Alf Itl 2015 Unencrypted Edited Table

Introduction To
Law
Comprehensive
Notes
2015

AQUILA LEGIS FRATERNITY
Fly Higher Brother Fly!

William Veto, 1949
4th place, 1951
Solon Garcia, 1969A
4th place, 1972
Jose Reyes, 1950
4th place, 1953
Vicente Solis, 1970B
1st place, 1973
Antonio Quintos, 1951
7th place, 1954
Augusto Panlilio, 1972A
4th place, 1975
Rufino Luna, 1951
7th place, 1955
RoldanDalman, 1972A
6th place, 1975
Gabriel Singson, 1952
2nd place, 1952
Ruben Cleofe, 1973A
8th place, 1977
MeynardoTiro, 1952
9th place, 1952
Nicolas Gomez, Jr., 1973A
10th place,1977
Ernesto Maceda, Jr., 1953
10th place, 1956
VirgilioGesmundo, 1973A
1st place, 1977
Amado Santiago, 1954
9th place, 1958
Vicente Ruaro, 1974A
4th place, 1974
Antonio Navarette, 1955
2nd place, 1957
Gregorio Batiller, Jr., 1975A
1st place, 1979
Sergio Apostol, 1955
7th place, 1958
Marius Corpus, 1975A
4th place, 1979
Jose Brillantes, 1956
6th place, 1960
GiorgidiAggabao, 1976
10th place,1980
RedentorSalonga, 1956
4th place, 1960
Noel Sanchez, 1976
7th place, 1980
Adolfo Angala, 1960
7th place, 1964
Reynaldo Salutan, 1976
5th place, 1980
Arthur Cabilete, 1963B
7th place, 1966
Jose Jesus Laurel, 1977A
6th place, 1981
Ramon Aviado, Jr., 1963A
9th place, 1966
Efren de Leon, 1978A
7th place, 1982
BasilioAlo, 1963B
3rd place, 1967
Thaddeus Venturanza, 1985
5th place, 1989
LuisitoBaluyot, 1963A
5th place, 1967
Ding Concepcion, 1987B
9th place, 1990
TeodoroVillarmia, Jr., 1964B
3rd place, 1966
Nelson Victorino, 1989B
4th place, 1992
Franklin Ebdalin, 1965A
10th place, 1967
Francis Ampil, 1994
3rd place, 1999
Raul Cabrera, 1965A
7th place, 1968
Grain Baysa-Pee, 1995A
10th place,1999
Arthur Soller, 1965A
4th place, 1969
Darren L. Salipsip, 1998B
10th place,2010
Liberador Villegas, 1968A
3rd place, 1971
Eric David Tan, 2005B
5th place, 2009
Prospero Nograles, 1968A

JanuarioSoller, Jr., 1968B
2nd place, 1971

1st place, 1972
Yves-Randolph Gonzalez, 2005A
6th place, 2009

1st place, 2010
Cesareo Antonio S. Singzon, Jr., 2006A

Aquila

Legis Fraternity Bar Topnotchers
Table of Contents
Day 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Day 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Do I Have Rights?
Republic v Sandiganbayan ............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Could Morality Be Legislated?
Imbong v Ochoa ................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Do You Care for Me?
Oposa v Factoran .............................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Resident Marine Mammals v Reyes ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Phillenials All
Disini v Secretary of Justice ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Peace Be With You
Cruz v DENR ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Province of North Cotabato v GRP Peace Panel ........................................................................................................... 35
Of Pork and Beans
Belgica v Executive Secretary Ochoa ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Araullo v Aquino ................................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Day 3 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

DWORKINS INTERPRETATIVE THEORY
Day 1
would properly fit to the law is the principle of privacy. A

rationale to the rule would protect the people from the
government.
Rules and principles: the idea of Fit

According to Dworkin, legal interpretation requires
moral judgments. Laws are more than the rules explicitly
authorized. They are not mere collection of norms, but
rather an expression of the philosophy of government.
The law consists of the explicitly adopted
PLUS the best Moral Principle that lie behind those
The principles serve as legitimate bases for
decisions and help guide in the interpretation of
cases.
rules
rules.
legal
legal
Dworkin also stated that there must be a degree of

FIT between a proposed principle and the rules. There
are two aspects of fit. First, there must be a logical
consistency between the rules, although total
consistency is not required. Second, there must be an
underlying principle to justify a rationale for the rules.
Example: Fitting the Fourth Amendment privacy
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure by
the government. It would be reasonable to assume that
the right of the government to do whatever it can to
punish criminal activities is not a fit. A principle that

Olmstead and beyond

Knowing the underlying principle would help in
the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The right to
privacy should be interpreted to include new technology.
In the 1928 case of Olmstead v. United States, the court
ruled that the wiretap used against the accused without
a warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The
court declared that the amendment only refers to
searches and seizures involving physical intrusion. They
failed to consider the fact that the makers of the law
might not have predicted the arrival of new technologies
(such as wiretapping) which could also violate the Fourth
Amendment.
Using Dworkins method would provide a different
approach to a case like Olmstead. Since the moral
principle is that of privacy, it would be clear that it
would not be limited to the physical aspect of the right to
privacy. Privacy has two aspects, the physical and the
informational. Wiretapping would fall under the
informational aspect. As such, the Fourth Amendment
protecting the right to privacy must not be limited to
physical unreasonable searches and seizure, but include
unauthorized gathering of information.
However, it is insufficient to familiarize ourselves

with the Moral Principle alone. For example: The concept
of privacy is a complex subject in which people have
differing views. People agreeing on the subject of
wiretapping may differ on other matters of privacy such
as contraceptives.
The role of morality
Dworkins solution is to look into morality. For him,
the law consists of the rules explicitly adopted by the
political community plus the best moral principle. This
understanding would enable us to find legal answers to
cases, which the explicit rules cannot answer. But moral
judgments are notoriously controversial. Dworkin says
that each person must decide for himself. Following his
method would give the judge a good-faith decision. This
is what gives judicial decisions authority. Additionally,
Dworkin said that there is Integrity in the law. Integrity
is acquired by the rules explicitly adopted by the political
community plus the best moral principle raises law in
the moral domain.
The challenge of skepticism
Dworkins appeal to morality may, instead of
giving a right answer, ensure that there is none since
there is no right answer to moral questions. In response,
he claimed that the existence of disagreements does not
mean there is no right answer.
make them true or false. Dworkin responded by saying

that this is a false premise since there are things that do
not need such proofs. For example, to say that torturing
babies is wrong does not need proof to say such is true.
Unfortunately, Dworkin did not provide a method to
establish the correct moral reasoning. (A flaw from
Dworkins reasoning is that there is an assumption of a
right answer.)
Internal skepticism is the theory that the legal system
is fundamentally unjust. The policies and laws are
reflective only of those in power. This refutes Dworkins
idea that the law has integrity and is raised from power
politics. Moreover, it says that the laws are filled with
inconsistencies that it is im-possible to reflect a coherent
underlying philosophy.
Assessing Dworkin
Dