriate erode their respective powers—if at all, the
action. As previously stated, no quasi-judicial powers investigative function of the commission will
have been vested in the said body as it cannot complement those of the two offices; The
adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. It has Ombudsman’s power to investigate under Republic
been said that “Quasi-judicial powers involve the power Act (R.A.) No. 6770 is not exclusive but is shared
to hear and determine questions of fact to which the with other similarly authorized government

8
agencies.—Contrary to petitioners’ apprehension, the between individuals solely on differences that are
PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.” The
erode their respective powers. If at all, the investigative equal protection clause is aimed at all official state
function of the commission will complement those of the actions, not just those of the legislature. Its inhibitions
two offices. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the cover all the departments of the government including
recommendation to prosecute is but a consequence of the political and executive departments, and extend to all
the overall task of the commission to conduct a fact- actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws,
finding investigation.” The actual prosecution of through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken.
suspected offenders, much less adjudication on the
merits of the charges against them, is certainly not a Same; Same; Same; Requisites; Superficial
function given to the commission. The phrase, “when in differences do not make for a valid classification.—
the course of its investigation,” under Section 2(g), It, however, does not require the universal application of
highlights this fact and gives credence to a contrary the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What
interpretation from that of the petitioners. The function of it simply requires is equality among equals as
determining probable cause for the filing of the determined according to a valid classification. Indeed,
appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be the equal protection clause permits classification. Such
with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. At any rate, the classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of
Ombudsman’s power to investigate under R.A. No. 6770 reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The
is not exclusive but is shared with other similarly classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is
authorized government agencies. germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to
existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all
Same; Same; Equal Protection Clause; The equal members of the same class. “Superficial differences do
protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of not make for a valid classification.”
due process, as every unfair discrimination offends
the requirements of justice and fair play.—One of the Same; Same; Same; For a classification to meet the
basic principles on which this government was founded requirements of constitutionality, it must include or
is that of the equality of right which is embodied in embrace all persons who naturally belong to the
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The equal class.—For a classification to meet the requirements of
protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons
process, as every unfair discrimination offends the who naturally belong to the class. “The classification will
requirements of justice and fair play. It has been be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are
embodied in a separate clause, however, to provide for a not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and
more specific guaranty against any form of undue obligations imposed. It is not necessary that the
favoritism or hostility from the government. Arbitrariness classification be made with absolute symmetry, in the
in general may be challenged on the basis of the due sense that the members of the class should possess the
process clause. But if the particular act assailed same characteristics in equal degree. Substantial
partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the similarity will suffice; and as long as this is achieved, all
sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection those covered by the classification are to be treated
clause. equally. The mere fact that an individual belonging to a
class differs from the other members, as long as that
Same; Same; Same; The concept of equal justice class is substantially distinguishable from all others,
under the law requires the state to govern does not justify the non-application of the law to him.”
impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between
individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant Same; Same; Same; The classification must not be
to a legitimate governmental objective; The equal based on existing circumstances only, or so
protection clause is aimed at all official state constituted as to preclude addition to the number
actions, not just those of the legislature.—According included in the class—it must be of such a nature as
to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply to embrace all those who may thereafter be in
requires that all persons or things similarly situated similar circumstances and conditions.—The
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and classification must not be based on existing
responsibilities imposed.” It “requires public bodies and circumstances only, or so constituted as to preclude
institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a addition to the number included in the class. It must be
similar manner.” “The purpose of the equal protection of such a nature as to embrace all those who may
clause is to secure every person within a state’s thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions. It
jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary must not leave out or “underinclude” those that should
discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms otherwise fall into a certain classification. As elucidated
of a statue or by its improper execution through the in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, 59 SCRA
state’s duly constituted authorities.” “In other words, the 54 (1974), and reiterated in a long line of cases, The
concept of equal justice under the law requires the state guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty
to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens

9
of the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to taken as basis for distinguishing said administration
avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, from earlier administrations which were also
that every man, woman and child should be affected blemished by similar widespread reports of
alike by a statute. Equality of operation of statutes does impropriety.—Though the OSG enumerates several
not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as differences between the Arroyo administration and other
such, but on persons according to the circumstances past administrations, these distinctions are not
surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of substantial enough to merit the restriction of the
rights. The Constitution does not require that things investigation to the “previous administration” only. The
which are different in fact be treated in law as though reports of widespread corruption in the Arroyo
they were the same. The equal protection clause does administration cannot be taken as basis for
not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It distinguishing said administration from earlier
does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the administrations which were also blemished by similar
object to which it is directed or by the territory within widespread reports of impropriety. They are not inherent
which it is to operate. The equal protection of the laws in, and do not inure solely to, the Arroyo administration.
clause of the Constitution allows classification. As Justice Isagani Cruz put it, “Superficial differences do
Classification in law, as in the other departments of not make for a valid classification.”
knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in
speculation or practice because they agree with one Same; Same; Same; The fact remains that Executive
another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary classification—the
because of simple inequality. The very idea of Philippine Truth Commission (PTC), to be true to its
classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without mandate of searching for the truth, must not exclude
saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner the other past administrations.—Given the foregoing
determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is physical and legal impossibility, the Court logically
required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, recognizes the unfeasibility of investigating almost a
which means that the classification should be based on century’s worth of graft cases. However, the fact remains
substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that Executive Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary
that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it classification. The PTC, to be true to its mandate of
must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it searching for the truth, must not exclude the other past
must apply equally to each member of the class. This administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the
Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the authority to investigate all past administrations. While
classification or distinction is based on a reasonable reasonable prioritization is permitted, it should not be
foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary. arbitrary lest it be struck down for being unconstitutional.
In the often quoted language of Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
Same; Same; Same; Not to include past Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in
administrations similarly situated constitutes appearance, yet, if applied and administered by public
arbitrariness which the equal protection clause authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as
cannot sanction—the Arroyo administration is but practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations
just a member of a class, that is, a class of past between persons in similar circumstances, material to
administrations, not a class of its own.—Applying their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the
these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1 prohibition of the constitution.
should be struck down as violative of the equal
protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned Same; Same; Same; While with regard to equal
truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth protection claims, a legislature does not run the risk
“concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption of losing the entire remedial scheme simply because
during the previous administration” only. The intent to it fails, through inadvertence or otherwise, to cover
single out the previous administration is plain, patent and every evil that might conceivably have been
manifest. Mention of it has been made in at least three attacked, in Executive Order No. 1, however, there is
portions of the questioned executive order. Specifically, no inadvertence.—The Court is not unaware that “mere
these are: * * * In this regard, it must be borne in mind underinclusiveness is not fatal to the validity of a law
that the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a under the equal protection clause.” “Legislation is not
class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a unconstitutional merely because it is not all-embracing
class of its own. Not to include past administrations and does not include all the evils within its reach.” It has
similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the been written that a regulation challenged under the
equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such equal protection clause is not devoid of a rational
discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label predicate simply because it happens to be incomplete. In
the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and several instances, the underinclusiveness was not
selective retribution. considered a valid reason to strike down a law or
regulation where the purpose can be attained in future
Same; Same; Same; The reports of widespread legislations or regulations. These cases refer to the “step
corruption in the Arroyo administration cannot be by step” process. “With regard to equal protection

10
claims, a legislature does not run the risk of losing the truth must be within constitutional bounds for “ours is still
entire remedial scheme simply because it fails, through a government of laws and not of men.”
inadvertence or otherwise, to cover every evil that might
conceivably have been attacked.” In Executive Order
No. 1, however, there is no inadvertence. That the
previous administration was picked out was deliberate
and intentional as can be gleaned from the fact that it
was underscored at least three times in the assailed
executive order. It must be noted that Executive Order
No. 1 does not even mention any particular act, event or
report to be focused on unlike the investigative
commissions created in the past. “The equal protection
clause is violated by purposeful and intentional
discrimination.”

Same; Same; Judicial Review; The Supreme Court,

in exercising its power of judicial review, is not
imposing its own will upon a co-equal body but
rather simply making sure that any act of
government is done in consonance with the
authorities and rights allocated to it by the
Constitution.—To answer this accusation, the words of
Justice Laurel would be a good source of enlightenment,
to wit: “And when the judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over the other departments; it does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but
only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned
to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
parties in an actual controversy the rights which that
instrument secures and guarantees to them.” Thus, the
Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not
imposing its own will upon a co-equal body but rather
simply making sure that any act of government is done
in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to
it by the Constitution. And, if after said review, the Court
finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has
no more authority of proscribing the actions under
review. Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to
pronounce said act as void and unconstitutional.

Same; Same; Same; Perhaps a revision of the

executive issuance so as to include the earlier past
administrations would allow it to pass the test of
reasonableness and not be an affront to the
Constitution; Of all the branches of the government,
it is the judiciary which is the most interested in
knowing the truth and so it will not allow itself to be
a hindrance or obstacle to its attainment.—Lest it be
misunderstood, this is not the death knell for a truth
commission as nobly envisioned by the present
administration. Perhaps a revision of the executive
issuance so as to include the earlier past administrations
would allow it to pass the test of reasonableness and not
be an affront to the Constitution. Of all the branches of
the government, it is the judiciary which is the most
interested in knowing the truth and so it will not allow
itself to be a hindrance or obstacle to its attainment. It
must, however, be emphasized that the search for the

11
 GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003 Same; Same; Same; Same; Judicial review is indeed
Francisco vs. HR an integral component of the delicate system of
checks and balances which, together with the
Supreme Court; Judicial Review; Separation of corollary principle of separation of powers, forms
Powers; Checks and Balances; The Supreme Court’s the bedrock of our republican form of government
power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial and insures that its vast powers are utilized only for
branch of the government in Section 1, Article VIII of the benefit of the people for which it serves.—As
the Constitution; In cases of conflict, the judicial indicated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, judicial
department is the only constitutional organ which review is indeed an integral component of the delicate
can be called upon to determine the proper system of checks and balances which, together with the
allocation of powers between the several corollary principle of separation of powers, forms the
departments and among the integral or constituent bedrock of our republican form of government and
units thereof.—This Court’s power of judicial review is insures that its vast powers are utilized only for the
conferred on the judicial branch of the government in benefit of the people for which it serves. The separation
Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution: of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one government.It obtains not through express provision but
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be by actual division in our Constitution. Each department
established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters
the courts of justice to settle actual controversies within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
involving rights which are legally demandable and sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or and independent of each other. The Constitution has
instrumentality of the government. (Emphasis supplied) provided for an elaborate system of checks and
Such power of judicial review was early on exhaustively balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
expounded upon by Justice Jose P. Laurel in the various departments of the government. x x x And
definitive 1936 case of Angara v. Electoral Commission thejudiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final
after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution whose arbiter, effectivelychecks the other departments in the
provisions, unlike the present Constitution, did not exercise of its power to determine thelaw, and hence to
contain the present provision in Article VIII, Section 1, declare executive and legislative acts void if violative
par. 2 on what judicial power includes. Thus, Justice ofthe Constitution. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
Laurel discoursed: x x x In times of social disquietude or
political excitement, the great landmarks of the Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Verba Legis;
Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not Wherever possible, the words used in the
entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning
department is the only constitutional organ which can be except where technical terms are employed.—To
called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers determine the merits of the issues raised in the instant
between the several departments and among the petitions, this Court must necessarily turn to the
integral or constituent units thereof. Constitution itself which employs the well-settled
principles of constitutional construction. First, verba
Same; Same; Same; Same; The executive and legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the
legislative branches of the government effectively Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning
acknowledged the power of judicial review in Article except where technical terms are employed. Thus, in
7 of the Civil Code.—In our own jurisdiction, as early as J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration,
1902, decades before its express grant in the 1935 this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Enrique
Constitution, the power of judicial review was exercised Fernando, declared: We look to the language of the
by our courts to invalidate constitutionally infirm acts. document itself in our search for its meaning. We do not
And as pointed out by noted political law professor and of course stop there, butthat is where we begin. It is to
former Supreme Court Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, the be assumed that the words in which constitutional
executive and legislative branches of our government in provisions are couched express the objective sought to
fact effectively acknowledged this power of judicial be attained. They are to be given their ordinary meaning
review in Article 7 of the Civil Code, to wit: Article 7. except where technical terms are employed in which
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their case the significance thus attached to them prevails. As
violation or non-observance shall not be excused by the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, it
disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should
courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the ever be present in the people’s consciousness, its
Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall language as much as possible should be understood in
govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and the sense they have in common use. What it says
regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary according to the text of the provision to be construed
to the laws or the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied) compels acceptance and negates the power of the

12
courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason
and the people mean what they say. Thus these are the and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto
cases where the need for construction is reduced to a may be had only when other guides fail as said
minimum. (Emphasis and italics supplied) proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the
Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the
Same; Same; Same; The words of the Constitution constitutional convention “are of value as showing the
should be interpreted in accordance with the intent views of the individual members, and as indicating the
of the framers—ratio legis est anima—the object is reasons for their votes, but they give us no light as to the
to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of views of the large majority who did not talk, much less of
the Constitution to enact the particular provision the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls
and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We
in order to construe the whole as to make the words think it safer to construe the constitution from what
consonant to that reason and calculated to effect appears upon its face.” Theproper interpretation
that purpose.—Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est therefore depends more on how it was understoodbythe
anima. The words of the Constitution should be people adopting it than in the framers’ understanding
interpreted in accordance with the Intent of its framers. thereof. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
And so did this Court apply this principle in Civil Liberties
Union v. Executive Secretary in this wise: A foolproof Same; Same; Impeachment; American jurisprudence
yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention and authorities on impeachment, much less the
underlying the provision under consideration. Thus, it American Constitution, are of dubious application
has been held that the Court in construing a Constitution for these are no longer controlling within our
should bear in mind the object sought to be jurisdiction and have only limited persuasive merit
accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, as Philippine constitutional law is concerned;
sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision Although the Philippine Constitution can trace its
will be examined in the light of the history of the times, origins to that of the United States, their paths of
and the condition and circumstances under which the development have long since diverged—in the
Constitution was framed. The object is to ascertain the colorful words of Father Bernas, "[w]e have cut the
reason which induced the framers of the Constitution to umbilical cord.”—Respondents’ and intervenors’
enact theparticular provision and the purpose sought to reliance upon American jurisprudence, the Americana
be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole Constitution and American authorities cannot be credited
as to make the words consonant to that reason and to support the proposition that the Senate’s “sole power
calculated to effect that purpose.” (Emphasis and italics to try and decide impeachment cases,” as provided for
supplied) under Art. XI, Sec. 3(6) of the Constitution, is a textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment of all issues
Same; Same; Same; The Constitution is to be pertaining to impeachment to the legislature, to the total
interpreted as a whole—ut magis valeat quam exclusion of the power of judicial review to check and
pereat.—Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution restrain any grave abuse of the impeachment process.
is to be interpreted as a whole. Thus, in Chiongbian v. Nor can it reasonably support the interpretation that it
De Leon, this Court, through Chief Justice Manuel necessarily confers upon the Senate the inherently
Moran declared: x x x [T]he members of the judicial power to determine constitutional questions
Constitutional Convention could not have dedicated a incident to impeachment proceedings. Said American
provision of our Constitution merely for the benefit of one jurisprudence and authorities, much less the American
person without considering that it could also affect Constitution, are of dubious application for these are no
others. When they adopted subsection 2,they permitted, longer controlling within our jurisdiction and have only
if not willed, that said provision should function to the limited persuasive merit insofar as Philippine
fullextent of its substance and its terms, not itself alone, constitutional law is concerned. As held in the case of
but in con junctionwith all other provisions of that great Garcia vs. COMELEC, “[i]n resolving constitutional
document. (Emphasis and italics supplied) disputes, [this Court] should not be beguiled by foreign
jurisprudence some of which are hardly applicable
Same; Same; Same; If the plain meaning of the word because they have been dictated by different
is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is constitutional settings and needs.” Indeed, although the
available; The proper interpretation of a Philippine Constitution can trace its origins to that of the
constitutional provision depends more on how it United States, their paths of development have long
was understood by the people adopting it than the since diverged. In the colorful words of Father Bernas,
framers’ understanding thereof.—If, however, the “[w]e have cut the umbilical cord.”
plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort
to other aids is available. In still the same case of Civil Same; Same; Same; The major difference between
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, this Court the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court
expounded: While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to and that of the U.S. Supreme Court is that while the
consult the debates and proceedings of the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to

13
the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in the exercise of judicial review over impeachment
nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court proceedings would upset the system of checks and
and lower courts, as expressly provided for in the balances.—There exists no constitutional basis for the
Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, and contention that the exercise of judicial review over
it was given an expanded definition to include the impeachment proceedings would upset the system of
power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be
the part of any government branch or interpreted as a whole and “one section is not to be
instrumentality; There are also glaring distinctions allowed to defeat another.” Both are integral components
between the U.S. Constitution and the Philippine of the calibrated system of independence and
Constitution with respect to the power of the House interdependence that insures that no branch of
of Representatives over impeachment proceedings. government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the
—The major difference between the judicial power of the Constitution.
Philippine Supreme Court and that of the U.S. Supreme
Court is that while the power of judicial review is only Same; Same; Requisites for Judicial Review.—As
impliedly granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is clearly stated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, the
discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine courts’ power of judicial review, like almost all powers
Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly provided conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several
for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, limitations, namely: (1) an actual case or controversy
and it was given an expanded definition to include the calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person
power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge;
part of any government branch or instrumentality. There he must have a personal and substantial interest in the
are also glaring distinctions between the U.S. case such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct
Constitution and the Philippine Constitution with respect injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of
to the power of the House of Representatives over constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
impeachment proceedings. While the U.S. Constitution opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be
bestows sole power of impeachment to the House of the very lis mota of the case.
Representatives without limitation, our Constitution,
though vesting in the House of Representatives the Same; Same; Same; Locus Standi; Words and
exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, provides Phrases; The gist to the question of standing is
for several limitations to the exercise of such power as whether a party alleges such personal stake in the
embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI outcome of the controversy as to assure that
thereof. These limitations include the manner of filing, concrete adverseness which sharpens the
required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the presentation of issues upon which the court
impeachment of one and the same official. depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
questions.—Locus standi or legal standing has been
Same; Same; Same; The Constitution did not intend defined as a personal and substantial interest in the
to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
discretion of Congress—it provided for certain well- direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is
defined limits, or “judicially discoverable standards” being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is
for determining the validity of the exercise of such whether a party alleges such personal stake in the
discretion, through the power of judicial review.— outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
Respondents are also of the view that judicial review of adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues
impeachments undermines their finality and may also upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
lead to conflicts between Congress and the judiciary. constitutional questions.
Thus, they call upon this Court to exercise judicial
statesmanship on the principle that “whenever possible, Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Real-Party-in-
the Court should defer to the judgment of the people Interest; The rule on real-party-in-interest is a
expressed legislatively, recognizing full well the perils of concept of civil procedure while the rule on standing
judicial willfulness and pride.” But did not the people also has constitutional underpinnings—the question as
express their will when they instituted the above- to “real party in interest” is whether he is “the party
mentioned safeguards in the Constitution? This shows who would be benefited or injured by the judgment,
that the Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of or the ‘party entitled to the avails of the suit’ ” while
impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. the question of standing is whether such party have
Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or in “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
the language of Baker v. Carr, “judicially discoverable controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness
standards” for determining the validity of the exercise of which sharpens the presentation of issues upon
such discretion, through the power of judicial review. which the court so largely depends for illumination
of difficult constitutional issues.”—There is, however,
Same; Same; Same; Checks and Balances; There a difference between the rule on real party-in-interest
exists no constitutional basis for the contention that and the rule on standing, for the former is a concept of

14
civil procedure while the latter has constitutional is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds
underpinnings. In view of the arguments set forth are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being
regarding standing, it behooves the Court to reiterate the deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a
ruling in Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato to clarify what is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an
meant by locus standi and to distinguish it from real invalid or unconstitutional law. Before he can invoke the
party-in-interest. The difference between the rule on power of judicial review, however, he must specifically
standing and real party in interest has been noted by prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the
authorities thus: “It is important to note . . . that standing illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that
because of its constitutional and public policy he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the
underpinnings, is very different from questions relating to enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is
whether a particular plaintiff is the real party in interest or not sufficient that he has merely a general interest
has capacity to sue. Although all three requirements are common to all members of the public. At all events,
directed towards ensuring that only certain parties can courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a
maintain an action, standing restrictions require a partial taxpayer’s suit should be entertained. This Court opts to
consideration of the merits, as well as broader policy grant standing to most of the petitioners, given their
concerns relating to the proper role of the judiciary in allegation that any impending transmittal to the Senate
certain areas. Standing is a special concern in of the Articles of Impeachment and the ensuing trial of
constitutional law because in some cases suits are the Chief Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure
brought not by parties who have been personally injured of public funds.
by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but
by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually Same; Same; Same; Same; Legislator’s Suits; For a
sue in the public interest. Hence the question in standing legislator, he is allowed to sue to question the
is whether such parties have “alleged such a personal validity of any official action which he claims
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that infringes his prerogatives as a legislator.—As for a
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation legislator, he is allowed to sue to question the validity of
of issues upon which the court so largely depends for any official action which he claims infringes his
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” x x x On prerogatives as a legislator. Indeed, a member of the
the other hand, the question as to “real party in interest” House of Representatives has standing to maintain
is whether he is “the party who would be benefited or inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested
injured by the judgment, or the ‘party entitled to the by the Constitution in his office.
avails of the suit.’ ” (Citations omitted)
Same; Same; Same; Same; Association’s Suits;
Same; Same; Same; Same; Citizen’s Suits; When While an association has legal personality to
suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner represent its members, especially when it is
assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be composed of substantial taxpayers and the outcome
direct and personal.—When suing as a citizen, the will affect their vital interests, the mere invocation by
interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any member
a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able of the legal profession of the duty to preserve the
to show, not only that the law or any government act is rule of law and nothing more, although undoubtedly
invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent true, does not suffice to clothe it with standing.—
danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its While an association has legal personality to represent
enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in its members, especially when it is composed of
some indefinite way. It must appear that the person substantial taxpayers and the outcome will affect their
complaining has been or is about to be denied some vital interests, the mere invocation by the Integrated Bar
right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he of the Philippines or any member of the legal profession
is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by of the duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more,
reason of the statute or act complained of. In fine, when although undoubtedly true, does not suffice to clothe it
the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, with standing. Its interest is too general. It is shared by
the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the other groups and the whole citizenry. However, a
requirement of personal interest. reading of the petitions shows that it has advanced
constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this
Same; Same; Same; Same; Taxpayer’s Suits; In the Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as
case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there precedents. It, therefore, behooves this Court to relax
is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or the rules on standing and to resolve the issues
that public money is being deflected to any improper presented by it.
purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds
through the enforcement of an invalid or Same; Same; Same; Same; Class Suits; When
unconstitutional law; Courts are vested with dealing with class suits filed in behalf of all citizens,
discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit persons intervening must be sufficiently numerous
should be entertained.—In the case of a taxpayer, he to fully protect the interests of all concerned to

15
enable the court to deal properly with all interests
involved in the suit, and where it clearly appears that Same; Same; Same; Same; Intervention; An
not all interests can be sufficiently represented as intervenor must possess a legal interest in the
shown by the divergent issues raised, a class suit matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the
ought to fail.—In the same vein, when dealing with parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated
class suits filed in behalf of all citizens, persons as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
intervening must be sufficiently numerous to fully protect disposition of property in the custody of the court or
the interests of all concerned to enable the court to deal of an officer thereof.—With respect to the motions for
properly with all interests involved in the suit, for a intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court
judgment in a class suit, whether favorable or requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in the
unfavorable to the class, is, under the res judicata matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the
principle, binding on all members of the class whether or parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to
not they were before the court. Where it clearly appears be adversely affected by a distribution or other
that not all interests can be sufficiently represented as disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an
shown by the divergent issues raised in the numerous officer thereof. While intervention is not a matter of right,
petitions before this Court, G.R. No. 160365 as a class it may be permitted by the courts when the applicant
suit ought to fail. Since petitioners additionally allege shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law
standing ascitizens and taxpayers, however, their authorizing intervention.
petition will stand.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A Senator
Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; possesses a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
“Transcendental Importance,” Explained; There he being a member of Congress against which the
being no doctrinal definition of transcendental petitions are directed.—Senator Aquilino Pimentel, on
importance, the following instructive determinants the other hand, sought to intervene for the limited
are instructive—(1) the character of the funds or purpose of making of record and arguing a point of view
other assets involved in the case, (2) the presence of that differs with Senate President Drilon’s. He alleges
a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or that submitting to this Court’s jurisdiction as the Senate
statutory prohibition by the public respondent President does will undermine the independence of the
agency or instrumentality of the government, and, Senate which will sit as an impeachment court once the
(3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to it from the
specific interest in raising the questions being House of Representatives. Clearly, Senator Pimentel
raised; In not a few cases, the Supreme Court has in possesses a legal interest in the matter in litigation, he
fact adopted a liberal attitude on locus standi of a being a member of Congress against which the herein
petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an petitions are directed. For this reason, and to fully
issue of transcendental significance to the people, ventilate all substantial issues relating to the matter at
as when the issues raised are of paramount hand, his Motion to Intervene was granted and he was,
importance to the public.—There being no doctrinal as earlier stated, allowed to argue.
definition of transcendental importance, the following
instructive determinants formulated by former Supreme Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Attorneys; A
Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano are instructive: (1) motion to intervene as a taxpayer will be denied
the character of the funds or other assets involved in the where such party fails to allege that there will result
case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a an illegal disbursement of public funds or in public
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public money being deflected to any improper purpose; A
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; lawyer’s mere interest as a member of the Bar does
and, (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct not suffice to clothe him with standing.—As to Jaime
and specific interest in raising the questions being N. Soriano’s motion to intervene, the same must be
raised. Applying these determinants, this Court is denied for, while he asserts an interest as a taxpayer, he
satisfied that the issues raised herein are indeed of failed to meet the standing requirement for bringing
transcendental importance. In not a few cases, this taxpayer’s suits as set forth in Dumlao v. Comelec, to
Court has in fact adopted a liberal attitude on the locus wit: x x x While, concededly, the elections to be held
standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft involve the expenditure of public moneys, nowhere in
an issue of transcendental significance to the people, as their Petition do said petitioners allege that their tax
when the issues raised are of paramount importance to money is “being extracted and spent in violation of
the public. Such liberality does not, however, mean that specific constitutional protection against abuses of
the requirement that a party should have an interest in legislative power,” or that there is a misapplication of
the matter is totally eliminated. A party must, at the very such funds by respondent COMELEC, or that public
least, still plead the existence of such interest, it not money is being deflected to any improper purpose.
being one of which courts can take judicial notice. In Neither do petitioners seek to restrain respondent from
petitioner Vallejos’ case, he failed to allege any interest wasting public funds through the enforcement of an
in the case. He does not thus have standing. invalid or unconstitutional law. (Citations omitted) In

16
praying for the dismissal of the petitions, Soriano failed Court hid behind the cover of the political question
even to allege that the act of petitioners will result in doctrine and refused to exercise its power of judicial
illegal disbursement of public funds or in public money review. In other cases, however, despite the seeming
being deflected to any improper purpose. Additionally, political nature of the therein issues involved, this Court
his mere interest as a member of the Bar does not assumed jurisdiction whenever it found constitutionally
suffice to clothe him with standing. imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon
political bodies. Even in the landmark 1988 case of
Same; Same; Same; Ripeness and Prematurity; For Javellana v. Executive Secretary which raised the issue
a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, “it is a of whether the 1973 Constitution was ratified, hence, in
prerequisite that something had by then been force, this Court shunted the political question doctrine
accomplished or performed by either branch before and took cognizance thereof. Ratification by the people
a court may come into the picture.”—In Tan v. of a Constitution is a political question, it being a
Macapagal, this Court, through Chief Justice Fernando, question decided by the people in their sovereign
held that for a case to be considered ripe for capacity. The frequency with which this Court invoked
adjudication, “it is a prerequisite that something had by the political question doctrine to refuse to take
then been accomplished or performed by either branch jurisdiction over certain cases during the Marcos regime
before a court may come into the picture.” Only then motivated Chief Justice Concepcion, when he became a
may the courts pass on the validity of what was done, if Constitutional Commissioner, to clarify this Court’s
and when the latter is challenged in an appropriate legal power of judicial review and its application on issues
proceeding. involving political questions.

Same; Same; Same; Justiciability; Political Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; From the
Questions; Separation of Powers; Words and record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional
Phrases; The term “political question” connotes, in Commission, it is clear that judicial power is not
legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, only a power—it is also a duty, a duty which cannot
namely, a question of policy—it refers to “those be abdicated by the mere specter of this creature
questions which, under the Constitution, are to be called the political question doctrine.—From the
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or foregoing record of the proceedings of the 1986
in regard to which full discretionary authority has Constitutional Commission, it is clear that judicial power
been delegated to the Legislature or executive is not only a power; it is also a duty, a duty which cannot
branch of the Government.”—In the leading case of be abdicated by the mere specter of this creature called
Tañada v. Cuenco, Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion the political question doctrine. Chief Justice Concepcion
defined the term “political question,” viz.: [T]he term hastened to clarify, however, that Section 1, Article VIII
“political question” connotes, in legal parlance, what it was not intended to do away with “truly political
means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of questions.” From this clarification it is gathered that there
policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris are two species of political questions: (1) “truly political
Secundum, it refers to “those questions which, under the questions” and (2) those which “are not truly political
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their questions.”
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Truly
Legislature or executive branch of the Government.” It is political questions are beyond judicial review while
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not courts can review questions which are not truly
legality, of a particular measure. (Italics in the original) political in nature.—Truly political questions are thus
beyond judicial review, the reason for respect of the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Prior to the doctrine of separation of powers to be maintained. On
1973 Constitution, without consistency and the other hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of the
seemingly without any rhyme or reason, the Constitution, courts can review questions which are not
Supreme Court vacillated on its stance of taking truly political in nature.
cognizance of cases which involved political
questions; The frequency with which the Court Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Standards
invoked the political question doctrine to refuse to for Determining Political Questions; Section 1,
take jurisdiction over certain cases during the Article VIII, of the Constitution does not define what
Marcos regime motivated Chief Justice Concepcion, are justiciable political questions and non justiciable
when he became a Constitutional Commissioner, to political questions, and identification of these two
clarify the Court’s power of judicial review and its species of political questions may be problematic.—
application on issues involving political questions.— Section 1, Article VIII, of the Constitution does not define
Prior to the 1973 Constitution, without consistency and what are justiciable political questions and non-
seemingly without any rhyme or reason, this Court justiciable political questions, however. Identification of
vacillated on its stance of taking cognizance of cases these two species of political questions may be
which involved political questions. In some cases, this problematic. There has been no clear standard. The

17
American case of Baker v. Carrattempts to provide power; Although Section 2 of Article XI of the
some: x x x Prominent on the surface of any case held to Constitution enumerates six grounds for
involve a political question is found a textually impeachment, two of these—other high crimes and
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to betrayal of public trust—elude a precise definition.—
a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially It is a well-settled maxim of adjudication that an issue
discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act
or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy should be avoided whenever possible. Thus, in the case
determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; of Sotto v. Commission on Elections, this Court held: x x
or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent x It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass
resolution without expressing lack of the respect due upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be
coordinate branches of government; or an unusual, need unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised
for questioning adherence to a political decision already by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record
made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from also presents some other ground upon which the court
multifarious pronouncements by various departments on may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and
one question. (Italics supplied) Of these standards, the the constitutional question will be left for consideration
more reliable have been the first three: (1) a textually until a case arises in which a decision upon such
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to question will be unavoidable. [Emphasis and italics
a coordinate political department; (2) the lack of judicially supplied] Succinctly put, courts will not touch the issue of
discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable and is the
and (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial very lis mota or crux of the controversy.
policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial
discretion. These standards are not separate and distinct Same; Same; Same; Lis Mota; It is a well-settled
concepts but are interrelated to each in that the maxim of adjudication that an issue assailing the
presence of one strengthens the conclusion that the constitutionality of a governmental act should be
others are also present. avoided whenever possible.—The first issue goes into
the merits of the second impeachment complaint over
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The which this Court has no jurisdiction. More importantly,
problem in applying the standards provided in Baker any discussion of this issue would require this Court to
v. Carr, 227 U.S. 100 (1993), is that the American make a determination of what constitutes an
concept of judicial review is radically different from impeachable offense. Such a determination is a purely
the current Philippine concept, for the Constitution political question which the Constitution has left to the
provides our courts with far less discretion in sound discretion of the legislation. Such an intent is clear
determining whether they should pass upon a from the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
constitutional issue; In our jurisdiction, the Although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution
determination of a truly political question from a enumerates six grounds for impeachment, two of these,
non-justiciable political question lies in the answer namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust,
to the question of whether there are constitutionally elude a precise definition. In fact, an examination of the
imposed limits on powers or functions conferred records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission shows
upon political bodies.—The problem in applying the that the framers could find no better way to approximate
foregoing standards is that the American concept of the boundaries of betrayal of public trust and other high
judicial review is radically different from our current crimes than by alluding to both positive and negative
concept, for Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution examples of both, without arriving at their clear cut
provides our courts with far less discretion in determining definition or even a standard therefor. Clearly, the issue
whether they should pass upon a constitutional issue. In calls upon this court to decide a non-justiciable political
our jurisdiction, the determination of a truly political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power
question from a non-justiciable political question lies in under Section 1, Article VIII.
the answer to the question of whether there are
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court is
conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our guided by the related canon of adjudication that it
courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or “should not form a rule of constitutional law broader
instrumentality of the government properly acted within than is required by the precise facts to which it is
such limits. This Court shall thus now apply this standard applied.”—Noted earlier, the instant consolidated
to the present controversy. petitions, while all seeking the invalidity of the second
impeachment complaint, collectively raise several
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; constitutional issues upon which the outcome of this
Impeachment; Words and Phrases; A determination controversy could possibly be made to rest. In
of what constitutes an impeachable offense is a determining whether one, some or all of the remaining
purely political question which the Constitution has substantial issues should be passed upon, this Court is
left to the sound discretion of the legislature—it is guided by the related canon of adjudication that “the
beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s judicial court should not form a rule of constitutional law broader

18
than is required by the precise facts to which it is discharge of an unavoidable duty and, as always, with
applied.” detachment and fairness.” After all, “by [his] appointment
to the office, the public has laid on [a member of the
Same; Same; Legislative Inquiries; Standard of judiciary] their confidence that [he] is mentally and
Conduct for the Conduct of Legislative Inquiries.— morally fit to pass upon the merits of their varied
En passant, this Court notes that a standard for the contentions. For this reason, they expect [him] to be
conduct of legislative inquiries has already been fearless in [his] pursuit to render justice, to be unafraid to
enunciated by this Court in Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue displease any person, interest or power and to be
Ribbon Committee, viz.: The 1987 Constitution expressly equipped with a moral fiber strong enough to resist the
recognizes the power of both houses of Congress to temptations lurking in [his] office.”
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Thus, Section 21,
Article VI thereof provides: The Senate or the House of Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Seven Pillars of
Representatives or any of its respective committees may Limitations of the Power of Judicial Review.—In
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with Demetria v. Alba, this Court, through Justice Marcelo
its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of Fernan cited the “seven pillars” of limitations of the
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall power of judicial review, enunciated by US Supreme
be respected. The power of both houses of Congress to Court Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. TVA as follows:
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not, therefore 1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of
absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by legislation in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding,
the aforequoted provision of the Constitution. Thus, as declining because to decide such questions ‘is legitimate
provided therein, the investigation must be “in aid of only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of determination of real, earnest and vital controversy
procedure” and that “the rights of persons appearing in between individuals. It never was the thought that, by
or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.” It means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature
follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the
Rights must be respected, including the right to due constitutionality of the legislative act.’ 2. The Court will
process and the right not to be compelled to testify not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance
against one’s self. of the necessity of deciding it.’ . . . ‘It is not the habit of
the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature
Same; Same; Separation of Powers; Political unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.’ 3.
Questions; Judicial Restraint; The exercise of The Court will not ‘formulate a rule of constitutional law
judicial restraint over justiciable issues is not an broader than is required by the precise facts to which it
option before the Supreme Court, otherwise the is to be applied.’ 4. The Court will not pass upon a
Court would be shirking from its duty vested under constitutional question although properly presented by
Art. VIII, Sec. 1(2) of the Constitution—The exercise of the record, if there is also present some other ground
judicial restraint over justiciable issues is not an option upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has
before this Court. Adjudication may not be declined, found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be
because this Court is not legally disqualified. Nor can decided on either of two grounds, one involving a
jurisdiction be renounced as there is no other tribunal to constitutional question, the other a question of statutory
which the controversy may be referred.” Otherwise, this construction or general law, the Court will decide only
Court would be shirking from its duty vested under Art. the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state
VIII, Sec. 1(2) of the Constitution. More than being challenging its decision of a question under the Federal
clothed with authority thus, this Court is duty-bound to Constitution are frequently dismissed because the
take cognizance of the instant petitions. In the august judgment can be sustained on an independent state
words of amicus curiae Father Bernas, “jurisdiction is not ground. 5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a
just a power; it is a solemn duty which may not be statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he
renounced. To renounce it, even if it is vexatious, would is injured by its operation. Among the many applications
be a dereliction of duty.” of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the
right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Even in cases property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official
where it is an interested party, the Court under our interested only in the performance of his official duty will
system of government cannot inhibit itself and must not be entertained . . . In Fairchild v. Hughes, the Court
rule upon the challenge because no other office has affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who
the authority to do so.—Even in cases where it is an sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared
interested party, the Court under our system of unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, the
government cannot inhibit itself and must rule upon the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not
challenge because no other office has the authority to do entertained although made by the Commonwealth on
so. On the occasion that this Court had been an behalf of all its citizens. 6. The Court will not pass upon
interested party to the controversy before it, it has acted the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one
upon the matter “not with officiousness but in the who has availed himself of its benefits. 7. When the

19
validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, oral arguments of the instant petitions on November 5,
and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, 2003.
it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain
whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by Same; Same; Same; It is clear that the framers
which the question may be avoided (citations omitted). intended “initiation” to start with the filing of the
complaint.—It is thus clear that the framers intended
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The possibility of “initiation” to start with the filing of the complaint. In his
the occurrence of a constitutional crisis is not a amicus curiae brief, Commissioner Maambong explained
reason for the Supreme Court to refrain from that “the obvious reason in deleting the phrase “to initiate
upholding the Constitution in all impeachment impeachment proceedings” as contained in the text of
cases.—Respondents Speaker de Venecia, et al. raise the provision of Section 3 (3) was to settle and make it
another argument for judicial restraint the possibility that understood once and for all that the initiation of
“judicial review of impeachments might also lead to impeachment proceedings starts with the filing of the
embarrassing conflicts between the Congress and the complaint, and the vote of one-third of the House in a
[J]udiciary.” They stress the need to avoid the resolution of impeachment does not initiate the
appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interest in impeachment proceedings which was already initiated
judicial hearings, and the scenario that it would be by the filing of a verified complaint under Section 3,
confusing and humiliating and risk serious political paragraph (2), Article XI of the Constitution.” Amicus
instability at home and abroad if the judiciary curiae Constitutional Commissioner Regalado is of the
countermanded the vote of Congress to remove an same view as is Father Bernas, who was also a member
impeachable official. Intervenor Soriano echoes this of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, that the word
argument by alleging that failure of this Court to enforce “initiate” as used in Article XI, Section 3(5) means to file,
its Resolution against Congress would result in the both adding, however, that the filing must be
diminution of its judicial authority and erode public accompanied by an action to set the complaint moving.
confidence and faith in the judiciary. Such an argument,
however, is specious, to say the least. As correctly Same; Same; Same; Reddendo Singula Singulis; The
stated by the Solicitor General, the possibility of the term “cases” must be distinguished from the term
occurrence of a constitutional crisis is not a reason for “proceedings”—an impeachment case is the legal
this Court to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all controversy that must be decided by the Senate but
impeachment cases. Justices cannot abandon their before a decision is made to initiate a case in the
constitutional duties just because their action may start, Senate, a “proceeding” must be followed to arrive at
if not precipitate, a crisis. a conclusion, and such proceeding must be
“initiated” in the House of Representatives.—Father
Impeachment; Statutory Construction; Words and Bernas explains that in these two provisions, the
Phrases; “Initiate” of course is understood by common verb is “to initiate.” The object in the first
ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries do, to begin, sentence is “impeachment case.” The object in the
to commence, or set going.—The resolution of this second sentence is “impeachment proceeding.”
issue thus hinges on the interpretation of the term Following the principle of reddendo singula singulis, the
“initiate.” Resort to statutory construction is, therefore, in term “cases” must be distinguished from the term
order. That the sponsor of the provision of Section 3(5) “proceedings.” An impeachment case is the legal
of the Constitution, Commissioner Florenz Regalado, controversy that must be decided by the Senate. Above-
who eventually became an Associate Justice of this quoted first provision provides that the House, by a vote
Court, agreed on the meaning of “initiate” as “to file,” as of one-third of all its members, can bring a case to the
proffered and explained by Constitutional Commissioner Senate. It is in that sense that the House has “exclusive
Maambong during the Constitutional Commission power” to initiate all cases of impeachment. No other
proceedings, which he (Commissioner Regalado) as body can do it. However, before a decision is made to
amicus curiae affirmed during the oral arguments on the initiate a case in the Senate, a “proceeding” must be
instant petitions held on November 5, 2003 at which he followed to arrive at a conclusion. A proceeding must be
added that the act of “initiating” included the act of taking “initiated.” To initiate, which comes from the Latin word
initial action on the complaint, dissipates any doubt that initium, means to begin. On the other hand, proceeding
indeed the word “initiate” as it twice appears in Article XI is a progressive noun. It has a beginning, a middle, and
(3) and (5) of the Constitution means to file the complaint an end. It takes place not in the Senate but in the House
and take initial action on it. “Initiate” of course is and consists of several steps: (1) there is the filing of a
understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries do, verified complaint either by a Member of the House of
to begin, to commence, or set going. As Webster’s Third Representatives or by a private citizen endorsed by a
New International Dictionary of the English Language Member of the House of the Representatives; (2) there
concisely puts it, it means “to perform or facilitate the is the processing of this complaint by the proper
first action,” which jibes with Justice Regalado’s position, Committee which may either reject the complaint or
and that of Father Bernas, who elucidated during the uphold it; (3) whether the resolution of the Committee
rejects or upholds the complaint, the resolution must be

20
forwarded to the House for further processing; and (4) complaint may not be filed against the same official
there is the processing of the same complaint by the within a one year period.
House of Representatives which either affirms a
favorable resolution of the Committee or overrides a Same; Separation of Powers; The power of
contrary resolution by a vote of one-third of all the Congress to promulgate its rules on impeachment is
members. If at least one third of all the Members limited by the phrase “to effectively carry out the
upholds the complaint, Articles of Impeachment are purpose of this section.”—the rules cannot
prepared and transmitted to the Senate. It is at this point contravene the very purpose of the Constitution; If
that the House “initiates an impeachment case.” It is at Congress had absolute rule-making power, then it
this point that an impeachable public official is would by necessary implication have the power to
successfully impeached. alter or amend the meaning of the Constitution
without need of referendum.—Respondent House of
That is, he or she is successfully charged with an Representatives counters that under Section 3 (8) of
impeachment “case” before the Senate impeachment Article XI, it is clear and unequivocal that it and only it
court. has the power to make and interpret its rules governing
impeachment. Its argument is premised on the
Same; Same; Same; Same; The framers of the assumption that Congress has absolute power to
Constitution understood initiation in its ordinary promulgate its rules. This assumption, however, is
meaning.—The framers of the Constitution also misplaced. Section 3 (8) of Article XI provides that “The
understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. Thus when Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to
a proposal reached the floor proposing that “A vote of at effectively carry out the purpose of this section.” Clearly,
least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be its power to promulgate its rules on impeachment is
necessary . . . to initiate impeachment proceedings,” this limited by the phrase “to effectively carry out the purpose
was met by a proposal to delete the line on the ground of this section.” Hence, these rules cannot contravene
that the vote of the House does not initiate impeachment the very purpose of the Constitution which said rules
proceeding but rather the filing of a complaint does. were intended to effectively carry out. Moreover, Section
Thus the line was deleted and is not found in the present 3 of Article XI clearly provides for other specific
Constitution. limitations on its power to make rules, viz.: It is basic that
all rules must not contravene the Constitution which is
Same; Same; Same; Same; From the records of the the fundamental law. If as alleged Congress had
Constitutional Commission, to the amicus curiae absolute rule-making power, then it would by necessary
briefs of two former Constitutional Commissioners, implication have the power to alter or amend the
it is without a doubt that the term “to initiate” refers meaning of the Constitution without need of referendum.
to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled
with Congress’ taking initial action of said Same; Same; Where the construction to be given to
complaint; Once an impeachment complaint has a rule affects persons other than members of the
been initiated, another impeachment complaint may Legislature, the question becomes judicial in nature.
not be filed against the same official within a one —In Osmeña v. Pendatun, this Court held that it is within
year period.—To the argument that only the House of the province of either House of Congress to interpret its
Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment rules and that it was the best judge of what constituted
proceedings because Section 3 (1) says “The House of “disorderly behavior” of its members. However, in Paceta
Representatives shall have the exclusive power to v. Secretary of the Commission on Appointments,
initiate all cases of impeachment,” This is a misreading Justice (later Chief Justice) Enrique Fernando, speaking
of said provision and is contrary to the principle of for this Court and quoting Justice Brandeis in United
reddendo singula singulis by equating “impeachment States v. Smith, declared that where the construction to
cases” with “impeachment proceeding.” From the be given to a rule affects persons other than members of
records of the Constitutional Commission, to the amicus the Legislature, the question becomes judicial in nature.
curiae briefs of two former Constitutional In Arroyo v. De Venecia, quoting United States v. Ballin,
Commissioners, it is without a doubt that the term “to Joseph&Co., Justice Vicente Mendoza, speaking for this
initiate” refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint Court, held that while the Constitution empowers each
coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of said house to determine its rules of proceedings, it may not
complaint. Having concluded that the initiation takes by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate
place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of fundamental rights, and further that there should be a
the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on reasonable relation between the mode or method of
Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the proceeding established by the rule and the result which
members of the House of Representatives with the is sought to be attained. It is only within these limitations
Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Section that all matters of method are open to the determination
3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment of the Legislature.
complaint has been initiated, another impeachment

21
Same; Same; The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 inhibition of any member of the judiciary from taking part
of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules clearly in a case in specified instances. But to disqualify this
contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI as they give the entire institution now from the suit at bar is to regard the
term “initiate” a meaning different from “filing.”— Supreme Court as likely incapable of impartiality when
The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the one of its members is a party to a case, which is simply
House Impeachment Rules which state that a non sequitur.
impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if
there is a finding by the House Committee on Justice Same; Same; The Chief Justice is not above the law
that the verified complaint and/or resolution is sufficient and neither is any other member of the Court, but
in substance, or (2) once the House itself affirms or just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply
overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that that he gets to have less in law than anybody else.—
the verified complaint and/or resolution is not sufficient in No one is above the law or the Constitution. This is a
substance or (3) by the filing or endorsement before the basic precept in any legal system which recognizes
Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a equality of all men before the law as essential to the
verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at law’s moral authority and that of its agents to secure
least 1/3 of the members of the House thus clearly respect for and obedience to its commands. Perhaps,
contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI as they give the there is no other government branch or instrumentality
term “initiate” a meaning different from “filing.” that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal
equality other than the Supreme Court which has
Separation of Powers; Judicial Review; The raison discerned its real meaning and ramifications through its
d’etre of the judiciary is to complement the application to numerous cases especially of the high-
discharge by the executive and legislative of their profile kind in the annals of jurisprudence. The Chief
own powers to bring about ultimately the beneficent Justice is not above the law and neither is any other
effects of having founded and ordered our society member of this Court. But just because he is the Chief
upon the rule of law.—This Court in the present Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law
petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on than anybody else. The law is solicitous of every
the merits only the main issue of whether the individual’s rights irrespective of his station in life.
impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief
Justice transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-
year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about
assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor
indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly
political questions. Because it is not at all the business of
this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two
great branches of the government. Rather, the raison
d’etre of the judiciary is to complement the discharge by
the executive and legislative of their own powers to bring
about ultimately the beneficent effects of having founded
and ordered our society upon the rule of law.

Same; Same; To disqualify the entire institution that

is the Supreme Court from the suit at bar is to regard
the Supreme Court as likely incapable of impartiality
when one of its members is a party to a case, which
is simply a non sequitur.—The institution that is the
Supreme Court together with all other courts has long
held and been entrusted with the judicial power to
resolve conflicting legal rights regardless of the
personalities involved in the suits or actions, This Court
has dispensed justice over the course of time,
unaffected by whomsoever stood to benefit or suffer
therefrom, unafraid by whatever imputations or
speculations could be made to it, so long as it rendered
judgment according to the law and the facts. Why can it
not now be trusted to wield judicial power in these
petitions just because it is the highest ranking magistrate
who is involved when it is an incontrovertible fact that the
fundamental issue is not him but the validity of a
government branch’s official act as tested by the limits
set by the Constitution? Of course, there are rules on the

22
 G.R. No. 143855 September 21, 2010 Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced
ESPINA, ORLANDO FUA, JR., PROSPERO goods; (2) by mandating the State to adopt measures
AMATONG, ROBERT ACE S. BARBERS, RAUL M. that help make them competitive; and (3) by requiring
GONZALES, PROSPERO PICHAY, JUAN MIGUEL the State to develop a self-reliant and independent
ZUBIRI and FRANKLIN BAUTISTA, national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. In
- versus - other words, while Section 19, Article II of the 1987
HON. RONALDO ZAMORA, JR. (Executive Constitution requires the development of a self-reliant
Secretary), HON. MAR ROXAS (Secretary of Trade and independent national economy effectively controlled
and Industry), HON. FELIPE MEDALLA (Secretary of by Filipino entrepreneurs, it does not impose a policy of
National Economic and Development Authority), Filipino monopoly of the economic environment. The
GOV. RAFAEL BUENAVENTURA (Bangko Sentral ng objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or interests
Pilipinas) and HON. LILIA BAUTISTA (Chairman, from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure that
Securities and Exchange Commission), Filipinos are given preference in all areas of
Respondents. development.

Judicial Review; Locus Standi; Words and Phrases; Same; While the Constitution mandates a bias in
Legal standing or locus standi refers to the right of a favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
party to come to a court of justice and make such a enterprises, it also recognizes the need for business
challenge—more particularly, it refers to his exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of
personal and substantial interest in that he has equality and reciprocity and limits protection of
suffered or will suffer direct injury as a result of the Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition
passage of that law.— The long settled rule is that he and trade practices that are unfair.—Indeed, the 1987
who challenges the validity of a law must have a Constitution takes into account the realities of the
standing to do so. Legal standing or locusstandi refers to outside world as it requires the pursuit of a trade policy
the right of a party to come to a court of justice and that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and
make such a challenge. More particularly, standing arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and
refers to his personal and substantial interest in that he reciprocity; and speaks of industries which are
has suffered or will suffer direct injury as a result of the competitive in both domestic and foreign markets as well
passage of that law. To put it another way, he must as of the protection of Filipino enterprises against unfair
show that he has been or is about to be denied some foreign competition and trade practices. Thus, while the
right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods,
is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by services, labor and enterprises, it also recognizes the
reason of the law he complains of. Here, there is no need for business exchange with the rest of the world on
clear showing that the implementation of the Retail the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection
Trade Liberalization Act prejudices petitioners or inflicts of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition
damages on them, either as taxpayers or as legislators. and trade practices that are unfair.
Still the Court will resolve the question they raise since
the rule on standing can be relaxed for nontraditional Same; Trade and Industry; Police Power; Section 10,
plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators Article XII of the 1987 Constitution gives Congress
when as in this case the public interest so requires or the the discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain areas of
matter is of transcendental importance, of overarching investments upon the recommendation of the
significance to society, or of paramount public interest. National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA) and when the national interest requires.—
National Economy and Patrimony; While Section 19, Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution gives
Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the Congress the discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain
development of a self-reliant and independent areas of investments upon the recommendation of the
national economy effectively controlled by Filipino NEDA and when the national interest requires. Thus,
entrepreneurs, it does not impose a policy of Filipino Congress can determine what policy to pass and when
monopoly of the economic environment.—As the to pass it depending on the economic exigencies. It can
Court explained in Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 enact laws allowing the entry of foreigners into certain
(1997), the provisions of Article II of the 1987 industries not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino
Constitution, the declarations of principles and state citizens. In this case, Congress has decided to open
policies, are not self-executing. Legislative failure to certain areas of the retail trade business to foreign
pursue such policies cannot give rise to a cause of investments instead of reserving them exclusively to
action in the courts. The Court further explained in Filipino citizens. The NEDA has not opposed such
Tañada that Article XII of the 1987 Constitution lays policy.
down the ideals of economic nationalism: (1) by
expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos in Same; Same; Retail Trade Liberalization Act (R.A.
the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering 8762); Police Power; The control and regulation of
the national economy and patrimony and in the use of trade in the interest of the public welfare is of course

23
an exercise of the police power of the State; To the
extent that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8762, the Retail
Trade Liberalization Act, lessens the restraint on the
foreigners’ right to property or to engage in an
ordinarily lawful business, it cannot be said that the
law amounts to a denial of the Filipinos’ right to
property and to due process of law.—The control and
regulation of trade in the interest of the public welfare is
of course an exercise of the police power of the State. A
person’s right to property, whether he is a Filipino citizen
or foreign national, cannot be taken from him without
due process of law. In 1954, Congress enacted the
Retail Trade Nationalization Act or R.A. 1180 that
restricts the retail business to Filipino citizens. In denying
the petition assailing the validity of such Act for violation
of the foreigner’s right to substantive due process of law,
the Supreme Court held that the law constituted a valid
exercise of police power. The State had an interest in
preventing alien control of the retail trade and R.A. 1180
was reasonably related to that purpose. That law is not
arbitrary. Here, to the extent that R.A. 8762, the Retail
Trade Liberalization Act, lessens the restraint on the
foreigners’ right to property or to engage in an ordinarily
lawful business, it cannot be said that the law amounts
to a denial of the Filipinos’ right to property and to due
process of law. Filipinos continue to have the right to
engage in the kinds of retail business to which the law in
question has permitted the entry of foreign investors.

Same; Same; Police Power; It is not within the

province of the Court to inquire into the wisdom of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8762 save when it blatantly
violates the Constitution.—It is not within the province
of the Court to inquire into the wisdom of R.A. 8762 save
when it blatantly violates the Constitution. But as the
Court has said, there is no showing that the law has
contravened any constitutional mandate. The Court is
not convinced that the implementation of R.A. 8762
would eventually lead to alien control of the retail trade
business. Petitioners have not mustered any concrete
and strong argument to support its thesis. The law itself
has provided strict safeguards on foreign participation in
that business.

24
 [G.R. No. 141284. August 15, 2000] absent a formal board resolution authorizing him to
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, file the present action.—It should also be noted that
vs. HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, GEN. PANFILO M. the interest of the National President of the IBP who
LACSON, GEN. EDGAR B. AGLIPAY, and GEN. signed the petition, is his alone, absent a formal board
ANGELO REYES, respondents. resolution authorizing him to file the present action. To
be sure, members of the BAR, those in the judiciary
Judicial Review; Requisites.—When questions of included, have varying opinions on the issue. Moreover,
constitutional significance are raised, the Court can the IBP, assuming that it has duly authorized the
exercise its power of judicial review only if the following National President to file the petition, has not shown any
requisites are complied with, namely: (1) the existence of specific injury which it has suffered or may suffer by
an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and virtue of the questioned governmental act. Indeed, none
substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional of its members, whom the IBP purportedly represents,
question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at has sustained any form of injury as a result of the
the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional operation of the joint visibility patrols. Neither is it alleged
question is the lis mota of the case. that any of its members has been arrested or that their
civil liberties have been violated by the deployment of
Same; Same; Parties; “Locus Standi”; Words and the Marines. What the IBP projects as injurious is the
Phrases; “Legal Standing” or “Locus Standi,” supposed “militarization” of law enforcement which might
“Interest,” Explained.—“Legal standing” or locus standi threaten Philippine democratic institutions and may
has been defined as a personal and substantial interest cause more harm than good in the long run. Not only is
in the case such that the party has sustained or will the presumed “injury” not personal in character, it is
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to
that is being challenged. The term “interest” means a satisfy the requirement of standing.
material interest, an interest in issue affected by the
decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court,
question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist however, does not categorically rule that the
of the question of standing is whether a party alleges Integrated Bar of the Philippines has absolutely no
“such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy standing to raise constitutional issues how or in the
as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens future, but the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
the presentation of issues upon which the court depends must, by way of allegations and proof, satisfy the
for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Court that it has sufficient stake to obtain judicial
resolution of the controversy.—Since petitioner has
Same; Same; Same; Integrated Bar of the not successfully established a direct and personal injury
Philippines; The mere invocation by the Integrated as a consequence of the questioned act, it does not
Bar of the Philippines of its duty to preserve the rule possess the personality to assail the validity of the
of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is deployment of the Marines. This Court, however, does
not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case— not categorically rule that the IBP has absolutely no
this is too general an interest which is shared by standing to raise constitutional issues now or in the
other groups and the whole citizenry.—The IBP future. The IBP must, by way of allegations and proof,
primarily anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility satisfy this Court that it has sufficient stake to obtain
to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from judicial resolution of the controversy.
this declaration, however, the IBP asserts no other basis
in support of its locus standi. The mere invocation by the Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court has
IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which
more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it does not satisfy the requirement of legal standing
with standing in this case. This is too general an interest when paramount interest is involved; In this case, a
which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry. reading of the petition shows that the Integrated Bar
Based on the standards above-stated; the IBP has failed of the Philippines has advanced constitutional
to present a specific and substantial interest in the issues which deserve the attention of the Supreme
resolution of the case. Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and
weight as precedents.—Having stated the foregoing, it
Its fundamental purpose which, under Section 2, Rule must be emphasized that this Court has the discretion to
139-A of the Rules of Court, is to elevate the standards take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the
of the law profession and to improve the administration requirement of legal standing when paramount interest is
of justice is alien to, and cannot be affected by the involved. In not a few cases, the Court has adopted a
deployment of the Marines. liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner where
the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental
Same; Same; Same; Same; The interest of the significance to the people. Thus, when the issues raised
National President of the Integrated Bar of the are of paramount importance to the public, the Court
Philippines who signed the petition, is his alone, may brush aside technicalities of procedure. In this case,

25
a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a
advanced constitutional issues which deserve the particular act or measure being assailed. Moreover, the
attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, political question being a function of the separation of
novelty and weight as precedents. Moreover, because powers, the courts will not normally interfere with the
peace and order are under constant threat and lawless workings of another co-equal branch unless the case
violence occurs in increasing tempo, undoubtedly shows a clear need for the courts to step in to uphold the
aggravated by the Mindanao insurgency problem, the law and the Constitution.
legal controversy raised in the petition almost certainly
will not go away. It will stare us in the face again. It, Same; Same; Same; Same; When the grant of power
therefore, behooves the Court to relax the rules on is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the
standing and to resolve the issue now, rather than later. issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or
conditions have been met or the limitations
Same; Presidency; Commander-in-Chief Clause; respected, is justiciable—the problem being one of
“Calling Out” Power;While the Supreme Court gives legality or validity, not its wisdom.—The 1987
considerable weight to the parties’ formulation of Constitution expands the concept of judicial review by
the issues, the resolution of the controversy may providing that “(T)he Judicial power shall be vested in
warrant a creative approach that goes beyond the one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
narrow confines of the issues raised; Even as the established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of
parties are in agreement that the power exercised by the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
the President is the power to call out the armed involving rights which are legally demandable and
forces, the Court is of the view that the power enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
involved may be no more than the maintenance of been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
peace and order and promotion of the general excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
welfare.—As framed by the parties, the underlying instrumentality of the Government.” Under this definition,
issues are the scope of presidential powers and limits, the Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General that
and the extent of judicial review. But, while this Court the issue involved is a political question beyond the
gives considerable weight to the parties’ formulation of jurisdiction of this Court to review. When the grant of
the issues, the resolution of the controversy may warrant power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations,
a creative approach that goes beyond the narrow the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or
confines of the issues raised. Thus, while the parties are conditions have been met or the limitations respected, is
in agreement that the power exercised by the President justiciable—the problem being one of legality or validity,
is the power to call out the armed forces, the Court is of not its wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit
the view that the power involved may be no more than constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court.
the maintenance of peace and order and promotion of When political questions are involved, the Constitution
the general welfare. For one, the realities on the ground limits the determination as to whether or not there has
do not show that there exist a state of warfare, been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
widespread civil unrest or anarchy. Secondly, the full excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose
brunt of the military is not brought upon the citizenry, a action is being questioned.
point discussed in the latter part of this decision.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; By grave
Same; Same; Political Questions; Separation of abuse of discretion is meant simply capricious or
Powers; As a general proposition, a controversy is whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and
justiciable if it refers to a matter which is appropriate gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or
for court review; One class of cases wherein the a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or
Court hesitates to rule on are “political questions”; to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the
The political question being a function of the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
separation of powers, the courts will not normally manner by reason of passion or hostility; A showing
interfere with the workings of another co-equal that plenary power is granted either department of
branch unless the case shows a clear need for the government, may not be an obstacle to judicial
courts to step in to uphold the law and the inquiry, for the improvident exercise or abuse
Constitution.—As a general proposition, a controversy thereof may give rise to justiciable controversy.—By
is justiciable if it refers to a matter which is appropriate grave abuse of discretion is meant simply capricious or
for court review. It pertains to issues which are inherently whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross
susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual
law. Nevertheless, the Court does not automatically refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all
assume jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised
brought before it even in instances that are ripe for in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
resolution. One class of cases wherein the Court passion or hostility. Under this definition, a court is
hesitates to rule on are “political questions.” The reason without power to directly decide matters over which full
is that political questions are concerned with issues discretionary authority has been delegated. But while

26
this Court has no power to substitute its judgment for power to declare martial law and the power to
that of Congress or of the President, it may look into the suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.—
question of whether such exercise has been made in Under the foregoing provisions, Congress may revoke
grave abuse of discretion. A showing that plenary power such proclamation or suspension and the Court may
is granted either department of government, may not be review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof.
an obstacle to judicial inquiry, for the improvident However, there is no such equivalent provision dealing
exercise or abuse thereof may give rise to justiciable with the revocation or review of the President’s action to
controversy. call out the armed forces. The distinction places the
calling out power in a different category from the power
Same; Same; Commander-in-Chief Clause; “Calling to declare martial law and the power to suspend the
Out” Power; In view of the constitutional intent to privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, otherwise, the
give the President full discretionary power to framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped
determine the necessity of calling out the armed together the three powers and provided for their
forces, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show revocation and review without any qualification.
that the President’s decision is totally bereft of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Where the terms
factual basis; In the performance of the Supreme are expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by
Court’s duty of “purposeful hesitation” before interpretation or construction, be extended to other
declaring an act of another branch as matters. That the intent of the Constitution is exactly
unconstitutional, only where such grave abuse of what its letter says, i.e., that the power to call is fully
discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere discretionary to the President, is extant in the
with the President’s judgment—to doubt is to deliberation of the Constitutional Commission.
sustain.—When the President calls the armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or Same; Same; Same; Same; The reason for the
rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power difference in the treatment of the power to suspend
solely vested in his wisdom. This is clear from the intent the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the power
of the framers and from the text of the Constitution itself. to declare martial law and the power to call out the
The Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the armed forces highlights the intent to grant the
President’s wisdom or substitute its own. However, this President the widest leeway and broadest discretion
does not prevent an examination of whether such power in using the power to call out because it is
was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or considered as the lesser and more benign power
whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave compared to the two other powers.---The reason for
abuse of discretion. In view of the constitutional intent to the difference in the treatment of the aforementioned
give the President full discretionary power to determine powers highlights the intent to grant the President the
the necessity of calling out the armed forces, it is widest leeway and broadest discretion in using the
incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the power to call out because it is considered as the lesser
President’s decision is totally bereft of factual basis. The and more benign power compared to the power to
present petition fails to discharge such heavy burden as suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and
there is no evidence to support the assertion that there the power to impose martial law, both of which involve
exist no justification for calling out the armed forces. the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil
There is, likewise, no evidence to support the proposition rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating
that grave abuse was committed because the power to safeguards by Congress and review by this Court.
call was exercised in such a manner as to violate the Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the
constitutional provision on civilian supremacy over the Constitution, in the exercise of the power to suspend the
military. In the performance of this Court’s duty of privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to impose
“purposeful hesitation” before declaring an act of another martial law, two conditions must concur: (1) there must
branch as unconstitutional, only where such grave abuse be an actual invasion or rebellion and, (2) public safety
of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere must require it. These conditions are not required in the
with the President’s judgment. To doubt is to sustain. case of the power to call out the armed forces. The only
criterion is that “whenever it becomes necessary,” the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutory Construction; President may call the armed forces “to prevent or
Unlike in the power to suspend the privilege of the suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.” The
writ of habeas corpus or the power to proclaim implication is that the President is given full discretion
martial law in relation to which the Constitution has and wide latitude in the exercise of the power to call as
empowered Congress to revoke such suspension or compared to the two other powers.
proclamation and the Supreme Court to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis thereof there is no Same; Same; Same; Same; If the petitioner fails, by
such equivalent provision dealing with the way of proof to support the assertion that the
revocation or review of the President’s action to call President acted without factual basis, then the
out the armed forces, a distinction which places the Supreme Court cannot undertake an independent
calling out power in a different category from the investigation beyond the pleadings.—If the petitioner

27
fails, by way of proof, to support the assertion that the Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the
President acted without factual basis, then this Court PNP does not unmake the civilian character of the police
cannot undertake an independent investigation beyond force. Neither does it amount to an “insidious incursion”
the pleadings. The factual necessity of calling out the of the military in the task of law enforcement in violation
armed forces is not easily quantifiable and cannot be of Section 5(4), Article XVI of the Constitution.
objectively established since matters considered for Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Philippine
satisfying the same is a combination of several factors National Police (PNP);Where none of the Marines
which are not always accessible to the courts. Besides was incorporated or enlisted as members of the
the absence of textual standards that the court may use Philippine National Police, there can be no
to judge necessity, information necessary to arrive at appointment to a civilian position to speak of—the
such judgment might also prove unmanageable for the deployment of the Marines in the joint visibility
courts. Certain pertinent information might be difficult to patrols does not destroy the civilian character of the
verify, or wholly unavailable to the courts. In many Philippine National Police.—In this regard, it is not
instances, the evidence upon which the President might correct to say that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff
decide that there is a need to call out the armed forces of the AFP, by his alleged involvement in civilian law
may be of a nature not constituting technical proof. enforcement, has been virtually appointed to a civilian
Same; Same; Same; Same; Judicial Notice; The Court post in derogation of the aforecited provision. The real
takes judicial notice of the recent bombings perpetrated authority in these operations, as stated in the LOI, is
by lawless elements in shopping malls, public utilities, lodged with the head of a civilian institution, the PNP,
and other public places.—The President has already and not with the military. Such being the case, it does
determined the necessity and factual basis for calling the not matter whether the APP Chief actually participates in
armed forces. In his Memorandum, he categorically the Task Force Tulungan since he does not exercise any
asserted that, “[V]iolent crimes like bank/store robberies, authority or control over the same. Since none of the
holdups, kidnappings and carnappings continue to occur Marines was incorporated or enlisted as members of the
in Metro Manila . . .” We do not doubt the veracity of the PNP, there can be no appointment to a civilian position
President’s assessment of the situation, especially in the to speak of. Hence, the deployment of the Marines in the
light of present developments. The Court takes judicial joint visibility patrols does not destroy the civilian
notice of the recent bombings perpetrated by lawless character of the PNP.
elements in the shopping malls, public utilities, and other
public places. These are among the areas of deployment Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and
described in the LOI 2000. Considering all these facts, Phrases; “Regulatory Power” “Proscriptive Power,”
we hold that the President has sufficient factual basis to and “Compulsory Power,” Distinguished.—A power
call for military aid in law enforcement and in the regulatory in nature is one which controls or directs. It is
exercise of this constitutional power. proscriptive if it prohibits or condemns and compulsory if
it exerts some coercive force. See US v. Yunis, 681
Same; Same; Same; Same; Civilian Supremacy F.Supp 891 (D.D.C., 1988). See also FOURTH
Clause; The deployment of the Marines in the AMENDMENT AND POSSE COMITATUS ACT
metropolis for civilian law enforcement does not RESTRICTIONS ON MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN
constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. CIVIL LAW ENFORCEMENT, 54 George Washington
—The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a Law Review, pp. 404-433 (1986), which discusses the
breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of four divergent standards for assessing acceptable
the Marines in this case constitutes permissible use of involvement of military personnel in civil law
military assets for civilian law enforcement. The enforcement. See likewise HONORED IN THE
participation of the Marines in the conduct of joint BREECH: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
visibility patrols is appropriately circumscribed. The THE LAWS WITH MILITARY FORCE, 83 Yale Law
limited participation of the Marines is evident in the Journal, pp. 130-152, 1973.
provisions of the LOI itself, which sufficiently provides
the metes and bounds of the Marines’ authority. It is Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Even if the Court
noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones in were to apply the rigid standards to determine
charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the real whether there is permissible use of the military in
authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila civilian law enforcement, the conclusion is inevitable
Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Philippine that no violation of the civilian supremacy clause in
Marines joint visibility patrols. Under the LOI, the police the Constitution is committed.—Even if the Court
forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police were to apply the above rigid standards to the present
patrol procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and case to determine whether there is permissible use of
manage the deployment of the Marines. It is, likewise, the military in civilian law enforcement, the conclusion is
their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the inevitable that no violation of the civilian supremacy
Marines and render logistical support to these soldiers. clause in the Constitution is committed. On this point, the
In view of the foregoing, it cannot be properly argued Court agrees with the observation of the Solicitor
that military authority is supreme over civilian authority. General: 3. The designation of tasks in Annex A does

28
not constitute the exercise of regulatory, proscriptive, or powers from judicial scrutiny succeeded, it would
compulsory military power. First, the soldiers do not have diminished the power of judicial review and
control or direct the operation. This is evident from Nos. weakened the checking authority of the Supreme
6, 8(k) and 9(a) of Annex A. These soldiers, second, Court over the Chief Executive when he exercises
also have no power to prohibit or condemn. In No. 9(d) such powers.—If the case at bar is significant, it is
of Annex A, all arrested persons are brought to the because of the government attempt to foist the political
nearest police stations for proper disposition. And last, question doctrine to shield an executive act done in the
these soldiers apply no coercive force. The materials or exercise of the commander-in-chief powers from judicial
equipment issued to them, as shown in No. 8(c) of scrutiny. If the attempt succeeded, it would have
Annex A, are all low impact and defensive in character. diminished the power of judicial review and weakened
The conclusion is that there being no exercise of the checking authority of this Court over the Chief
regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory military power, the Executive when he exercises his commander-in-chief
deployment of a handful of Philippine Marines powers. The attempt should remind us of the tragedy
constitutes no impermissible use of military power for that befell the country when this Court sought refuge in
civilian law enforcement. the political question doctrine and forfeited its most
important role as protector of the civil and political rights
Same; Same; Same; Same; Unless the petitioner can of our people. The ongoing conflict in Mindanao may
show that in the deployment of the Marines, the worsen and can force the Chief Executive to resort to the
President has violated the fundamental law, use of his greater commander-in-chief powers, hence,
exceeded his authority or jeopardized the civil this Court should be extra cautious in assaying similar
liberties of the people, the Supreme Court is not attempts. A laid back posture may not sit well with our
inclined to overrule the President’s determination of people considering that the 1987 Constitution
the factual basis for the calling of the Marines to strengthened the checking powers of this Court and
prevent or suppress lawless violence.—It appears expanded its jurisdiction precisely to stop any act
that the present petition is anchored on fear that once constituting “x x x grave abuse of discretion x x x on the
the armed forces are deployed, the military will gain part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
ascendancy, and thus place in peril our cherished
liberties. Such apprehensions, however, are unfounded. Same; Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Two
The power to call the armed forces is just that—calling lessons were not lost to the members of the
out the armed forces. Unless, petitioner IBP can show, Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987
which it has not, that in the deployment of the Marines, Constitution—the first was the need to grant the
the President has violated the fundamental law, Supreme Court the express power to review the
exceeded his authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of exercise of the powers as Commander-in-chief by
the people, this Court is not inclined to overrule the the President and deny it of any discretion to decline
President’s determination of the factual basis for the its exercise, and the second was the need to compel
calling of the Marines to prevent or suppress lawless the Court to be proactive by expanding its
violence. jurisdiction and, thus, reject its laid back stance
against acts constituting grave abuse of discretion
Freedom; Civil Liberties; Freedom and democracy on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
will be in full bloom only when people feel secure in government.—Two lessons were not lost, to the
their homes and in the streets, not when the members of the Constitutional Commission that drafted
shadows of violence and anarchy constantly lurk in the 1987 Constitution. The first was the need to grant
their midst.—Since the institution of the joint visibility this Court the express power to review the exercise of
patrol in January, 2000, not a single citizen has the powers as commander-in-chief by the President and
complained that his political or civil rights have been deny it of any discretion to decline its exercise. The
violated as a result of the deployment of the Marines. It second was the need to compel the Court to be pro-
was precisely to safeguard peace, tranquility and the active by expanding its jurisdiction and, thus, reject its
civil liberties of the people that the joint visibility patrol laid back stance against acts constituting grave abuse of
was conceived. Freedom and democracy will be in full discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
bloom only when people feel secure in their homes and government. Then Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, a
in the streets, not when the shadows of violence and member of the Constitutional Commission, worked for
anarchy constantly lurk in their midst. the insertion of the second paragraph of Section 1,
Article VIII in the draft Constitution.
PUNO, J., Separate Opinion:
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutory
Judicial Review; Political Questions; Commander-in- Construction; The proceedings of the Constitutional
Chief Clause; “Calling Out” Power; If the Convention are less conclusive on the proper
government attempt in the instant case to foist the construction of the fundamental law than are
political question doctrine to shield an executive act legislative proceedings of the proper construction of
done in the exercise of the commander-in-chief a statute—the conventional wisdom is that the

29
Constitution does not derive its force from the martial law. Even then, its exercise cannot be left to the
convention which framed it, but from the people who absolute discretion of the Chief Executive as
ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, as its impact
people.—It must be borne in mind, however, that while a on the rights of our people protected by the Constitution
member’s opinion expressed on the floor of the cannot be downgraded. We cannot hold that acts of the
Constitutional Convention is valuable, it is not commander-in-chief cannot be reviewed on the ground
necessarily expressive of the people’s intent. The that they have lesser impact on the civil and political
proceedings of the Convention are less conclusive on rights of our people. The exercise of the calling out
the proper construction of the fundamental law than are power may be “benign” in the case at bar but may not be
legislative proceedings of the proper construction of a so in future cases.
statute, for in the latter case it is the intent of the
legislature the courts seek, while in the former, courts Same; Same; When private justiciable rights are
seek to arrive at the intent of the people through the involved in a suit, the Court must not refuse to
discussions and deliberations of their representatives. assume jurisdiction even though questions of
The conventional wisdom is that the Constitution does extreme political importance are necessarily
not derive its force from the convention which framed it, involved.—We should not water down the ruling that
but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be deciding whether a matter has been committed by the
arrived at is that of the people. Constitution to another branch of government, or
whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever
authority has been committed, is a delicate exercise in
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Given the constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of the
light of our constitutional history, the express grant Court as ultimate interpreter of the fundamental law.
of power to the Supreme Court to review the When private justiciable rights are involved in a suit, the
sufficiency of the factual bases used by the Court must not refuse to assume jurisdiction even
President in the suspension of the privilege of the though questions of extreme political importance are
writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial necessarily involved. Every officer under a constitutional
law merely means that the Court cannot decline the government must act according to law and subject to the
exercise of its power because of the political controlling power of the people, acting through the
question doctrine as it did in the past—It is true that courts, as well as through the executive and legislative.
the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 One department is just as representative of the other,
Constitution expressly gives the Court the power to and the judiciary is the department which is charged with
review the sufficiency of the factual bases used by the the special duty of determining the limitations which the
President in the suspension of the privilege of the writ of law places upon all official action. This historic role of the
habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law. It does Court is the foundation stone of a government of laws
not follow, however, that just because the same and not of men.
provision did not grant to this Court the power to review
the exercise of the calling out power by the President,
ergo, this Court cannot pass upon the validity of its
exercise. Given the light of our constitutional history, this
express grant of power merely means that the Court
cannot decline the exercise of its power because of the
political question doctrine as it did in the past. In fine, the
express grant simply stresses the mandatory duty of this
Court to check the exercise of the commander-in-chief
powers of the President. It eliminated the discretion of
the Court not to wield its power of review thru the use of
the political question doctrine.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Even as it

may be conceded that the calling out power may be
a “lesser power” compared to the power to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
power to declare martial law, its exercise cannot be
left to the absolute discretion of the Chief Executive
as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, as its
impact on the rights of our people protected by the
Constitution cannot be downgraded.—It may be
conceded that the calling out power may be a “lesser
power” compared to the power to suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to declare

30
 [G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997] Constitutional Law; Initiative; Statutes; The right of
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER the people to directly propose amendments to the
PADILLA and MARIA ISABEL ONGPIN, petitioners, Constitution through the system of initiative would
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, remain entombed in the cold niche of the
ALBERTO PEDROSA & CARMEN PEDROSA, in their Constitution until Congress provides for its
capacities as founding members of the Peoples implementation.—Bluntly stated, the right of the people
Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
(PIRMA), respondents, SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, through the system of initiative would remain entombed
DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress
KONSTITUSYON (DIK), MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while
FOR BROTHERHOOD INTEGRITY AND the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the
NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever
THE PHILIPPINES (IBP) and LABAN NG reason, does not provide for its implementation.
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LABAN), petitioners-
intervenors. Same; Same; Same; The system of initiative on the
Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the
Actions; Prohibition; Pleadings and Practice; A Constitution is not self-executory.—The conclusion
petition for prohibition may be filed with the then is inevitable that, indeed, the system of initiative on
Supreme Court where the COMELEC fails to act on a the Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the
motion to dismiss alleging that such body has no Constitution is not self-executory. Has Congress
jurisdiction or authority to entertain a particular “provided” for the implementation of the exercise of this
petition.—It must be recalled that intervenor Roco filed right? Those who answer the question in the affirmative,
with the COMELEC a motion to dismiss the Delfin like the private respondents and intervenor Senator
Petition on the ground that the COMELEC has no Roco, point to us R.A. No. 6735. There is, of course, no
jurisdiction or authority to entertain the petition. The other better way for Congress to implement the exercise
COMELEC made no ruling thereon evidently because of the right than through the passage of a statute or
after having heard the arguments of Delfin and the legislative act.
oppositors at the hearing on 12 December 1996, it
required them to submit within five days their Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 6735; Statutory
memoranda or oppositions/memoranda. Earlier, or Construction;Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6735, the
specifically on 6 De-cember 1996, it practically gave due people are not accorded the power to “directly
course to the Delfin Petition by ordering Delfin to cause propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in
the publication of the petition, together with the attached part, the Constitution” through the system of
Petition for Initiative, the signature form, and the notice initiative—they can only do so with respect to “laws,
of hearing; and by setting the case for hearing. The ordinances, or resolutions.”—Contrary to the
COMELEC’s failure to act on Roco’s motion to dismiss assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of
and its insistence to hold on to the petition rendered ripe the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to
and viable the instant petition under Section 2 of Rule 65 the Constitution. The said section reads: SECTION 2.
of the Rules of Court. Statement and Policy.—The power of the people under a
system of initiative and referendum to directly propose,
Same; Same; Same; A petition for prohibition may enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the
be treated also as a special civil action for certiorari Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by
where there are claims that the COMELEC has no any legislative body upon compliance with the
jurisdiction over a petition for initiative because said requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized
petition is not supported by the required minimum and guaranteed. (Italics supplied) The inclusion of the
number of signatures of registered voters, and that word “Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought.
the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in That word is neither germane nor relevant to said
refusing to dismiss said petition.—It must also be section, which exclusively relates to initiative and
noted that intervenor Roco claims that the COMELEC referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances,
has no jurisdiction over the Delfin Petition because the and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments
said petition is not supported by the required minimum on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on
number of signatures of registered voters. LABAN also the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND.
asserts that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion The people are not accorded the power to “directly
in refusing to dismiss the Delfin Petition, which does not propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part,
contain the required number of signatures. In light of the Constitution” through the system of initiative. They
these claims, the instant case may likewise be treated as can only do so with respect to “laws, ordinances, or
a special civil action for certiorari under Section 1 of Rule resolutions.”
65 of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; If Congress
intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the

31
implementation of the initiative on amendments to initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are
therefor, considering that in the order of things, the fatal and cannot be cured by “empowering” the
primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right COMELEC “to promulgate such rules and regulations as
of the people to directly propose amendments to the may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.
Constitution is far more important than the initiative
on national and local laws.—While the Act provides Same; Same; Same; Same; Delegation of Powers;
subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle What has been delegated cannot be delegated;
II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), Exceptions.—The rule is that what has been delegated,
no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin maxim:
This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means potestas delegata non delegari potest. The recognized
that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and exceptions to the rule are as follows: (1) Delegation of
referendum on national and local laws. If Congress tariff powers to the President under Section 28(2) of
intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the Article VI of the Constitution; (2) Delegation of
implementation of the initiative on amendments to the emergency powers to the President under Section 23(2)
Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle of Article VI of the Constitution; (3) Delegation to the
therefor, considering that in the order of things, the people at large; (4) Delegation to local governments; and
primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of (5) Delegation to administrative bodies.
the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution is far more important than the initiative on Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In every case of
national and local laws. permissible delegation, there must be a showing
that the delegation itself is valid; Tests of Valid
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Delegation.—Empowering the COMELEC, an
Phrases; “Na-tional Initiative” and “Local Initiative,” administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions, to
Explained; The Court cannot accept the argument promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation
that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution of legislative authority under No. 5 above. However, in
is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative every case of permissible delegation, there must be a
and Referendum.—We cannot accept the argument showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if
that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the
subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
Referendum because it is national in scope. Our reading delegate; and (b) fixes a standard—the limits of which
of Subtitle II (National Initiative and Referendum) and are sufficiently determinate and determinable—to which
Subtitle III (Local Initiative and Referendum) leaves no the delegate must conform in the performance of his
room for doubt that the classification is not based on the functions. A sufficient standard is one which defines
scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature and legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its
character. It is “national initiative,” if what is proposed to boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It
be adopted or enacted is a national law, or a law which indicates the circumstances under which the legislative
only Congress can pass. It is “local initiative” if what is command is to be effected.
proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance,
or resolution which only the legislative bodies of the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 6735
governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, miserably failed to satisfy the requirements in
cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass. subordinate legislation insofar as initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution is
Same; Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 6735 delivered a concerned.—Insofar as initiative to propose
humiliating blow to the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No.
amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in
a reluctant lip service.—Curiously, too, while R.A. No. subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to
6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the COMELEC is then invalid.
the details in the implementation of initiative and
referendum on national and local legislation thereby Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; COMELEC
giving them special attention, it failed, rather Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it prescribes rules
intentionally, to do so on the system of initiative on and regulations on the conduct of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution. There was, therefore, amendments to the Constitution, is void.—It logically
an obvious downgrading of the more important or the follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate
paramount system of initiative. R.A. No. 6735 thus rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the
delivered a humiliating blow to the system of initiative on right of the people to directly propose amendments to
amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does
reluctant lip service. The foregoing brings us to the not have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on
conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, the COMELEC’s power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-
or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and

32
regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by should not have been dignified by the Order of 6
the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and
Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their
authorized and which satisfies the “completeness” and memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the
the “sufficient standard” tests. COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion and merely wasted its time, energy, and
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; A petition for resources.
initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at
least 12% of the total number of registered voters of
which every legislative district is represented by at
least 3% of the registered voters therein—without
the required signatures, the petition cannot be
deemed validly initiated.—Under Section 2 of Article
XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be
signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered
voters of which every legislative district is represented by
at least 3% of the registered voters therein. The Delfin
Petition does not contain signatures of the required
number of voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not
yet gathered signatures and that the purpose of his
petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to
gather signatures. Without the required signatures, the
petition cannot be deemed validly initiated.

Same; Same; Same; The COMELEC acquires

jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its
filing—the petition is the initiatory pleading—and
nothing before its filing is cognizable by the
COMELEC, sitting en banc.—The COMELEC acquires
jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing.
The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing
before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting
en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its
personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to
prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to issue through its
Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the
total number of registered voters in each legislative
district; (3) to assist, through its election regis-trars, in
the establishment of signature stations; and (4) to verify,
through its election registrars, the signatures on the
basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and
voters’ identification cards used in the immediately
preceding election.

Same; Same; Same; The COMELEC acts without

jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
dignifying a petition for initiative that does not
comply with Constitutional and statutory
requirements.—Since the Delfin Petition is not the
initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given
cognizance of by the COMELEC. The respondent
Commission must have known that the petition does not
fall under any of the actions or proceedings under the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No.
2300, for which reason it did not assign to the petition a
docket number. Hence, the said petition was merely
entered as UND, meaning, undocketed. That petition
was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which

33
 [G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997] provision is selfexecuting if the nature and extent of the
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner, vs. right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an
MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON examination and construction of its terms, and there is
PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT no language indicating that the subject is referred to the
CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents. legislature for action.

Constitutional Law; Statutes; Contracts; Words and Same; Same; Same; Unless it is expressly provided
Phrases; A constitution is a system of fundamental that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a
laws for the governance and administration of a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that
nation—it is supreme, imperious, absolute and all provisions of the constitution are self-executing.
unalterable except by the authority from which it —As against constitutions of the past, modern
emanates. Since the Constitution is the fundamental, constitutions have been generally drafted upon a
paramount and supreme Iaw of the nation, it is different principle and have often become in effect
deemed written in every statute and contract.—We extensive codes of laws intended to operate directly
now resolve. A constitution is a system of fundamental upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory
laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It enactments, and the function of constitutional
is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except conventions has evolved into one more like that of a
by the authority from which it emanates. It has been legislative body. Hence, unless it is expressly provided
defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a
nation. lt prescribes the permanent framework of a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all
system of government, assigns to the different provisions of the constitution are self-executing. If the
departments their respective powers and duties, and constitutional provisions are treated as requiring
establishes certain fixed principles on which government legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would
is founded. The fundamental conception in other words have the power to ignore and practically nullify the
is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must mandate of the fundamental law. This can be
conform and in accordance with which all private rights cataclysmic.
must be determined and all public authority
administered. Under the doctrine of constitutional Same; Same; Same; Minor details may be left to the
supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the legislature without impairing the self-executing
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by nature of constitutional provisions.—Quite
the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into apparently, Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is couched
by private persons for private purposes is null and void in such a way as not to make it appear that it is non-self-
and without any force and effect. Thus, since the executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly,
Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme the legislature is not precluded from enacting further
law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as
and contract. the contemplated statute squares with the Constitution.
Minor details may be left to the legislature without
Same; Same; Statutory Construction; A impairing the self-executing nature of constitutional
constitutional provision is self-executing if the provisions.
nature and extent of the right conferred and the
liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, Same; Same; Same; The omission from a
so that they can be determined by an examination constitution of any express provision for a remedy
and.construction of its terms, and there is no for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an
language indicating that the subject is referred to indication that it was not intended to be self-
the legislature for action.—Admittedly, some executing—the rule is that a self-executing provision
constitutions are merely declarations of policies and of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust
principles. Their provisions command the legislature to legislative power on the subject, but any legislation
enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers must be in harmony with the constitution, further the
who merely establish an outline of government providing exercise of constitutional right and make it more
for the different departments of the governmental available.—In self-executing constitutional provisions,
machinery and securing certain fundamental and the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the
inalienable rights of citizens. A provision which lays exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution,
down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of further the operation of such a provision, prescribe a
the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a
provision which is complete in itself and becomes convenient remedy for the protection of the rights
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling secured or the determination thereof, or place
legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right.
means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add
protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-

34
executing constitutional provision does not render such a Constitution declares that a right exists in certain
provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. specified circumstances an action may be maintained to
The omission from a constitution of any express enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any
provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no
not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional
be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent
provision of the constitution does not necessarily potency and puissance, and from which all legislations
exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a
legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium.
further the exercise of constitutional right and make it
more available. Subsequent legislation however does Same; Same; Words and Phrases; When the
not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional Constitution speaks of “national patrimony,” it
provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable. refers not only to the natural resources of the
Philippines but also to the cultural heritage of the
Same; Same; Same; A constitutional provision may Filipinos.—In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term
be selfexecuting in one part and non-self-executing patrimony pertains to heritage. When the Constitution
in another.—Respondents also argue that the non-self- speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the
executing nature of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution
implied from the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of could have very well used the term natural resources,
the same section which undoubtedly are not but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
selfexecuting. The argument is flawed. If the first and
third paragraphs are not self-executing because Same; Same; Manila Hotel; Manila Hotel has become
Congress is still to enact measures to encourage the a landmark—a living testimonial of Philippine
formation and operation of enterprises fully owned by heritage.—Manila Hotel has become a landmark—a
Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was
needs legislation to regulate and exercise authority over restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in
foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino.
the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then
second paragraph can only be selfexecuting as it does become the venue of various significant events which
not by its language require any legislation in order to have shaped Philippine history. It was called the Cultural
give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of Center of the 1930’s. It was the site of the festivities
rights, privileges and concessions covering the national during the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth,
economy and patrimony. A constitutional provision may Dubbed as the Official Guest House of the Philippine
be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in Government it plays host to dignitaries and official
another. visitors who are accorded the traditional Philippine
hospitality.
Same; National Economy and Patrimony; When the
Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, Same; Same; Same; Verily, Manila Hotel has become
privileges, and concessions covering national part of our national economy and patrimony.—For
economy and patrimony, the State shall give more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute
preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that— witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and
qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.—On the other frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed
hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 with public interest; its own historicity associated with our
Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood.
complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national
or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of
its very words the provision does not require any the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional
legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock,
enforceable. When our Constitution mandates that [i]n so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have
the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering actual control and management of the hotel. In this
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated from
preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that— the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands.
qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.
Same; Same; Same; Filipino First Policy; Words and
Same; Same; When the Constitution declares that a Phrases;The term “qualified Filipinos” as used in the
right exists in certain specified circumstances, an Constitution also includes corporations at least 60%
action may be maintained to enforce such right of which is owned by Filipinos.— Consequently, we
notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on cannot sustain respondents’ claim that the Filipino First
the subject—such right enforces itself by its own Policy provision is not applicable since what is being
inherent potency and puissance.—And when our sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the

35
corporation, not the Hotel building nor the land upon Same; Same; Same; When the Constitution
which the building stands. The argument is pure addresses the State it refers not only to the people
sophistry. The term qualified Filipinos as used in our but also to the government as elements of the State.
Constitution also includes corporations at least 60% of —When the Constitution addresses the State it refers
which is owned by Filipinos. This is very clear from the not only to the people but also to the government as
proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. elements of the State. After all, government is composed
of three (3) divisions of power—legislative, executive
Same; Statutory Construction; Even some of the and judicial. Accordingly, a constitutional mandate
provisions of the Constitution which evidently need directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the
implementing legislation have juridical life of their three (3) branches of government. It is undeniable that in
own and can be the source of judicial remedy.— The this case the subject constitutional injunction is
penchant to try to whittle away the mandate of the addressed among others to the Executive Department
Constitution by arguing that the subject provision is not and respondent GSIS, a government instrumentality
self-executory and requires implementing legislation is deriving its authority from the State.
quite disturbing. The attempt to violate a clear
constitutional provision—by the government itself—is Same; National Economy and Patrimony; Filipino
only too distressing. To adopt such a line of reasoning is First Policy;Bids and Bidding; Since the Filipino
to renounce the duty to ensure faithfulness to the First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows
Constitution, For, even some of the provisions of the preference on qualified Filipinos, the mere tending
Constitution which evidently need implementing of the highest bid is not an assurance that the
legislation have juridical life of their own and can be the highest bidder will be declared the winning bidder.—
source of a judicial remedy. We cannot simply afford the It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm
government a defense that arises out of the failure to offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning bidder. The
enact further enabling, implementing or guiding bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder
legislation. shall only be declared the winning bidder after it has
negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; In constitutional secured the requisite approvals. Since the Filipino First
jurisprudence, the acts of a person distinct from the Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference
government are considered “state action” covered on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid
by the Constitution (1) when the activity it engages is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be
in is a “public function”; (2) when the government is declared the winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents
so significantly involved with the private actor as to are not bound to make the award yet, nor are they under
make the government responsible for his action; obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For in
and, (3) when the government has approved or choosing the awardee respondents are mandated to
authorized the action.—Respondents further argue that abide by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the
the constitutional provision is addressed to the State, not provisions of which are presumed to be known to all the
to respondent GSIS which by itself possesses a bidders and other interested parties.
separate and distinct personality. This argument again is
at best specious. It is undisputed that the sale of 51% of Same; Same; Same; Same; Adhering to the doctrine
the MHC could only be carried out with the prior of constitutional supremacy, the Filipino First Policy
approval of the State acting through respondent constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly
Committee on Privatization. As correctly pointed out by written in the bidding rules issued by GSIS, lest the
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., this fact alone makes the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the
sale of the assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a Constitution.—Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional
“state action.” In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it
persons distinct from the government are considered should be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by
“state action” covered by the Constitution (1) when the respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for
activity it engages in is a “public function”; (2) when the being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle
government is so significantly involved with the private in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must
actor as to make the government responsible for his conform with the fundamental law of the land. Those
action; and, (3) when the government has approved or which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being.
authorized the action. It is evident that the act of
respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share in Same; Same; Same; Same; Certainly, the
respondent MHC comes under the second and third constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to
categories of “state action.” Without doubt therefore the award the block of shares immediately to the foreign
transaction, although entered into by respondent GSIS, bidder notwithstanding its submission of a higher,
is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore subject or even the highest, bid—Paragraph V.J.1 of the
to the constitutional command. bidding rules provides that [i]f for any reason the Highest
Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS
may offer this to other Qualified Bidders that have validly

36
submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are mistakes or gross errors of judgment, regardless of the
willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per consequences to the Filipino people. The
share. Certainly, the constitutional mandate itself is miscomprehension of the Constitution is regrettable.
reason enough not to award the block of shares Thus we would rather remedy the indiscretion while
immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its there is still an opportunity to do so than let the
submission of a higher, or even the highest, bid. In fact, government develop the habit of forgetting that the
we cannot conceive of a stronger reason than the Constitution lays down the basic conditions and
constitutional injunction itself. parameters for its actions.

Same; Same; Same; Where a foreign firm submits Same; Same; National Economy and Patrimony;
the highest bid in a public bidding concerning the Filipino First Policy; Nationalism; The Filipino First
grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering Policy is a product of Philippine nationalism,
the national economy and patrimony, thereby embodied in the 1987 Constitution not merely to be
exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question used as a guideline for future legislation but
that the Filipino will have to be allowed to match the primarily to be enforced—so must it be enforced.—
bid of the foreign entity.—ln the instant case, where a The Filipino First Policy is a product of Philippine
foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding nationalism. lt is embodied in the 1987 Constitution not
concerning the grant of rights, privileges and merely to be used as a guideline for future legislation but
concessions covering the national economy and primarily to be enforced; so must it be enforced. This
patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution will
is no question that the Filipino will have to be allowed to never shun, under any reasonable circumstance, the
match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino duty of upholding the majesty of the Constitution which it
matches the bid of a foreign firm the award should go to is tasked to defend. It is worth emphasizing that it is not
the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life and the intention of this Court to impede and diminish, much
meaning to the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 less undermine, the influx of foreign investments. Far
Constitution. For, while this may neither be expressly from it, the Court encourages and welcomes more
stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the business opportunities but avowedly sanctions the
constitutional fiat is omnipresent to be simply preference for Filipinos whenever such preference is
disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous ordained by the Constitution.
skirting of the basic law.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court will always
Same; Any person desiring to do business in the defer to the Constitution in the proper governance of
Philippines or with any of its agencies or a free society, after all, there is nothing so
instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights and sacrosanct in any economic policy as to draw itself
obligations under the Constitution and the laws of beyond judicial review when the Constitution is
the forum.—This Court does not discount the involved.—Privatization of a business asset for
apprehension that this policy may discourage foreign purposes of enhancing its business viability and
investors. But the Constitution and laws of the preventing further losses, regardless of the character of
Philippines are understood to be always open to public the asset, should not take precedence over non-material
scrutiny. These are given factors which investors must values. A commercial, nay even a budgetary, objective
consider when venturing into business in a foreign should not be pursued at the expense of national pride
jurisdiction. Any person therefore desiring to do business and dignity. For the Constitution enshrines higher and
in the Philippines or with any of its agencies or nobler non-material values. Indeed, the Court will always
instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights and defer to the Constitution in the proper governance of a
obligations under the Constitution and the laws of the free society; after all, there is nothing so sacrosanct in
forum. any economic policy as to draw itself beyond judicial
review when the Constitution is involved.
Same; Statutory Construction; The
miscomprehension of the Constitution is regrettable, Same; Same; Same; Nationalism; Nationalism is
thus the Supreme Court would rather remedy the inherent in the very concept of the Philippines being
indiscretion while there is still an opportunity to do a democratic and republican state, with sovereignty
so than let the government develop the habit of residing in the Filipino people and from whom all
forgetting that the Constitution lays down the basic government authority emanates.—Nationalism is
conditions and parameters for its actions.—Besides, inherent in the very concept of the Philippines being a
there is no time frame for invoking the constitutional democratic and republican state, with sovereignty
safeguard unless perhaps the award has been finally residing in the Filipino people and from whom all
made. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel to foreigners government authority emanates. In nationalism, the
when there is a Filipino group willing to match the bid of happiness and welfare of the people must be the goal.
the foreign group is to insist that government be treated The nation-state can have no higher purpose. Any
as any other ordinary market player, and bound by its interpretation of any constitutional provision must adhere

37
to such basic concept. Protection of foreign investments,
while laudible, is merely a policy. It cannot override the
demands of nationalism.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Manila Hotel; Manila

Hotel has played and continues to play a significant
role as an authentic repository of twentieth century
Philippine history and culture, and in this sense, it
has become truly a reflection of the Filipino soul—a
place with a history of grandeur, a most historical
setting that has played a part in the shaping of a
country.—The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of
the MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to the
highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. We are
not talking about an ordinary piece of property in a
commercial district. We are talking about a historic relic
that has hosted many of the most important events in the
short history of the Philippines as a nation. We are
talking about a hotel where heads of states would prefer
to be housed as a strong manifestation of their desire to
cloak the dignity of the highest state function to their
official visits to the Philippines. Thus the Manila Hotel
has played and continues to play a significant role as an
authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine
history and culture. In this sense, it has become truly a
reflection of the Filipino soul—a place with a history of
grandeur; a most historical setting that has played a part
in the shaping of a country.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The conveyance

of Manila Hotel, an epic exponent of the Filipino
psyche, to alien hands cannot be less than
mephistophelian for it is, in whatever manner
viewed, a veritable alienation of a nation’s soul for
some pieces of foreign silver.—This Court cannot
extract rhyme nor reason from the determined efforts of
respondents to sell the historical landmark—this Grand
Old Dame of hotels in Asia—to a total stranger. For,
indeed, the conveyance of this epic exponent of the
Filipino psyche to alien hands cannot be less than
mephistophelian for it is, in whatever manner viewed, a
veritable alienation of a nation’s soul for some pieces of
foreign silver. And so we ask: What advantage, which
cannot be equally drawn from a qualified Filipino, can be
gained by the Filipinos if Manila Hotel—and all that it
stands for—is sold to a non-Filipino? How much of
national pride will vanish if the nation’s cultural heritage
is entrusted to a foreign entity? On the other hand, how
much dignity will be preserved and realized if the
national patrimony is safekept in the hands of a qualified,
zealous and wellmeaning Filipino? This is the plain and
simple meaning of the Filipino First Policy provision of
the Philippine Constitution. And this Court, heeding the
clarion call of the Constitution and accepting the duty of
being the elderly watchman of the nation, will continue to
respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution.

38
 G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993 right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the
Oposa vs. Factoran first time in our nation’s constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law.
Remedial Law; Actions; Class Suit; The subject
matter of the complaint is of common and general Same; Same; The right to a balanced and healthful
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
Philippines; All the requisites for the filing of a valid from impairing the environment.—The right to a
class suit under Section 12 Rule 3 of the Revised balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
Rules of Court are present.—Petitioners instituted Civil correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant environment.
and the present respondents did not take issue with this
matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil Same; Same; The right of the petitioners to a
case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the
complaint is of common and general interest not just to DENR’s duty to protect and advance the said right.—
several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they
Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring clear as the DENR’s duty—under its mandate and by
all of them before the court. We likewise declare that the virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192
plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative and the Administrative Code of 1987—to protect and
enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned advance the said right.
interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid
class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules Same; Political Question; The political question
of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the doctrine is no longer the insurmountable obstacle to
instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable
former. shield that protects executive and legislative actions
from judicial inquiry or review.—The foregoing
Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioners’ personality considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 cannot be said to
to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can raise a political question. Policy formulation or
only be based on the concept of intergenerational determination by the executive or legislative branches of
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and Government is not squarely put in issue. What is
healthful ecology is concerned.—This case, however, principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis
has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors policies already formulated and expressed in legislation.
assert that they represent their generation as well as It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political
generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable
they can, for themselves, for others of their generation obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. impenetrable shield that protects executive and
Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review.
generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a Same; Contracts; Non-impairment Clause; A timber
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a license is not a contract, property or a property right
right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the “rhythm protected by the due process clause of the
and harmony of nature.” Constitution.—Needless to say, all licenses may thus
be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The minors’ contract, property or a property right protected by the
assertion of their right to a sound environment due process clause of the Constitution.
constitutes at the same time the performance of
their obligation to ensure the protection of that right Same; Same; Same; Same; The granting of license
for the generation to come.—Needless to say, every does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve property or property rights.—A license is merely a
that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority,
the minors’ assertion of their right to a sound federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to
environment constitutes, at the same time, the whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation’
of that right for the generations to come. (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the granting of
license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
Constitutional Law; The complaint focuses on one property or property rights.
specific fundamental legal right; The right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.—The complaint Same; Same; Same; Same; Timber licenses are not
focuses on one specific fundamental legal right—the contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be

39
invoked.—Since timber licenses are not contracts, the
non-impairment clause, cannot be invoked.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The non-

impairment clause must yield to the police power of
the state.—In short, the non-impairment clause must
yield to the police power of the state.

40
 G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997.* of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”
WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA vs. EDGARDO ANGARA on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO
Agreement and its three annexes.
Constitutional Law; Judicial Review; Separation of
Powers;Where an action of the legislative branch is Same; Constitutional Principles and State Policies;
seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, The principles and state policies enumerated in
it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of Article II and some sections of Article XII are not
the judiciary to settle the dispute.—In seeking to self-executing provisions, the disregard of which
nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that can give rise to a cause of action in the courts.—By
it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a “declaration
raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the of principles and state policies.” The counterpart of this
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed article in the 1935 Constitution is called the “bas ic
the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact political creed of the nation” by Dean Vicente Sinco.
the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. “The These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-
question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The executing principles ready for enforcement through the
duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as
supremacy of the Constitution is upheld.” Once a guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and
“controversy y as to the application or interpretation of a by the legislature in its enactment of laws. As held in the
constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in leading case of Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Morato, the
the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and
Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide.” some sections of Article XII are not “self-executing
provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a
Same; Same; Actions; Special Civil Actions; cause of action in the courts. They do not embody
Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines
appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues for legislation.”
and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper,
acts of legislative and executive officials.—As the Same; Same; Separation of Powers; Due Process.—
petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is The reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged
no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the infringement of broad constitutional principles are
ordinary course of law, we have no hesitation at all in sourced from basic considerations of due process and
holding that this petition should be given due course and the lack of judicial authority to wade “into the uncharted
the vital questions raised therein ruled upon under Rule ocean of social and economic policy making.”
65 of the Rules of Court. Indeed, certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise Same; Same; Trade Liberalization; “Filipino First”
constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, Policy; While the Constitution indeed mandates a
when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials. bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
On this, we have no equivocation. enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need
for business exchange with the rest of the world on
Same; Same; Same; Same; In deciding to take the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits
jurisdiction over this petition, the Supreme Court protection of Filipino enterprises only against
does not review the wisdom of the decision of the foreign competition and trade practices that are
President and the Senate in enlisting the country in unfair—the Constitution did not intend to pursue an
the WTO, or pass upon the merits of trade isolationist policy.—All told, while the Constitution
liberalization as a policy espoused by said indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods,
international body, rather, it only exercises its services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it
constitutional duty “to determine whether or not recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest
there had been a grave abuse of discretion of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” on the limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against
part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In
and its three annexes.—We should stress that, in other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an
deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition, this Court isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments,
will not review the wisdom of the decision of the goods and services in the development of the Philippine
President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the
WTO, or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and
policy espoused by said international body. Neither will it investments into the country, it does not prohibit them
rule on the propriety of the government’s economic either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of
policy of reducing/removing tariffs, taxes, subsidies, equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign
quantitative restrictions, and other import/trade barriers. competition that is unfair.
Rather, it will only exercise its constitutional duty “to
determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse

41
Same; Same; Same; Same; World Trade Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Political
Organization (WTO);General Agreement on Tariffs Questions; The responses to questions on whether
and Trade (GATT); There is hardly any basis for the WTO/GATT will favor the general welfare of the
statement that under the WTO, local industries and public at large involve “judgment calls” by our
enterprises will all be wiped out and that Filipinos policy makers, for which they are answerable to our
will be deprived of control of the economy, for, quite people during appropriate electoral exercises—such
to the contrary, the weaker situations of developing questions and the answers thereto are not subject to
nations like the Philippines have been taken into judicial pronouncements based on grave abuse of
account.—Moreover, GATT itself has provided built-in discretion.—Consequently, the question boils down to
protection from unfair foreign competition and trade whether WTO/GATT will favor the general welfare of the
practices including anti-dumping measures, public at large. Will adherence to the W TO treaty bring
countervailing measures and safeguards against import this ideal (of favoring the general welfare) to reality? Will
surges. Where local business are jeopardized by unfair WTO/GATT succeed in promoting the Filipinos’ general
foreign competition, the Philippines can avail of these welfare because it will—as promised by its promoters—
measures. There is hardly therefore any basis for the expand the country’s exports and generate more
statement that under the WTO, local industries and employment? Will it bring more prosperity, employment,
enterprises will all be wiped out and that Filipinos will be purchasing power and quality products at the most
deprived of control of the economy. Quite the contrary, reasonable rates to the Filipino public? The responses to
the weaker situations of developing nations like the these questions involve “judgment calls” by our policy
Philippines have been taken into account; thus, there makers, for which they are answerable to our people
would be no basis to say that in joining the WTO, the during appropriate electoral exercises. Such questions
respondents have gravely abused their discretion. True, and the answers thereto are not subject to judicial
they have made a bold decision to steer the ship of state pronouncements based on grave abuse of discretion.
into the yet uncharted sea of economic liberalization. But
such decision cannot be set aside on the ground of Same; It is to the credit of its drafters that the
grave abuse of discretion, simply because we disagree Constitution can withstand the assaults of bigots
with it or simply because we believe only in other and infidels but at the same time bend with the
economic policies. As earlier stated, the Court in taking refreshing winds of change necessitated by
jurisdiction of this case will not pass upon the unfolding events.—It is not difficult to answer this
advantages and disadvantages of trade liberalization as question. Constitutions are designed to meet not only
an economic policy. It will only perform its constitutional the vagaries of contemporary events. They should be
duty of determining whether the Senate committed grave interpreted to cover even future and unknown
abuse of discretion. circumstances. It is to the credit of its drafters that a
Constitution can withstand the assaults of bigots and
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The infidels but at the same time bend with the refreshing
fundamental law encourages industries that are winds of change necessitated by unfolding events. As
“competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,” one eminent political law writer and respected jurist
thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a explains: “The Constitution must be quintessential rather
sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base
favor of the gradual development of robust and framework only of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is
industries that can compete with the best in the but the core of the dream that must take shape, not in a
foreign markets.—The WTO reliance on “most favored twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but slowly ‘in the
nation,” “national treatment,” and “trade without crucible of Filipino minds and hearts,’ where it will in time
discrimination” cannot be struck down as develop its sinews and gradually gather its strength and
unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and finally achieve its substance. In fine, the Constitution
reciprocity that apply to all WTO members. Aside from cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full-grown from the
envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and brow of the Constitutional Convention, nor can it conjure
reciprocity,” the fundamental law encourages industries by mere fiat an instant Utopia. It must grow with the
that are “competitive in both domestic and foreign society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the
markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of
sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in favor history the dynamism and vitality that will keep it, far
of the gradual development of robust industries that can from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing, living law
compete with the best in the foreign markets. Indeed, attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.”
Filipino managers and Filipino enterprises have shown
capability and tenacity to compete internationally. And Same; International Law; While sovereignty has
given a free trade environment, Filipino entrepreneurs traditionally been deemed absolute and all—
and managers in Hongkong have demonstrated the encompassing on the domestic level, it is however
Filipino capacity to grow and to prosper against the best subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily
offered under a policy of laissez faire. agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly,
as a member of the family of nations.—This Court

42
notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion by which dis position of the third issue—derogation of legislative
petitioners stressed their arguments on this issue. power—will apply to this fourth issue also. Suffice it to
However, while sovereignty has traditionally been say that the reciprocity clause more than justifies such
deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic intrusion, if any actually exists. Besides, Article 34 does
level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent as it is
voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute
impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. settlement inherent in our judicial system. So too, since
Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a the Philippines is a signatory to most international
hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the conventions on patents, trademarks and copyrights, the
world. adjustment in legislation and rules of procedure will not
be substantial.
Same; Same; Doctrine of Incorporation; Words and
Phrases; By the doctrine of incorporation, the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Patents;
country is bound by generally accepted principles of Evidence; Words and Phrases; Burden of Proof;
international law, which are considered Burden of Evidence; The “burden of proof”
automatically part of our own laws.—In its Declaration contemplated by Article 34 should actually and
of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts properly be understood as referring to the “burden
the generally accepted principles of international law as of evidence” (burden of going forward) placed on
part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of the producer of identical (or fake) product to show
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, that his product was produced without the use of the
with all nations.” By the doctrine of incorporation, the patented process—the patent owner still has the
country is bound by generally accepted principles of “burden of proof” since he still has to introduce
international law, which are considered to be evidence of the existence of the alleged identical
automatically part of our own laws. One of the oldest and product, the fact that it is “identical” to the genuine
most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt one produced by the patented process and the fact
servanda—international agreements must be performed of “newness” of the genuine product or the fact of
in good faith. “A treaty engagement is not a mere moral “substantial likelihood” that the identical product
obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the was made by the patented process.—From the above,
parties x x x. A state which has contracted valid a WTO Member is required to provide a rule of
international obligations is bound to make in its disputable (note the words “in the absence of proof to
legislations such modifications as may be necessary to the contrary”) presumption that a product shown to be
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.” identical to one produced with the use of a patented
process shall be deemed to have been obtained by the
Same; Same; Treaties; By their voluntary act, (illegal) use of the said patented process, (1) where such
nations may surrender some aspects of their state product obtained by the patented product is new, or (2)
power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or where there is “substantial likelihood” that the identical
derived from a convention or pact.—By their inherent product was made with the use of the said patented
nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of process but the owner of the patent could not determine
sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may the exact process used in obtaining such identical
surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange product. Hence, the “burden of proof” contemplated by
for greater benefits granted by or derived from a Article 34 should actually be understood as the duty of
convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live the alleged patent infringer to overthrow such
with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted presumption. Such burden, properly understood, actually
objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to refers to the “burden of evidence” (burden of going
limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. forward) placed on the producer of the identical (or fake)
product to show that his product was produced without
Same; Same; Same; World Trade Organization; the use of the patented process. The foregoing
Pleadings and Practice; Article 34 of the General notwithstanding, the patent owner still has the “burden of
Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on proof” since, regardless of the presumption provided
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property under paragraph 1 of Article 34, such owner still has to
Rights (TRIPS) does not contain an unreasonable introduce evidence of the existence of the alleged
burden, consistent as it is with due process and the identical product, the fact that it is “identical” to the
concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in genuine one produced by the patented process and the
Philippine judicial system.—Petitioners aver that fact of “newness” of the genuine product or the fact of
paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General Provisions and “substantial likelihood” that the identical product was
Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related made by the patented process.
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) intrudes
on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases;
concerning pleading, practice and procedures. x x x By “Final Act,” Explained.—“A final act, sometimes called
and large, the arguments adduced in connection with our protocol de clÔture, is an instrument which records the

43
winding up of the proceedings of a diplomatic some of its members, may even agree with petitioners
conference and usually includes a reproduction of the that it is more advantageous to the national interest to
texts of treaties, conventions, recommendations and strike down Senate Resolution No. 97. But that is not a
other acts agreed upon and signed by the legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the
plenipotentiaries attending the conference.” It is not the Senate and to nullify its decision. To do so would
treaty itself. It is rather a summary of the proceedings of constitute grave abuse in the exercise of our own judicial
a protracted conference which may have taken place power and duty. Ineludibly, what the Senate did was a
over several years. valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such
exercise was wise, beneficial or viable is outside the
Same; Judicial Review; Words and Phrases; realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter
Certiorari; By grave abuse of discretion is meant between the elected policy makers and the people. As to
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment whether the nation should join the worldwide march
as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and mere toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is
abuse of discretion is not enough—it must be grave. a matter that our people should determine in electing
—By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious their policy makers. After all, the WTO Agreement allows
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to withdrawal of membership, should this be the political
lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not desire of a member.
enough. It mus t be grave abuse of discretion as when
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner World Trade Organization; Trade Liberalization;
by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be International Law; Notwithstanding objections
so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a against possible limitations on national sovereignty,
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty the WTO remains as the only viable structure for
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Failure multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the
on the part of the petitioner to show grave abus e of development of international trade law.—The eminent
discretion will result in the dismissal of the petition. futurist John Naisbitt, author of the best seller
Megatrends, predicts an Asian Renaissance where “the
Same; Same; Separation of Powers; In rendering East will become the dominant region of the world
this Decision, the Supreme Court never forgets that economically, politically and culturally in the next
the Senate, whose act is under review, is one of two century.” He refers to the “free market” espoused by
sovereign houses of Congress and is thus entitled WTO as the “catalyst” in this coming Asian ascendancy.
to great respect in its actions.—In rendering this There are at present about 31 countries including China,
Decision, this Court never forgets that the Senate, Russia and Saudi Arabia negotiating for membership in
whose act is under review, is one of two sovereign the WTO. Notwithstanding objections against possible
houses of Congress and is thus entitled to great respect limitations on national sovereignty, the WTO remains as
in its actions. It is itself a constitutional body independent the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the
and coordinate, and thus its actions are presumed veritable forum for the development of international trade
regular and done in good faith. Unless convincing proof law. The alternative to WTO is isolation, stagnation, if
and persuasive arguments are presented to overthrow not economic self-destruction. Duly enriched with
such presumptions, this Court will resolve every doubt in original membership, keenly aware of the advantages
its favor. Using the foregoing well-accepted definition of and disadvantages of globalization with its on-line
grave abuse of discretion and the presumption of experience, and endowed with a vision of the future, the
regularity in the Senate’s processes, this Court cannot Philippines now straddles the crossroads of an
find any cogent reason to impute grave abuse of international strategy for economic prosperity and
discretion to the Senate’s exercise of its power of stability in the new millennium. Let the people, through
concurrence in the WTO Agreement granted it by Sec. their duly authorized elected officers, make their free
21 of Article VII of the Constitution. choice.

Same; Same; Same; Treaties; World Trade

Organization; The Senate Act, after deliberation and
voting, of voluntarily and overwhelmingly giving its
consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a
part of the law of the land,” is a legitimate exercise
of its sovereign duty and power.—That the Senate,
after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and
overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement
thereby making it “a part of the law of the land” is a
legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power. We
find no “patent and gross” arbitrariness or despotism “by
reason of passion or personal hostility” in such exercise.
It is not impossible to surmise that this Court, or at least

44
 GR 169815, Aug. 13, 2008 No. 807. Sec. 15(d) of the GAA for Fiscal Year 1999 or
BFAR vs. COA R.A. No. 8745 clearly prohibits the payment of honoraria,
allowances or other forms of compensation to any
Constitutional Law; Social Justice; The social justice government official or employee, except those
provisions of the Constitution are not self-executing specifically authorized by law. There is no law
principles ready for enforcement through the courts; authorizing the grant of the subject Food Basket
They are merely statements of principles and Allowance. Further, Sec. 33 of P.D. No. 807 or the Civil
policies; To give them effect, legislative enactment Service Decree of the Philippines does not exempt the
is required.—We rule on the issue of constitutionality. Food Basket Allowance from the general rule.
Petitioner invokes the provisions of the 1987 Constitution
on social justice to warrant the grant of the Food Basket
Allowance. Time and again, we have ruled that the
social justice provisions of the Constitution are not self-
executing principles ready for enforcement through the
courts. They are merely statements of principles and
policies. To give them effect, legislative enactment is
required. As we held in Kilosbayan, Incorporated v.
Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995), the principles and state
policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of
Article XII are “not self-executing provisions, the
disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in
the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable
constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation.”

Same; Same; Allowances; The Department of

Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary has no authority to
grant any allowance to the employees of Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR).—Petitioner
contends that the approval of the Department of
Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary for Fisheries and
Livestock of the Food Basket Allowance is the law which
authorizes its release. It is crystal clear that the DA
Undersecretary has no authority to grant any allowance
to the employees of BFAR. Section 4.5 of Budget
Circular No. 16 dated November 28, 1998 states: All
agencies are hereby prohibited from granting any food,
rice, gift checks, or any other form of
incentives/allowances except those authorized via
Admin¬istrative Order by the Office of the President. In
the instant case, no Administrative Order has been
issued by the Office of the President to exempt BFAR
from the express prohibition against the grant of any
food, rice, gift checks, or any other form of
incentive/allowance to its employees.

Same; Same; Same; Under National Compensation

Circular No. 59, exceptions to the incentive
allowance/fee/pay category are those authorized
under the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and
Section 33 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807;
There is no law authorizing the grant of the subject
Food Basket Allowance.—The Food Basket Allowance
falls under the 14th category, that of incentive
allowance/fee/pay. Petitioner itself justified the Food
Basket Allowance as an incentive to the employees to
encourage them to be more productive and efficient.
Under National Compen¬sation Circular No. 59,
exceptions to the incentive allowance/fee/pay category
are those authorized under the General Appropriations
Act (GAA) and Section 33 of Presidential Decree (P.D.)

45
 G.R. No. 187167. August 16, 2011.* resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56)
PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA vs. HON. EDUARDO and continental shelf (Article 77).
ERMITA
Same; RA 9522 increased the Philippines’ total
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea maritime space by 145,216 square nautical miles.—
(UNCLOS III); UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the Petitioners’ assertion of loss of “about 15,000 square
acquisition or loss of territory.—UNCLOS III has nautical miles of territorial waters” under RA 9522 is
nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the
is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of
rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 basepoints, increased the Philippines’ total maritime
nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and
nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical
zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and miles.
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS
III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
among United Nations members to codify norms (UNCLOS III); Congress’ decision to classify the
regulating the conduct of States in the world’s oceans Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough
and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and Shoal as ‘Regime[s] of Islands’ manifests the
archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited Philippine State’s responsible observance of its
span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts. pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.—
Far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over the KIG
Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines (Republic and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress’ decision to
Act No. 9522); Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as
enacted by United Nations Convention on the Law of “‘Regime[s] of Islands’ under the Republic of the
the Sea (UNCLOS III) States parties to mark-out Philippines consistent with Article 121” of UNCLOS III
specific basepoints along their coasts from which manifests the Philippine State’s responsible observance
baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to of its pacta sunt servandaobligation under UNCLOS III.
serve as geographic starting points to measure the Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any “naturally formed
breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water
—Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by at high tide,” such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under
UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific the category of “regime of islands,” whose islands
basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are generate their own applicable maritime zones.
drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as
geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the Same; The recognition of archipelagic States’
maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of archipelago and the waters enclosed by their
UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the
any clearer: Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of treatment of their islands as separate islands under
the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive UNCLOS III.—The recognition of archipelagic States’
economic zone and the continental shelf.—The breadth archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines
of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their
economic zone and the continental shelf shall be islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III. Separate
measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in islands generate their own maritime zones, placing the
accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied) waters between islands separated by more than 24
nautical miles beyond the States’ territorial sovereignty,
Same; Baselines laws are nothing but statutory subjecting these waters to the rights of other States
mechanisms for United Nations Convention on the under UNCLOS III.
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) States parties to delimit
with precision the extent of their maritime zones and Same; United Nations Convention on the Law of the
continental shelves.—Baselines laws are nothing but Sea (UNCLOS III) creates a sui generis maritime
statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to space—the exclusive economic zone—in waters
delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones previously part of the high seas.—UNCLOS III favors
and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the States with a long coastline like the Philippines.
rest of the international community of the scope of the UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space—the
maritime space and submarine areas within which exclusive economic zone—in waters previously part of
States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal
exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), States to exclusively exploit the resources found within
the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, this zone up to 200 nautical miles. UNCLOS III,
and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation
and the right to exploit the living and non-living of other States that attached to this zone beyond the
territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

46
Same; Absent an United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) compliant baselines
law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will
find itself devoid of internationally acceptable
baselines from where the breadth of its maritime
zones and continental shelf is measured.—Absent an
UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic
State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of
internationally acceptable baselines from where the
breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is
measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first,
it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to
freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and
submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it
weakens the country’s case in any international dispute
over Philippine maritime space. These are
consequences Congress wisely avoided.

Same; Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines

(Republic Act No. 9522); The enactment of United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS
III) compliant baselines law for the Philippine
archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA
9522, allows an internationally-recognized
delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’
maritime zones and continental shelf.—The
enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for
the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as
embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-
recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’
maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is
therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines
in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the
Constitution and our national interest.

47
 G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014 to protect those cherished rights and principles
JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, embodied in the Constitution.
for themselves and in behalf of their minor children,
LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE Same; Same; Same; Jurisprudence is replete with
CARLOS IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD the rule that the power of judicial review is limited by
DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Petitioners, vs. HON. four exacting requisites, viz.: (a) there must be an
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must
HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, and HON. MANUELA. possess locus standi; (c) the question of
ROXAS II constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality
Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; The must be the lis mota of the case.—In the scholarly
separation of powers is a fundamental principle in estimation of former Supreme Court Justice Florentino
our system of government, which obtains not Feliciano, “judicial review is essential for the
through express provision but by actual division in maintenance and enforcement of the separation of
our Constitution.—In many cases involving the powers and the balancing of powers among the three
determination of the constitutionality of the actions of the great departments of government through the definition
Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought that the and maintenance of the boundaries of authority and
Court temper its exercise of judicial power and accord control between them. To him, judicial review is the
due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal branch on the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation — or
basis of the principle of separation of powers. To be instrument of intervention — of the judiciary in that
clear, the separation of powers is a fundamental balancing operation. Lest it be misunderstood, it bears
principle in our system of government, which obtains not emphasizing that the Court does not have the unbridled
through express provision but by actual division in our authority to rule on just any and every claim of
Constitution. Each department of the government has constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction rule that the power of judicial review is limited by four
and is supreme within its own sphere. Thus, the 1987 exacting requisites, viz.: (a) there must be an actual
Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess
be vested in the Congress of the Philippines; (b) the locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be
executive power shall be vested in the President of the raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of
Philippines; and (c) the judicial power shall be vested in constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. The Constitution has truly blocked Same; Same; Same; Actual Case or Controversy;
out with deft strokes and in bold lines, the allotment of Words and Phrases; An actual case or controversy
powers among the three branches of government. means an existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural
Same; Same; Judicial Review; The Constitution or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would
impresses upon the Supreme Court to respect the amount to an advisory opinion.—An actual case or
acts performed by a co-equal branch done within its controversy means an existing case or controversy that
sphere of competence and authority, but at the same is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or
time, allows it to cross the line of separation — but anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount
only at a very limited and specific point — to to an advisory opinion. The rule is that courts do not sit
determine whether the acts of the executive and the to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy
legislative branches are null because they were scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. The
undertaken with grave abuse of discretion.—In times controversy must be justiciable — definite and concrete,
of social disquietude or political instability, the great touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse
landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show
marred, if not entirely obliterated. In order to address an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the
this, the Constitution impresses upon the Court to one hand, and a denial thereof, on the other; that is, it
respect the acts performed by a co-equal branch done must concern a real, tangible and not merely a
within its sphere of competence and authority, but at the theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an
same time, allows it to cross the line of separation — but actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific
only at a very limited and specific point — to determine relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as
whether the acts of the executive and the legislative distinguished from an opinion advising what the law
branches are null because they were undertaken with would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.
grave abuse of discretion. Thus, while the Court may not
pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of Same; Same; Same; Same; For a case to be
the RH Law, it may do so where an attendant considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite
unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion results. that something has then been accomplished or
The Court must demonstrate its unflinching commitment performed by either branch before a court may come
into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the

48
existence of an immediate or threatened injury to of his own rights. The rule prohibits one from challenging
himself as a result of the challenged action.— the constitutionality of the statute grounded on a
Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or violation of the rights of third persons not before the
controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A question is court. This rule is also known as the prohibition against
ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has third-party standing.
had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging
it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is Same; Same; Same; Same; Reproductive Health
a prerequisite that something has then been Law; The Reproductive Health (RH) Law drastically
accomplished or performed by either branch before a affects the constitutional provisions on the right to
court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must life and health, the freedom of religion and
allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury expression and other constitutional rights. Mindful
to himself as a result of the challenged action. He must of all these and the fact that the issues of
show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger contraception and reproductive health have already
of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act caused deep division among a broad spectrum of
complained. society, the Supreme Court entertains no doubt that
the petitions raise issues of transcendental
Same; Same; Same; Same; Facial Challenges; While importance warranting immediate court
the Supreme Court has withheld the application of adjudication.—In view of the seriousness, novelty and
facial challenges to strictly penal statutes, it has weight as precedents, not only to the public, but also to
expanded its scope to cover statutes not only the bench and bar, the issues raised must be resolved
regulating free speech, but also those involving for the guidance of all. After all, the RH Law drastically
religious freedom, and other fundamental rights.—In affects the constitutional provisions on the right to life
this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating and health, the freedom of religion and expression and
from the U.S. has been generally maintained, albeit with other constitutional rights. Mindful of all these and the
some modifications. While this Court has withheld the fact that the issues of contraception and reproductive
application of facial challenges to strictly penal statutes, health have already caused deep division among a
it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only broad spectrum of society, the Court entertains no doubt
regulating free speech, but also those involving religious that the petitions raise issues of transcendental
freedom, and other fundamental rights. The underlying importance warranting immediate court adjudication.
reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its More importantly, considering that it is the right to life of
counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded the mother and the unborn which is primarily at issue,
jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not the Court need not wait for a life to be taken away before
only to settle actual controversies involving rights which taking action. The Court cannot, and should not,
are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to exercise judicial restraint at this time when rights
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse enshrined in the Constitution are being imperilled to be
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction violated. To do so, when the life of either the mother or
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the her child is at stake, would lead to irreparable
Government. Verily, the framers of Our Constitution consequences.
envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its
duty to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution. Same; Statutes; One-Subject-One-Title Rule; The
one subject/one title rule expresses the principle
Same; Same; Same; Same; Locus Standi; Words and that the title of a law must not be “so uncertain that
Phrases; Locus standi or legal standing is defined the average person reading it would not be informed
as a personal and substantial interest in a case such of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as
that the party has sustained or will sustain direct to its contents, or which is misleading, either in
injury as a result of the challenged governmental referring to or indicating one subject where another
act; The rule prohibits one from challenging the or different one is really embraced in the act, or in
constitutionality of the statute grounded on a omitting any expression or indication of the real
violation of the rights of third persons not before the subject or scope of the act.”—The one subject/one
court.—Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a title rule expresses the principle that the title of a law
personal and substantial interest in a case such that the must not be “so uncertain that the average person
party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the
result of the challenged governmental act. It requires a enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject
assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the where another or different one is really embraced in the
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional subject or scope of the act.” Considering the close
questions. In relation to locus standi, the “as applied intimacy between “reproductive health” and “responsible
challenge” embodies the rule that one can challenge the parenthood” which bears to the attainment of the goal of
constitutionality of a statute only if he asserts a violation achieving “sustainable human development” as stated

49
under its terms, the Court finds no reason to believe that Framers of the Constitution emphasized that the State
Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as to shall provide equal protection to both the mother and the
the contents of the assailed legislation. unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is,
upon fertilization or upon the union of the male sperm
Reproductive Health Law; The use of contraceptives and the female ovum. It is also apparent is that the
and family planning methods in the Philippines is Framers of the Constitution intended that to prohibit
not of recent vintage.—As expounded earlier, the use Congress from enacting measures that would allow it
of contraceptives and family planning methods in the determine when life begins.
Philippines is not of recent vintage. From the enactment
of R.A. No. 4729, entitled “An Act To Regulate The Sale, Same; Same; Contraceptives; The Framers of the
Dispensation, and/or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs Constitution did not intend to ban all contraceptives
and Devices” on June 18, 1966, prescribing rules on for being unconstitutional; Contraceptives that kill
contraceptive drugs and devices which prevent or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an
fertilization, to the promotion of male vasectomy and abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely,
tubal ligation, and the ratification of numerous contraceptives that actually prevent the union of the
international agreements, the country has long male sperm and the female ovum, and those that
recognized the need to promote population control similarly take action prior to fertilization should be
through the use of contraceptives in order to achieve deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally
long-term economic development. Through the years, permissible.—The Framers of the Constitution did not
however, the use of contraceptives and other family intend to ban all contraceptives for being
planning methods evolved from being a component of unconstitutional. In fact, Commissioner Bernardo
demographic management, to one centered on the Villegas, spearheading the need to have a constitutional
promotion of public health, particularly, reproductive provision on the right to life, recognized that the
health. determination of whether a contraceptive device is an
abortifacient is a question of fact which should be left to
Same; Life begins at fertilization.—The ponente, is of the courts to decide on based on established evidence.
the strong view that life begins at fertilization. In From the discussions above, contraceptives that kill or
answering the question of when life begins, focus should destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an
be made on the particular phrase of Section 12 which abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives
reads: Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of that actually prevent the union of the male sperm and
family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as the female ovum, and those that similarly take action
a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally prior to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn thus, constitutionally permissible.
from conception. The natural and primary right and duty
of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency Same; Conception; Words and Phrases; Mosby’s
and the development of moral character shall receive the Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary
support of the Government. Textually, the Constitution defines conception as “the beginning of pregnancy
affords protection to the unborn from conception. This is usually taken to be the instant a spermatozoon
undisputable because before conception, there is no enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote”; The
unborn to speak of. For said reason, it is no surprise that Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological
the Constitution is mute as to any proscription prior to Obstetrics), used by medical schools in the
conception or when life begins. The problem has arisen Philippines, also concludes that human life (human
because, amazingly, there are quarters who have person) begins at the moment of fertilization with the
conveniently disregarded the scientific fact that union of the egg and the sperm resulting in the
conception is reckoned from fertilization. They are formation of a new individual, with a unique genetic
waving the view that life begins at implantation. Hence, composition that dictates all developmental stages
the issue of when life begins. In a nutshell, those that ensue.—That conception begins at fertilization is
opposing the RH Law contend that conception is not bereft of medical foundation. Mosby’s Medical,
synonymous with “fertilization” of the female ovum by the Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary defines conception
male sperm. On the other side of the spectrum are those as “the beginning of pregnancy usually taken to be the
who assert that conception refers to the “implantation” of instant a spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a
the fertilized ovum in the uterus. viable zygote.” It describes fertilization as “the union of
male and female gametes to form a zygote from which
Same; Constitutional Law; Equal Protection of the the embryo develops.” The Textbook of Obstetrics
Laws; It is apparent that the Framers of the (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics), used by
Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide medical schools in the Philippines, also concludes that
equal protection to both the mother and the unborn human life (human person) begins at the moment of
child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, fertilization with the union of the egg and the sperm
upon fertilization or upon the union of the male resulting in the formation of a new individual, with a
sperm and the female ovum.—It is apparent that the unique genetic composition that dictates all

50
developmental stages that ensue. Similarly, recent RH Law defines an abortifacient as: Section 4. Definition
medical research on the matter also reveals that: of Terms—x x x x (a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or
“Human development begins after the union of male and device that induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus
female gametes or germ cells during a process known inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the
as fertilization (conception). Fertilization is a sequence of fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s
events that begins with the contact of a sperm womb upon determination of the FDA. As stated above,
(spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and the RH Law mandates that protection must be afforded
ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei from the moment of fertilization. By using the word “or,”
of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their the RH Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that
chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, prevent implantation, but also those that induce abortion
known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the and those that induce the destruction of a fetus inside
beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” the mother’s womb. Thus, an abortifacient is any drug or
device that either: (a) Induces abortion; or (b) Induces
Same; Same; In all, whether it be taken from a plain the destruction of a fetus inside the mother’s womb; or
meaning, or understood under medical parlance, (c) Prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be
and more importantly, following the intention of the implanted in the mother’s womb, upon determination of
Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable the FDA.
conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and
that the life of a new human being commences at a Same; Same; Words and Phrases; As defined by the
scientifically well-defined moment of conception, Reproductive Health (RH) Law, any drug or device
that is, upon fertilization.—In all, whether it be taken that induces abortion, that is, which kills or destroys
from a plain meaning, or understood under medical the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to
parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb, is an
the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable abortifacient.—Contrary to the assertions made by the
conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that petitioners, the Court finds that the RH Law, consistent
the life of a new human being commences at a with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum
scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to
upon fertilization. protect it. The conclusion becomes clear because the
RH Law, first, prohibits any drug or device that induces
Same; Same While the Supreme Court has opted not abortion (first kind), which, as discussed exhaustively
to make any determination when life begins, it finds above, refers to that which induces the killing or the
that the Reproductive Health (RH) Law itself clearly destruction of the fertilized ovum, and, second, prohibits
mandates that protection be afforded from the any drug or device the fertilized ovum to reach and be
moment of fertilization.—The clear and unequivocal implanted in the mother’s womb (third kind). By
intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents
protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the
prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure mother’s womb is an abortifacient (third kind), the RH
legalizing abortion. It was so clear that even the Court Law does not intend to mean at all that life only begins
cannot interpret it otherwise. This intent of the Framers only at implantation, as Hon. Lagman suggests. It also
was captured in the record of the proceedings of the does not declare either that protection will only be given
1986 Constitutional Commission. x x x A reading of the upon implantation, as the petitioners likewise suggest.
RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and Rather, it recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect
actually proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted the fertilized ovum which already has life, and two, the
not to make any determination, at this stage, when life fertilized ovum must be protected the moment it
begins, it finds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates becomes existent — all the way until it reaches and
that protection be afforded from the moment of implants in the mother’s womb. After all, if life is only
fertilization. As pointed out by Justice Carpio, the RH recognized and afforded protection from the moment the
Law is replete with provisions that embody the policy of fertilized ovum implants — there is nothing to prevent
the law to protect to the fertilized ovum and that it should any drug or device from killing or destroying the fertilized
be afforded safe travel to the uterus for implantation. ovum prior to implantation. From the foregoing, the Court
Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a finds that inasmuch as it affords protection to the
crime under Article 256 of the Revised Penal Code, fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction abortion.
which penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the To repeat, it is the Court’s position that life begins at
fertilized ovum. fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum
is implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained
Same; Abortifacients; In carrying out its declared but that instance of implantation is not the point of
policy, the Reproductive Health (RH) Law is beginning of life. It started earlier. And as defined by the
consistent in prohibiting abortifacients.—In carrying RH Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that
out its declared policy, the RH Law is consistent in is, which kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents
prohibiting abortifacients. To be clear, Section 4(a) of the

51
the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the observation of respondent Lagman that the effectivity of
mother’s womb, is an abortifacient. the RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated proliferation
of contraceptives since the sale, distribution and
Same; Contraceptives; Evidently, with the addition dispensation of contraceptive drugs and devices will still
of the word “primarily,” in Section 3.01(a) and (j) of require the prescription of a licensed physician. With
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the RH R.A. No. 4729 in place, there exist adequate safeguards
Law (RH-IRR) is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes to ensure the public that only contraceptives that are
Section 4(a) of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law safe are made available to the public.
and should, therefore, be declared invalid. There is
danger that the insertion of the qualifier “primarily” Same; Same; In the distribution by the Department
will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives of Health of contraceptive drugs and devices, it must
which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn consider the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, 4729, which is still in effect, and ensure that the
Section 12 of the Constitution.—Evidently, with the contraceptives that it will procure shall be from a
addition of the word “primarily,” in Section 3.01(a) and (j) duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company
of the RH-IRR is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes and that the actual dispensation of these
Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should, therefore, be contraceptive drugs and devices will done following
declared invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the a prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.—In
qualifier “primarily” will pave the way for the approval of the distribution by the DOH of contraceptive drugs and
contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the devices, it must consider the provisions of R.A. No.
unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of Article 4729, which is still in effect, and ensure that the
II, Section 12 of the Constitution. With such qualification contraceptives that it will procure shall be from a duly
in the RH-IRR, it appears to insinuate that a licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that
contraceptive will only be considered as an the actual dispensation of these contraceptive drugs and
“abortifacient” if its sole known effect is abortion or, as devices will done following a prescription of a qualified
pertinent here, the prevention of the implantation of the medical practitioner. The distribution of contraceptive
fertilized ovum. For the same reason, this definition of drugs and devices must not be indiscriminately done.
“contraceptive” would permit the approval of The public health must be protected by all possible
contraceptives which are actually abortifacients because means. As pointed out by Justice De Castro, a heavy
of their fair-sale mechanism. responsibility and burden are assumed by the
government in supplying contraceptive drugs and
Same; Same; Consistent with the constitutional devices, for it may be held accountable for any injury,
policy prohibiting abortion, and in line with the illness or loss of life resulting from or incidental to their
principle that laws should be construed in a manner use.
that its constitutionality is sustained, the
Reproductive Health (RH) Law and its implementing Same; Same; The Supreme Court is of the strong
rules must be consistent with each other in view that Congress cannot legislate that hormonal
prohibiting abortion.—Indeed, consistent with the contraceptives and intra-uterine devices are safe
constitutional policy prohibiting abortion, and in line with and non-abortifacient.—At this point, the Court is of the
the principle that laws should be construed in a manner strong view that Congress cannot legislate that hormonal
that its constitutionality is sustained, the RH Law and its contraceptives and intrauterine devices are safe and
implementing rules must be consistent with each other in non-abortifacient. The first sentence of Section 9 that
prohibiting abortion. Thus, the word “primarily” in Section ordains their inclusion by the National Drug Formulary in
3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR should be declared void. the EDL by using the mandatory “shall” is to be
To uphold the validity of Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the construed as operative only after they have been tested,
RH-IRR and prohibit only those contraceptives that have evaluated, and approved by the FDA. The FDA, not
the primary effect of being an abortive would effectively Congress, has the expertise to determine whether a
“open the floodgates to the approval of contraceptives particular hormonal contraceptive or intrauterine device
which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn from is safe and non-abortifacient. The provision of the third
conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 sentence concerning the requirements for the inclusion
of the Constitution.” or removal of a particular family planning supply from the
EDL supports this construction.
Same; Same; With R.A. No. 4729 in place, there
exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public that Constitutional Law; Separation of Church and State;
only contraceptives that are safe are made available Generally, the State cannot meddle in the internal
to the public.—The legislative intent in the enactment of affairs of the church, much less question its faith
the RH Law in this regard is to leave intact the provisions and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one
of R.A. No. 4729. There is no intention at all to do away religion and discriminate against another.—The
with it. It is still a good law and its requirements are still principle of separation of Church and State was, thus,
in to be complied with. Thus, the Court agrees with the enshrined in Article II, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution,

52
viz.: Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall effect,’ whether by the legislature or the courts.” In
be inviolable. Verily, the principle of separation of ascertaining the limits of the exercise of religious
Church and State is based on mutual respect. Generally, freedom, the compelling state interest test is proper.
the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the Underlying the compelling state interest test is the notion
church, much less question its faith and dogmas or that free exercise is a fundamental right and that laws
dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and burdening it should be subject to strict scrutiny.
discriminate against another. On the other hand, the
church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the Same; Reproductive Health Law; Religious Freedom;
State and the rest of the citizenry. It cannot demand that While the Supreme Court stands without authority to
the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes rule on ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the
that they are good for the country. Consistent with the Constitution, it does have authority to determine
principle that not any one religion should ever be whether the Reproductive Health (RH) Law
preferred over another, the Constitution in the above- contravenes the guarantee of religious freedom.—In
cited provision utilizes the term “church” in its generic the case at bench, it is not within the province of the
sense, which refers to a temple, a mosque, an iglesia, or Court to determine whether the use of contraceptives or
any other house of God which metaphorically one’s participation in the support of modern reproductive
symbolizes a religious organization. Thus, the “Church” health measures is moral from a religious standpoint or
means the religious congregations collectively. whether the same is right or wrong according to one’s
dogma or belief. For the Court has declared that matters
Same; Religious Freedom; Free Exercise Clause; dealing with “faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship,
Establishment Clause; The constitutional assurance ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church...are
of religious freedom provides two guarantees: the unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside
Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. the province of the civil courts.” The jurisdiction of the
—In short, the constitutional assurance of religious Court extends only to public and secular morality.
freedom provides two guarantees: the Establishment Whatever pronouncement the Court makes in the case
Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The at bench should be understood only in this realm where
establishment clause “principally prohibits the State from it has authority. Stated otherwise, while the Court stands
sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion as without authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as
against other religions. It mandates a strict neutrality in vanguard of the Constitution, it does have authority to
affairs among religious groups.” Essentially, it prohibits determine whether the RH Law contravenes the
the establishment of a state religion and the use of guarantee of religious freedom.
public resources for the support or prohibition of a
religion. On the other hand, the basis of the free exercise Same; Same; Same; The State is not precluded to
clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human pursue its legitimate secular objectives without
conscience. Under this part of religious freedom being dictated upon by the policies of any one
guarantee, the State is prohibited from unduly interfering religion.—In the same breath that the establishment
with the outside manifestations of one’s belief and faith. clause restricts what the government can do with
religion, it also limits what religious sects can or cannot
Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Benevolent do with the government. They can neither cause the
Neutrality; In case of conflict between the free government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy
exercise clause and the State, the Supreme Court for everyone, nor can they not cause the government to
adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality.—In restrict other groups. To do so, in simple terms, would
case of conflict between the free exercise clause and the cause the State to adhere to a particular religion and,
State, the Court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent thus, establishing a state religion. Consequently, the
neutrality. This has been clearly decided by the Court in petitioners are misguided in their supposition that the
Estrada v. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1 (2006), (Escritor) where State cannot enhance its population control program
it was stated “that benevolent neutrality-accommodation, through the RH Law simply because the promotion of
whether mandatory or permissive, is the spirit, intent and contraceptive use is contrary to their religious beliefs.
framework underlying the Philippine Constitution.” In the Indeed, the State is not precluded to pursue its
same case, it was further explained that: The benevolent legitimate secular objectives without being dictated upon
neutrality theory believes that with respect to these by the policies of any one religion. One cannot refuse to
governmental actions, accommodation of religion may pay his taxes simply because it will cloud his
be allowed, not to promote the government’s favored conscience. The demarcation line between Church and
form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to State demands that one render unto Caesar the things
exercise their religion without hindrance. “The purpose of that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are
accommodation is to remove a burden on, or facilitate God’s.
the exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion.” “What
is sought under the theory of accommodation is not a Same; Same; Same; Compelling Interest Test; The
declaration of unconstitutionality of a facially neutral law, conscientious objector’s claim to religious freedom
but an exemption from its application or its ‘burdensome would warrant an exemption from obligations under

53
the Reproductive Health Law, unless the from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law. If he
government succeeds in demonstrating a more would be compelled to act contrary to his religious belief
compelling state interest in the accomplishment of and conviction, it would be violative of “the principle of
an important secular objective.—In a situation where non-coercion” enshrined in the constitutional right to free
the free exercise of religion is allegedly burdened by exercise of religion.
government legislation or practice, the compelling state
interest test in line with the Court’s espousal of the Same; Same; Same; The punishment of a healthcare
Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality in Escritor, finds service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer a
application. In this case, the conscientious objector’s patient to another, or who declines to perform
claim to religious freedom would warrant an exemption reproductive health procedure on a patient because
from obligations under the RH Law, unless the incompatible religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of
government succeeds in demonstrating a more a constitutional guarantee which the Supreme Court
compelling state interest in the accomplishment of an cannot allow.—The Court is not oblivious to the view
important secular objective. Necessarily so, the plea of that penalties provided by law endeavour to ensure
conscientious objectors for exemption from the RH Law compliance. Without set consequences for either an
deserves no less than strict scrutiny. active violation or mere inaction, a law tends to be
toothless and ineffectual. Nonetheless, when what is
Same; Same; Same; The Court is of the view that the bartered for an effective implementation of a law is a
obligation to refer imposed by the Reproductive constitutionally-protected right the Court firmly chooses
Health Law violates the religious belief and to stamp its disapproval. The punishment of a healthcare
conviction of a conscientious objector.—The Court is service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer a
of the view that the obligation to refer imposed by the RH patient to another, or who declines to perform
Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a reproductive health procedure on a patient because
conscientious objector. Once the medical practitioner, incompatible religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a
against his will, refers a patient seeking information on constitutional guarantee which the Court cannot allow.
modern reproductive health products, services,
procedures and methods, his conscience is immediately Same; Same; Same; The protection accorded to
burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act other conscientious objectors should equally apply
against his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas to all medical practitioners without distinction
(Commissioner Bernas) has written, at the basis of the whether they belong to the public or private sector.
free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of —The conscientious objection clause should be equally
the human conscience. Though it has been said that the protective of the religious belief of public health officers.
act of referral is an opt-out clause, it is, however, a false There is no perceptible distinction why they should not
compromise because it makes pro-life health providers be considered exempt from the mandates of the law.
complicit in the performance of an act that they find The protection accorded to other conscientious objectors
morally repugnant or offensive. They cannot, in should equally apply to all medical practitioners without
conscience, do indirectly what they cannot do directly. distinction whether they belong to the public or private
One may not be the principal, but he is equally guilty if sector. After all, the freedom to believe is intrinsic in
he abets the offensive act by indirect participation. every individual and the protective robe that guarantees
its free exercise is not taken off even if one acquires
Same; Same; Same; In case of conflict between the employment in the government.
religious beliefs and moral convictions of
individuals, on one hand, and the interest of the Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court finds no
State, on the other, to provide access and compelling state interest which would limit the free
information on reproductive health products, exercise clause of the conscientious objectors,
services, procedures and methods to enable the however few in number.—The Court finds no
people to determine the timing, number and spacing compelling state interest which would limit the free
of the birth of their children, the Supreme Court is of exercise clause of the conscientious objectors, however
the strong view that the religious freedom of health few in number. Only the prevention of an immediate and
providers, whether public or private, should be grave danger to the security and welfare of the
accorded primacy.—In case of conflict between the community can justify the infringement of religious
religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, on freedom. If the government fails to show the seriousness
one hand, and the interest of the State, on the other, to and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is
provide access and information on reproductive health constitutionally unacceptable. Freedom of religion
products, services, procedures and methods to enable means more than just the freedom to believe. It also
the people to determine the timing, number and spacing means the freedom to act or not to act according to what
of the birth of their children, the Court is of the strong one believes. And this freedom is violated when one is
view that the religious freedom of health providers, compelled to act against one’s belief or is prevented
whether public or private, should be accorded primacy. from acting according to one’s belief.
Accordingly, a conscientious objector should be exempt

54
Same; Same; In a conflict situation between the life private matter which belongs to the couple, not just
of the mother and the life of a child, the doctor is one of them.—Section 3, Art. XV of the Constitution
morally obliged always to try to save both lives. If, espouses that the State shall defend the “right of the
however, it is impossible, the resulting death to one spouses to found a family.” One person cannot found a
should not be deliberate.—In a conflict situation family. The right, therefore, is shared by both spouses.
between the life of the mother and the life of a child, the In the same Section 3, their right “to participate in the
doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both lives. planning and implementation of policies and programs
If, however, it is impossible, the resulting death to one that affect them” is equally recognized. The RH Law
should not be deliberate. Atty. Noche explained: cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision-
Principle of Double-Effect.—May we please remind the making. By giving absolute authority to the spouse who
principal author of the RH Bill in the House of would undergo a procedure, and barring the other
Representatives of the principle of double-effect wherein spouse from participating in the decision would drive a
intentional harm on the life of either the mother of the wedge between the husband and wife, possibly result in
child is never justified to bring about a “good” effect. In a bitter animosity, and endanger the marriage and the
conflict situation between the life of the child and the life family, all for the sake of reducing the population. This
of the mother, the doctor is morally obliged always to try would be a marked departure from the policy of the State
to save both lives. However, he can act in favor of one to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution.
(not necessarily the mother) when it is medically Decision-making involving a reproductive health
impossible to save both, provided that no direct harm is procedure is a private matter which belongs to the
intended to the other. If the above principles are couple, not just one of them. Any decision they would
observed, the loss of the child’s life or the mother’s life is reach would affect their future as a family because the
not intentional and, therefore, unavoidable. Hence, the size of the family or the number of their children
doctor would not be guilty of abortion or murder. The significantly matters. The decision whether or not to
mother is never pitted against the child because both undergo the procedure belongs exclusively to, and
their lives are equally valuable. Accordingly, if it is shared by, both spouses as one cohesive unit as they
necessary to save the life of a mother, procedures chart their own destiny. It is a constitutionally guaranteed
endangering the life of the child may be resorted to even private right. Unless it prejudices the State, which has
if is against the religious sentiments of the medical not shown any compelling interest, the State should see
practitioner. As quoted above, whatever burden imposed to it that they chart their destiny together as one family.
upon a medical practitioner in this case would have been
more than justified considering the life he would be able Same; Parental Consent; Equally deplorable is the
to save. debarment of parental consent in cases where the
minor, who will be undergoing a procedure, is
Same; Same; Police Power; Anent the requirement already a parent or has had a miscarriage.—Equally
imposed under Section 15 as a condition for the deplorable is the debarment of parental consent in cases
issuance of a marriage license, the Supreme Court where the minor, who will be undergoing a procedure, is
finds the same to be a reasonable exercise of police already a parent or has had a miscarriage. Section 7 of
power by the government; All the law requires is for the RH law provides: SEC. 7. Access to Family
would-be spouses to attend a seminar on Planning.—x x x. No person shall be denied information
parenthood, family planning breastfeeding and and access to family planning services, whether natural
infant nutrition.—Anent the requirement imposed under or artificial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed
Section 15 as a condition for the issuance of a marriage access to modern methods of family planning without
license, the Court finds the same to be a reasonable written consent from their parents or guardian/s except
exercise of police power by the government. A cursory when the minor is already a parent or has had a
reading of the assailed provision bares that the religious miscarriage. There can be no other interpretation of this
freedom of the petitioners is not at all violated. All the provision except that when a minor is already a parent or
law requires is for would-be spouses to attend a seminar has had a miscarriage, the parents are excluded from
on parenthood, family planning breastfeeding and infant the decision-making process of the minor with regard to
nutrition. It does not even mandate the type of family family planning. Even if she is not yet emancipated, the
planning methods to be included in the seminar, whether parental authority is already cut off just because there is
they be natural or artificial. As correctly noted by the a need to tame population growth. It is precisely in such
OSG, those who receive any information during their situations when a minor parent needs the comfort, care,
attendance in the required seminars are not compelled advice, and guidance of her own parents. The State
to accept the information given to them, are completely cannot replace her natural mother and father when it
free to reject the information they find unacceptable, and comes to providing her needs and comfort. To say that
retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life their consent is no longer relevant is clearly anti-family. It
without the intervention of the State. does not promote unity in the family. It is an affront to the
constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen the
Reproductive Health Law; Decision-making family as an inviolable social institution.
involving a reproductive health procedure is a

55
Same; Same; Compelling State Interest; The State to preserve the primordial right, that is, the right to
cannot, without a compelling state interest, take life.—As in the case of the conscientious objector, an
over the role of parents in the care and custody of a exception must be made in life-threatening cases that
minor child, whether or not the latter is already a require the performance of emergency procedures. In
parent or has had a miscarriage. Only a compelling such cases, the life of the minor who has already
state interest can justify a state substitution of their suffered a miscarriage and that of the spouse should not
parental authority.—To insist on a rule that interferes be put at grave risk simply for lack of consent. It should
with the right of parents to exercise parental control over be emphasized that no person should be denied the
their minor-child or the right of the spouses to mutually appropriate medical care urgently needed to preserve
decide on matters which very well affect the very the primordial right, that is, the right to life. In this
purpose of marriage, that is, the establishment of connection, the second sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii)
conjugal and family life, would result in the violation of should be struck down. By effectively limiting the
one’s privacy with respect to his family. It would be requirement of parental consent to “only in elective
dismissive of the unique and strongly-held Filipino surgical procedures,” it denies the parents their right of
tradition of maintaining close family ties and violative of parental authority in cases where what is involved are
the recognition that the State affords couples entering “non-surgical procedures.” Save for the two exceptions
into the special contract of marriage to as one unit in discussed above, and in the case of an abused child as
forming the foundation of the family and society. The provided in the first sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii), the
State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take parents should not be deprived of their constitutional
over the role of parents in the care and custody of a right of parental authority. To deny them of this right
minor child, whether or not the latter is already a parent would be an affront to the constitutional mandate to
or has had a miscarriage. Only a compelling state protect and strengthen the family.
interest can justify a state substitution of their parental
authority. Same; Any attack on the validity of Section 14 of the
Reproductive Health (RH) Law is premature because
Same; Access to Information; Principle of Double the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
Effect; Insofar as access to information is (DECS) has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-
concerned, the Supreme Court finds no appropriate reproductive health education.—Suffice it
constitutional objection to the acquisition of to state that any attack on the validity of Section 14 of
information by the minor referred to under the the RH Law is premature because the Department of
exception in the second paragraph of Section 7 that Education, Culture and Sports has yet to formulate a
would enable her to take proper care of her own curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health
body and that of her unborn child. After all, Section education. One can only speculate on the content,
12, Article II of the Constitution mandates the State manner and medium of instruction that will be used to
to protect both the life of the mother as that of the educate the adolescents and whether they will contradict
unborn child.—There must be a differentiation between the religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their
access to information about family planning services, on apprehensions. Thus, considering the premature nature
one hand, and access to the reproductive health of this particular issue, the Court declines to rule on its
procedures and modern family planning methods constitutionality or validity.
themselves, on the other. Insofar as access to
information is concerned, the Court finds no Statutes; Principle of Void for Vagueness; A statute
constitutional objection to the acquisition of information or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it
by the minor referred to under the exception in the lacks comprehensible standards that men of
second paragraph of Section 7 that would enable her to common intelligence must necessarily guess its
take proper care of her own body and that of her unborn meaning and differ as to its application.—A statute or
child. After all, Section 12, Article II of the Constitution act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
mandates the State to protect both the life of the mother comprehensible standards that men of common
as that of the unborn child. Considering that information intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and
to enable a person to make informed decisions is differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the
essential in the protection and maintenance of ones’ Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process
health, access to such information with respect to for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
reproductive health must be allowed. In this situation, the targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2)
fear that parents might be deprived of their parental it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying
control is unfounded because they are not prohibited to out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
exercise parental guidance and control over their minor Government muscle. Moreover, in determining whether
child and assist her in deciding whether to accept or the words used in a statute are vague, words must not
reject the information received. only be taken in accordance with their plain meaning
alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It
Same; Same; Right to Life; No person should be is a rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted
denied the appropriate medical care urgently needed with reference to the context, that is, every part of it must

56
be construed together with the other parts and kept welfare. Like the legal profession, the practice of
subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. medicine is not a right but a privileged burdened with
Constitutional Law; Reproductive Health Law; Equal conditions as it directly involves the very lives of the
Protection of the Law; To provide that the poor are people. A fortiori, this power includes the power of
to be given priority in the government’s reproductive Congress to prescribe the qualifications for the practice
health care program is not a violation of the equal of professions or trades which affect the public welfare,
protection clause; It should be noted that Section 7 the public health, the public morals, and the public
of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law prioritizes poor safety; and to regulate or control such professions or
and marginalized couples who are suffering from trades, even to the point of revoking such right
fertility issues and desire to have children. There is, altogether. Moreover, as some petitioners put it, the
therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law notion of involuntary servitude connotes the presence of
only seeks to target the poor to reduce their number. force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of
—To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the coercion and compulsion. A reading of the assailed
government’s reproductive health care program is not a provision, however, reveals that it only encourages
violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is private and nongovernment reproductive healthcare
pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution service providers to render pro bono service. Other than
which recognizes the distinct necessity to address the non-accreditation with PhilHealth, no penalty is imposed
needs of the underprivileged by providing that they be should they choose to do otherwise. Private and non-
given priority in addressing the health development of government reproductive healthcare service providers
the people. Thus: Section 11. The State shall adopt an also enjoy the liberty to choose which kind of health
integrated and comprehensive approach to health service they wish to provide, when, where and how to
development which shall endeavor to make essential provide it or whether to provide it all. Clearly, therefore,
goods, health and other social services available to all no compulsion, force or threat is made upon them to
the people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for render pro bono service against their will. While the
the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, rendering of such service was made a prerequisite to
women, and children. The State shall endeavor to accreditation with PhilHealth, the Court does not
provide free medical care to paupers. It should be noted consider the same to be an unreasonable burden, but
that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and rather, a necessary incentive imposed by Congress in
marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility the furtherance of a perceived legitimate state interest.
issues and desire to have children. There is, therefore,
no merit to the contention that the RH Law only seeks to Same; Same; From the declared policy of the
target the poor to reduce their number. While the RH Reproductive Health (RH) Law, it is clear that
Law admits the use of contraceptives, it does not, as Congress intended that the public be given only
elucidated above, sanction abortion. As Section 3(l) those medicines that are proven medically safe,
explains, the “promotion and/or stabilization of the legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in accordance
population growth rate is incidental to the advancement with scientific and evidence-based medical research
of reproductive health.” standards.—The functions, powers and duties of the
FDA are specific to enable the agency to carry out the
Same; Same; Involuntary Servitude; Clearly, no mandates of the law. Being the country’s premiere and
compulsion, force or threat is made upon sole agency that ensures the safety of food and
reproductive healthcare service providers to render medicines available to the public, the FDA was equipped
pro bono service against their will. While the with the necessary powers and functions to make it
rendering of such service was made a prerequisite effective. Pursuant to the principle of necessary
to accreditation with PhilHealth, the Supreme Court implication, the mandate by Congress to the FDA to
does not consider the same to be an unreasonable ensure public health and safety by permitting only food
burden, but rather, a necessary incentive imposed and medicines that are safe includes “service” and
by Congress in the furtherance of a perceived “methods.” From the declared policy of the RH Law, it is
legitimate state interest.—The OSG counters that the clear that Congress intended that the public be given
rendition of pro bono services envisioned in Section 17 only those medicines that are proven medically safe,
can hardly be considered as forced labor analogous to legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in accordance with
slavery, as reproductive health care service providers scientific and evidence-based medical research
have the discretion as to the manner and time of giving standards.
pro bono services. Moreover, the OSG points out that
the imposition is within the powers of the government, Same; Same; The fact that the Reproductive Health
the accreditation of medical practitioners with PhilHealth (RH) Law does not intrude in the autonomy of local
being a privilege and not a right. The point of the OSG is governments can be equally applied to the
well-taken. It should first be mentioned that the practice Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
of medicine is undeniably imbued with public interest The RH Law does not infringe upon its autonomy.—
that it is both a power and a duty of the State to control The fact that the RH Law does not intrude in the
and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public autonomy of local governments can be equally applied

57
to the ARMM. The RH Law does not infringe upon its safeguard to religious freedom is a recognition that man
autonomy. Moreover, Article III, Sections 6, 10 and 11 of stands accountable to an authority higher than the State.
R.A. No. 9054, or the organic act of the ARMM, alluded In conformity with the principle of separation of Church
to by petitioner Tillah to justify the exemption of the and State, one religious group cannot be allowed to
operation of the RH Law in the autonomous region, refer impose its beliefs on the rest of the society. Philippine
to the policy statements for the guidance of the regional modern society leaves enough room for diversity and
government. These provisions relied upon by the pluralism. As such, everyone should be tolerant and
petitioners simply delineate the powers that may be open-minded so that peace and harmony may continue
exercised by the regional government, which can, in no to reign as we exist alongside each other.
manner, be characterized as an abdication by the State
of its power to enact legislation that would benefit the Same; Same; Separation of Powers; It is not the
general welfare. After all, despite the veritable autonomy province of the judiciary to look into the wisdom of
granted the ARMM, the Constitution and the supporting the law nor to question the policies adopted by the
jurisprudence, as they now stand, reject the notion of legislative branch. Nor is it the business of this
imperium et imperio in the relationship between the Tribunal to remedy every unjust situation that may
national and the regional governments. Except for the arise from the application of a particular law. It is for
express and implied limitations imposed on it by the the legislature to enact remedial legislation if that
Constitution, Congress cannot be restricted to exercise would be necessary in the premises.—Indeed, at the
its inherent and plenary power to legislate on all subjects present, the country has a population problem, but the
which extends to all matters of general concern or State should not use coercive measures (like the penal
common interest. provisions of the RH Law against conscientious
objectors) to solve it. Nonetheless, the policy of the
Same; Same; Abortion; The Reproductive Health Court is non-interference in the wisdom of a law. x x x.
(RH) Law does not sanction the taking away of life. It But this Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has
does not allow abortion in any shape or form. It only laid down. Its duty is to say what the law is as enacted
seeks to enhance the population control program of by the lawmaking body. That is not the same as saying
the government by providing information and what the law should be or what is the correct rule in a
making non-abortifacient contraceptives more given set of circumstances. It is not the province of the
readily available to the public, especially to the poor. judiciary to look into the wisdom of the law nor to
—Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a question the policies adopted by the legislative branch.
written law, it cannot serve as a basis to strike down a Nor is it the business of this Tribunal to remedy every
law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 unjust situation that may arise from the application of a
(2003), the very case cited by the petitioners, it was particular law. It is for the legislature to enact remedial
explained that the Court is not duty-bound to examine legislation if that would be necessary in the premises.
every law or action and whether it conforms with both But as always, with apt judicial caution and cold
the Constitution and natural law. Rather, natural law is to neutrality, the Court must carry out the delicate function
be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of of interpreting the law, guided by the Constitution and
circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no existing legislation and mindful of settled jurisprudence.
law is applicable. At any rate, as earlier expounded, the The Court’s function is therefore limited, and
RH Law does not sanction the taking away of life. It does accordingly, must confine itself to the judicial task of
not allow abortion in any shape or form. It only seeks to saying what the law is, as enacted by the lawmaking
enhance the population control program of the body.
government by providing information and making non-
abortifacient contraceptives more readily available to the
public, especially to the poor.

Same; Same; In general, the Supreme Court does

not find the Reproductive Health (RH) Law as
unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide
access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient,
effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive
healthcare services, methods, devices, and supplies.
—In general, the Court does not find the RH Law as
unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide access to
medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal,
affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services,
methods, devices, and supplies. As earlier pointed out,
however, the religious freedom of some sectors of
society cannot be trampled upon in pursuit of what the
law hopes to achieve. After all, the Constitutional

58
 G.R. No. 212426 exercises its power of judicial review. Guided by these
RENE A.V. SAGUISAG vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY pillars, it may invoke the power only when the following
PAQUITO N. OCHOA four stringent requirements are satisfied: (a) there is an
actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners possess locus
Judicial Review; Distinguished from the general standi; (c) the question of constitutionality is raised at the
notion of judicial power, the power of judicial review earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality
specially refers to both the authority and the duty of is the lis mota of the case. Of these four, the first two
the Supreme Court (SC) to determine whether a conditions will be the focus of our discussion.
branch or an instrumentality of government has
acted beyond the scope of the latter’s constitutional Same; Actual Case or Controversy; The performance
powers.—Distinguished from the general notion of of an official act by the Executive Department that
judicial power, the power of judicial review specially led to the entry into force of an executive agreement
refers to both the authority and the duty of this Court to was sufficient to satisfy the actual case or
determine whether a branch or an instrumentality of controversy requirement.—We find that the matter
government has acted beyond the scope of the latter’s before us involves an actual case or controversy that is
constitutional powers. As articulated in Section 1, Article already ripe for adjudication. The Executive Department
VIII of the Constitution, the power of judicial review has already sent an official confirmation to the U.S.
involves the power to resolve cases in which the Embassy that “all internal requirements of the
questions concern the constitutionality or validity of any Philippines x x x have already been complied with.” By
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, this exchange of diplomatic notes, the Executive
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, Department effectively performed the last act required
ordinance, or regulation. In Angara v. Electoral under Article XII(1) of EDCA before the agreement
Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936), this Court exhaustively entered into force. Section 25, Article XVIII of the
discussed this “moderating power” as part of the system Constitution, is clear that the presence of foreign military
of checks and balances under the Constitution. In our forces in the country shall only be allowed by virtue of a
fundamental law, the role of the Court is to determine treaty concurred in by the Senate. Hence, the
whether a branch of government has adhered to the performance of an official act by the Executive
specific restrictions and limitations of the latter’s power. Department that led to the entry into force of an
executive agreement was sufficient to satisfy the actual
Same; Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987) and case or controversy requirement.
Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga
Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., Same; Locus Standi; The question of locus standi or
415 SCRA 44 (2003), cite the “pillars” of the legal standing focuses on the determination of
limitations on the power of judicial review as whether those assailing the governmental act have
enunciated in the concurring opinion of United the right of appearance to bring the matter to the
States (U.S.) Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in court for adjudication. They must show that they
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. have a personal and substantial interest in the case,
288, 346-348 (1936).—Even as we are left with no such that they have sustained or are in immediate
recourse but to bare our power to check an act of a danger of sustaining, some direct injury as a
coequal branch of government — in this case the consequence of the enforcement of the challenged
executive — we must abide by the stringent governmental act.—The question of locus standi or
requirements for the exercise of that power under the legal standing focuses on the determination of whether
Constitution. Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987) those assailing the governmental act have the right of
and Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga appearance to bring the matter to the court for
Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., 415 adjudication. They must show that they have a personal
SCRA 44 (2003), cite the “pillars” of the limitations on and substantial interest in the case, such that they have
the power of judicial review as enunciated in the sustained or are in immediate danger of sustaining,
concurring opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice some direct injury as a consequence of the enforcement
Brandeis in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, of the challenged governmental act. Here, “interest” in
297 U.S. 288 (1936). Francisco redressed these “pillars” the question involved must be material — an interest
under the following categories: 1. That there be absolute that is in issue and will be affected by the official act —
necessity of deciding a case; 2. That rules of as distinguished from being merely incidental or general.
constitutional law shall be formulated only as required by Clearly, it would be insufficient to show that the law or
the facts of the case; 3. That judgment may not be any governmental act is invalid, and that petitioners
sustained on some other ground; 4. That there be actual stand to suffer in some indefinite way. They must show
injury sustained by the party by reason of the operation that they have a particular interest in bringing the suit,
of the statute; 5. That the parties are not in estoppel; 6. and that they have been or are about to be denied some
That the Court upholds the presumption of right or privilege to which they are lawfully entitled, or
constitutionality. (Emphases supplied) These are the that they are about to be subjected to some burden or
specific safeguards laid down by the Court when it penalty by reason of the act complained of. The reason

59
why those who challenge the validity of a law or an granted by the Constitution to the Senate, not to the
international agreement are required to allege the entire Legislature. In Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the
existence of a personal stake in the outcome of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622 (2005), this Court
controversy is “to assure the concrete adverseness did not recognize the standing of one of the petitioners
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which therein who was a member of the House of
the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult Representatives. The petition in that case sought to
constitutional questions.” compel the transmission to the Senate for concurrence
of the signed text of the Statute of the International
Same; Same; Taxpayers’ Suit; The Supreme Court Criminal Court. Since that petition invoked the power of
(SC) emphasizes that a taxpayers’ suit contemplates the Senate to grant or withhold its concurrence in a
a situation in which there is already an appropriation treaty entered into by the Executive Department, only
or a disbursement of public funds. A reading of then incumbent Senator Pimentel was allowed to assert
Article X(1) of Enhanced Defense Cooperation that authority of the Senate of which he was a member.
Agreement (EDCA) would show that there has been
neither an appropriation nor an authorization of Same; Judicial Review; When those who challenge
disbursement of funds.—A taxpayer’s suit concerns a the official act are able to craft an issue of
case in which the official act complained of directly transcendental significance to the people, the
involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived Supreme Court (SC) may exercise its sound
from taxation. Here, those challenging the act must discretion and take cognizance of the suit.—In a
specifically show that they have sufficient interest in number of cases, this Court has indeed taken a liberal
preventing the illegal expenditure of public money, and stance towards the requirement of legal standing,
that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of the especially when paramount interest is involved. Indeed,
enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle when those who challenge the official act are able to
to this case, they must establish that EDCA involves the craft an issue of transcendental significance to the
exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers. people, the Court may exercise its sound discretion and
We agree with the OSG that the petitions cannot qualify take cognizance of the suit. It may do so in spite of the
as taxpayers’ suits. We emphasize that a taxpayers’ suit inability of the petitioners to show that they have been
contemplates a situation in which there is already an personally injured by the operation of a law or any other
appropriation or a disbursement of public funds. A government act.
reading of Article X(1) of EDCA would show that there
has been neither an appropriation nor an authorization of Executive Power; The duty to faithfully execute the
disbursement of funds. laws of the land is inherent in executive power and
is intimately related to the other executive functions.
Same; Same; Legislators’ Suit; In a legislators’ suit, —The duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land is
those Members of Congress who are challenging the inherent in executive power and is intimately related to
official act have standing only to the extent that the the other executive functions. These functions include
alleged violation impinges on their right to the faithful execution of the law in autonomous regions;
participate in the exercise of the powers of the the right to prosecute crimes; the implementation of
institution of which they are members.—We transportation projects; the duty to ensure compliance
emphasize that in a legislators’ suit, those Members of with treaties, executive agreements and executive
Congress who are challenging the official act have orders; the authority to deport undesirable aliens; the
standing only to the extent that the alleged violation conferment of national awards under the President’s
impinges on their right to participate in the exercise of jurisdiction; and the overall administration and control of
the powers of the institution of which they are members. the executive department.
Legislators have the standing “to maintain inviolate the
prerogatives, powers, and privileges vested by the Same; Presidency; Foreign Military Bases; Despite
Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to the President’s roles as defender of the State and
question the validity of any official action, which they sole authority in foreign relations, the 1987
claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators.” As Constitution expressly limits his ability in instances
legislators, they must clearly show that there was a when it involves the entry of foreign military bases,
direct injury to their persons or the institution to which troops or facilities.—Despite the President’s roles as
they belong. defender of the State and sole authority in foreign
relations, the 1987 Constitution expressly limits his
Constitutional Law; Treaties; Power to Concur in a ability in instances when it involves the entry of foreign
Treaty; The power to concur in a treaty or an military bases, troops or facilities. The initial limitation is
international agreement is an institutional found in Section 21 of the provisions on the Executive
prerogative granted by the Constitution to the Department: “No treaty or international agreement shall
Senate, not to the entire Legislature.—As correctly be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
argued by respondent, the power to concur in a treaty or two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The
an international agreement is an institutional prerogative specific limitation is given by Section 25 of the Transitory

60
Provisions, the full text of which reads as follows: Constitution and Philippine law, and not to the Section
SECTION 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the 25 requirement of validity through a treaty.
Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and
the United States of America concerning Military Bases, Presidency; The President has the inherent power to
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be enter into agreements with other states, including
allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly the prerogative to conclude binding executive
concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so agreements that do not require further Senate
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the concurrence.—As the sole organ of our foreign
people in a national referendum held for that purpose, relations and the constitutionally assigned chief architect
and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting of our foreign policy, the President is vested with the
State. exclusive power to conduct and manage the country’s
interface with other states and governments. Being the
Same; Same; Same; The President is not authorized principal representative of the Philippines, the Chief
by law to allow foreign military bases, troops, or Executive speaks and listens for the nation; initiates,
facilities to enter the Philippines, except under a maintains, and develops diplomatic relations with other
treaty concurred in by the Senate.—To this Court, a states and governments; negotiates and enters into
plain textual reading of Article XIII, Section 25, inevitably international agreements; promotes trade, investments,
leads to the conclusion that it applies only to a proposed tourism and other economic relations; and settles
agreement between our government and a foreign international disputes with other states. As previously
government, whereby military bases, troops, or facilities discussed, this constitutional mandate emanates from
of such foreign government would be “allowed” or would the inherent power of the President to enter into
“gain entry” Philippine territory. Note that the provision agreements with other states, including the prerogative
“shall not be allowed” is a negative injunction. This to conclude binding executive agreements that do not
wording signifies that the President is not authorized by require further Senate concurrence. The existence of
law to allow foreign military bases, troops, or facilities to this presidential power is so well-entrenched that Section
enter the Philippines, except under a treaty concurred in 5(2)(a), Article VIII of the Constitution, even provides for
by the Senate. Hence, the constitutionally restricted a check on its exercise. As expressed below, executive
authority pertains to the entry of the bases, troops, or agreements are among those official governmental acts
facilities, and not to the activities to be done after entry. that can be the subject of this Court’s power of judicial
review: (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
Verba Legis; Under the principles of constitutional appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
construction, of paramount consideration is the provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
plain meaning of the language expressed in the (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
Constitution, or the verba legis rule.—Under the any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
principles of constitutional construction, of paramount presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
consideration is the plain meaning of the language ordinance, or regulation is in question.
expressed in the Constitution, or the verba legis rule. It is
presumed that the provisions have been carefully crafted Executive Agreements; Words and Phrases; In
in order to express the objective it seeks to attain. It is Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3
incumbent upon the Court to refrain from going beyond SCRA 351 (1961), executive agreements are defined
the plain meaning of the words used in the Constitution. as “international agreements embodying
It is presumed that the framers and the people meant adjustments of detail carrying out well-established
what they said when they said it, and that this national policies and traditions and those involving
understanding was reflected in the Constitution and arrangements of a more or less temporary nature.”—
understood by the people in the way it was meant to be In Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3
understood when the fundamental law was ordained and SCRA 351 (1961), executive agreements are defined as
promulgated. “international agreements embodying adjustments of
detail carrying out well-established national policies and
Foreign Military Bases; It is evident that the traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or
constitutional restriction refers solely to the initial less temporary nature.” In Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641
entry of the foreign military bases, troops, or SCRA 244 (2011), this Court further clarified that
facilities. Once entry is authorized, the subsequent executive agreements can cover a wide array of subjects
acts are thereafter subject only to the limitations that have various scopes and purposes. They are no
provided by the rest of the Constitution and longer limited to the traditional subjects that are usually
Philippine law, and not to the Section 25 requirement covered by executive agreements as identified in
of validity through a treaty.—It is evident that the Eastern Sea Trading.
constitutional restriction refers solely to the initial entry of
the foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. Once entry Same; International Agreements; After noted
is authorized, the subsequent acts are thereafter subject constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas quoted the
only to the limitations provided by the rest of the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) ruling in Commissioner of

61
Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351 (1961), for purposes of determining international rights and
the Constitutional Commission members ultimately obligations.
decided that the term “international agreements” as
contemplated in Section 21, Article VII, does not Same; Section 9 of Executive Order (EO) No. 459, or
include executive agreements, and that a proviso is the Guidelines in the Negotiation of International
no longer needed.—One of the distinguishing features Agreements and its Ratification, thus, correctly
of executive agreements is that their validity and reflected the inherent powers of the President when
effectivity are not affected by a lack of Senate it stated that the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
concurrence. This distinctive feature was recognized as “shall determine whether an agreement is an
early as in Eastern Sea Trading (1961), viz.: Treaties are executive agreement or a treaty.”—Indeed, in the field
formal documents which require ratification with the of external affairs, the President must be given a larger
approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Executive measure of authority and wider discretion, subject only
agreements become binding through executive action to the least amount of checks and restrictions under the
without the need of a vote by the Senate or by Constitution. The rationale behind this power and
Congress. x x x x [T]he right of the Executive to enter discretion was recognized by the Court in Vinuya v.
into binding agreements without the necessity of Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010), cited earlier. Section 9
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed of Executive Order No. 459, or the Guidelines in the
by long usage. From the earliest days of our history we Negotiation of International Agreements and its
have entered into executive agreements covering such Ratification, thus, correctly reflected the inherent powers
subjects as commercial and consular relations, most- of the President when it stated that the DFA “shall
favored-nation rights, patent rights, trademark and determine whether an agreement is an executive
copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements agreement or a treaty.” Accordingly, in the exercise of its
and the settlement of claims. The validity of these has power of judicial review, the Court does not look into
never been seriously questioned by our courts. whether an international agreement should be in the
(Emphases supplied) That notion was carried over to the form of a treaty or an executive agreement, save in
present Constitution. In fact, the framers specifically cases in which the Constitution or a statute requires
deliberated on whether the general term “international otherwise. Rather, in view of the vast constitutional
agreement” included executive agreements, and powers and prerogatives granted to the President in the
whether it was necessary to include an express proviso field of foreign affairs, the task of the Court is to
that would exclude executive agreements from the determine whether the international agreement is
requirement of Senate concurrence. After noted consistent with the applicable limitations.
constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas quoted the Court’s
ruling in Eastern Sea Trading, the Constitutional Foreign Military Bases; Enhanced Defense
Commission members ultimately decided that the term Cooperation Agreement; Visiting Forces Agreement;
“international agreements” as contemplated in Section The admission and presence of United States (U.S.)
21, Article VII, does not include executive agreements, military and civilian personnel in Philippine territory
and that a proviso is no longer needed. are already allowed under the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA), the treaty supposedly being
Same; Same; International practice has accepted the implemented by Enhanced Defense Cooperation
use of various forms and designations of Agreement (EDCA). What EDCA has effectively
international agreements, ranging from the done, in fact, is merely provide the mechanism to
traditional notion of a treaty — which connotes a identify the locations in which U.S. personnel may
formal, solemn instrument — to engagements perform allowed activities pursuant to the VFA.—The
concluded in modern, simplified forms that no admission and presence of U.S. military and civilian
longer necessitate ratification.—The special nature of personnel in Philippine territory are already allowed
an executive agreement is not just a domestic variation under the VFA, the treaty supposedly being
in international agreements. International practice has implemented by EDCA. What EDCA has effectively
accepted the use of various forms and designations of done, in fact, is merely provide the mechanism to identify
international agreements, ranging from the traditional the locations in which U.S. personnel may perform
notion of a treaty — which connotes a formal, solemn allowed activities pursuant to the VFA. As the
instrument — to engagements concluded in modern, implementing agreement, it regulates and limits the
simplified forms that no longer necessitate ratification. presence of U.S. personnel in the country.
An international agreement may take different forms:
treaty, act, protocol, agreement, concordat, compromis Same; Same; Nowhere in Enhanced Defense
d’arbitrage, convention, covenant, declaration, exchange Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) are United States
of notes, statute, pact, charter, agreed minute, (U.S.) contractors guaranteed immediate admission
memorandum of agreement, modus vivendi, or some into the Philippines; It is neither mandator nor
other form. Consequently, under international law, the obligatory on the part of the Philippines to admit
distinction between a treaty and an international United States (U.S.) contractors into the country.—
agreement or even an executive agreement is irrelevant Nowhere in EDCA are U.S. contractors guaranteed

62
immediate admission into the Philippines. Articles III and equity by virtue of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5487;
IV, in fact, merely grant them the right of access to, and and No. 15, which regulates contracts for the
the authority to conduct certain activities within the construction of defense-related structures based on
Agreed Locations. Since Article II(3) of EDCA Commonwealth Act No. 541.
specifically leaves out U.S. contractors from the
coverage of the VFA, they shall not be granted the same Same; Same; Same; United States (U.S.) contractors
entry accommodations and privileges as those enjoyed are explicitly excluded from the coverage of the
by U.S. military and civilian personnel under the VFA. Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). As visiting aliens,
Consequently, it is neither mandatory nor obligatory on their entry, presence, and activities are subject to all
the part of the Philippines to admit U.S. contractors into laws and treaties applicable within the Philippine
the country. We emphasize that the admission of aliens territory.—We emphasize that U.S. contractors are
into Philippine territory is “a matter of pure permission explicitly excluded from the coverage of the VFA. As
and simple tolerance which creates no obligation on the visiting aliens, their entry, presence, and activities are
part of the government to permit them to stay.” Unlike subject to all laws and treaties applicable within the
U.S. personnel who are accorded entry Philippine territory. They may be refused entry or
accommodations, U.S. contractors are subject to expelled from the country if they engage in illegal or
Philippine immigration laws. The latter must comply with undesirable activities. There is nothing that prevents
our visa and passport regulations and prove that they them from being detained in the country or being subject
are not subject to exclusion under any provision of to the jurisdiction of our courts. Our penal laws, labor
Philippine immigration laws. The President may also laws, and immigrations laws apply to them and therefore
deny them entry pursuant to his absolute and unqualified limit their activities here. Until and unless there is
power to prohibit or prevent the admission of aliens another law or treaty that specifically deals with their
whose presence in the country would be inimical to entry and activities, their presence in the country is
public interest. subject to unqualified Philippine jurisdiction.

Same; Same; Visiting Forces Agreement; Same; Same; Agreed Locations; The latest
Presidency; The President may exercise the plenary agreement is Enhanced Defense Cooperation
power to expel or deport U.S. contractors as may be Agreement (EDCA), which proposes a novel concept
necessitated by national security, public safety, termed “Agreed Locations.”—The latest agreement is
public health, public morals, and national interest; In EDCA, which proposes a novel concept termed “Agreed
contrast, Article 111(5) of the Visiting Forces Locations.” By definition, Agreed Locations are facilities
Agreement (VFA) requires a request for removal and areas that are provided by the Government of the
from the Philippine government before a member of Philippines through the AFP and that United States
the U.S. personnel may be “dispos[ed] x x x outside forces, United States contractors, and others as mutually
of the Philippines.”—In the same vein, the President agreed, shall have the right to access and use pursuant
may exercise the plenary power to expel or deport U.S. to this Agreement. Such Agreed Locations may be listed
contractors as may be necessitated by national security, in an annex to be appended to this Agreement, and may
public safety, public health, public morals, and national be further described in implementing arrangements.
interest. They may also be deported if they are found to Preliminarily, respondent already claims that the proviso
be illegal or undesirable aliens pursuant to the Philippine that the Philippines shall retain ownership of and title to
Immigration Act and the Data Privacy Act. In contrast, the Agreed Locations means that EDCA is “consistent
Article 111(5) of the VFA requires a request for removal with Article II of the VFA which recognizes Philippine
from the Philippine government before a member of the sovereignty and jurisdiction over locations within
U.S. personnel may be “dispos[ed] x x x outside of the Philippine territory.”
Philippines.”
Same; Same; Same; Enhanced Defense Cooperation
Same; Same; Same; Certain privileges denied to Agreement (EDCA) explicitly provides that
aliens are likewise denied to foreign military ownership of the Agreed Locations remains with the
contractors.—EDCA requires that all activities within Philippine government. What United States (U.S.)
Philippine territory be in accordance with Philippine law. personnel have a right to, pending mutual
This means that certain privileges denied to aliens are agreement, is access to and use of these locations.
likewise denied to foreign military contractors. —Once ownership is established, then the rights of
Relevantly, providing security and carrying, owning, and ownership flow freely. Article 428 of the Civil Code
possessing firearms are illegal for foreign civilians. The provides that “[t]he owner has the right to enjoy and
laws in place already address issues regarding the dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those
regulation of contractors. In the 2015 Foreign Investment established by law.” Moreover, the owner “has also a
Negative list, the Executive Department has already right of action against the holder and possessor of the
identified corporations that have equity restrictions in thing in order to recover it.” Philippine civil law therefore
Philippine jurisdiction. Of note is No. 5 on the list — accords very strong rights to the owner of property, even
private security agencies that cannot have any foreign against those who hold the property. Possession, after

63
all, merely raises a disputable presumption of ownership, Filipino people exist. Significantly, the Philippines retains
which can be contested through normal judicial primary responsibility for security with respect to the
processes. In this case, EDCA explicitly provides that Agreed Locations. Hence, Philippine law remains in
ownership of the Agreed Locations remains with the force therein, and it cannot be said that jurisdiction has
Philippine government. What U.S. personnel have a right been transferred to the U.S. Even the previously
to, pending mutual agreement, is access to and use of discussed necessary measures for operational control
these locations. and defense over U.S. forces must be coordinated with
Philippine authorities. Jurisprudence bears out the fact
Same; Same; Same; So long as the right of that even under the former legal regime of the MBA,
ownership itself is not transferred, then whatever Philippine laws continue to be in force within the bases.
rights are transmitted by agreement does not The difference between then and now is that EDCA
completely divest the owner of the rights over the retains the primary jurisdiction of the Philippines over the
property, but may only limit them in accordance with security of the Agreed Locations, an important provision
law.—The right of the owner of the property to allow that gives it actual control over those locations.
access and use is consistent with the Civil Code, since Previously, it was the provost marshal of the U.S. who
the owner may dispose of the property in whatever way kept the peace and enforced Philippine law in the bases.
deemed fit, subject to the limits of the law. So long as In this instance, Philippine forces act as peace officers,
the right of ownership itself is not transferred, then in stark contrast to the 1947 MBA provisions on
whatever rights are transmitted by agreement does not jurisdiction.
completely divest the owner of the rights over the
property, but may only limit them in accordance with law. Same; Same; Same; Even if the lawfulness of the
Hence, even control over the property is something that attack were not in question, international
an owner may transmit freely. This act does not translate humanitarian law standards prevent participants in
into the full transfer of ownership, but only of certain an armed conflict from targeting nonparticipants.—
rights. In Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Even if the lawfulness of the attack were not in question,
Davao, Inc. v. Land Registration Commission, 102 Phil. international humanitarian law standards prevent
596 (1957), we stated that the constitutional proscription participants in an armed conflict from targeting
on property ownership is not violated despite the foreign nonparticipants. International humanitarian law, which is
national’s control over the property. the branch of international law applicable to armed
conflict, expressly limits allowable military conduct
Same; Same; Same; For actual operations, exhibited by forces of a participant in an armed conflict.
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) Under this legal regime, participants to an armed conflict
is clear that any activity must be planned and are held to specific standards of conduct that require
preapproved by the Mutual Defense Board-Security them to distinguish between combatants and non-
Engagement Board (MDB-SEB).—The legal concept of combatants, as embodied by the Geneva Conventions
operational control involves authority over personnel in a and their Additional Protocols.
commander-subordinate relationship and does not
include control over the Agreed Locations in this Same; Same; Same; There is ample legal protection
particular case. Though not necessarily stated in EDCA for the Philippines under international law that
provisions, this interpretation is readily implied by the would ensure its territorial integrity and national
reference to the taking of “appropriate measures to security in the event an Agreed Location is
protect United States forces and United States subjected to attack.—Any armed attack by forces of a
contractors.” It is but logical, even necessary, for the third state against an Agreed Location can only be
U.S. to have operational control over its own forces, in legitimate under international humanitarian law if it is
much the same way that the Philippines exercises against a bona fide U.S. military base, facility, or
operational control over its own units. For actual installation that directly contributes to the military effort of
operations, EDCA is clear that any activity must be the U.S. Moreover, the third state’s forces must take all
planned and preapproved by the MDB-SEB. This measures to ensure that they have complied with the
provision evinces the partnership aspect of EDCA, such principle of distinction (between combatants and non-
that both stakeholders have a say on how its provisions combatants). There is, then, ample legal protection for
should be put into effect. the Philippines under international law that would ensure
its territorial integrity and national security in the event
Same; Same; Same; The Philippines retains primary an Agreed Location is subjected to attack. As EDCA
responsibility for security with respect to the Agreed stands, it does not create the situation so feared by
Locations.—From the text of EDCA itself, Agreed petitioners — one in which the Philippines, while not
Locations are territories of the Philippines that the U.S. participating in an armed conflict, would be legitimately
forces are allowed to access and use. By withholding targeted by an enemy of the U.S.
ownership of these areas and retaining unrestricted
access to them, the government asserts sovereignty Same; Same; Visiting Forces Agreement; The
over its territory. That sovereignty exists so long as the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) already authorizes

64
the presence of United States (U.S.) military
equipment in the country.—The provisions in EDCA
dealing with Agreed Locations are analogous to those in
the aforementioned executive agreements. Instead of
authorizing the building of temporary structures as
previous agreements have done, EDCA authorizes the
U.S. to build permanent structures or alter or improve
existing ones for, and to be owned by, the Philippines.
EDCA is clear that the Philippines retains ownership of
altered or improved facilities and newly constructed
permanent or non-relocatable structures. Under EDCA,
U.S. forces will also be allowed to use facilities and
areas for “training; x x x; support and related activities; x
x x; temporary accommodation of personnel;
communications” and agreed activities. Concerns on
national security problems that arise from foreign military
equipment being present in the Philippines must likewise
be contextualized. Most significantly, the VFA already
authorizes the presence of U.S. military equipment in the
country. Article VII of the VFA already authorizes the
U.S. to import into or acquire in the Philippines
“equipment, materials, supplies, and other property” that
will be used “in connection with activities” contemplated
therein. The same section also recognizes that “[t]itle to
such property shall remain” with the US and that they
have the discretion to “remove such property from the
Philippines at any time.” Saguisag vs. Ochoa, Jr., 779
SCRA 241, G.R. No. 212426, G.R. No. 212444 January
12, 2016

65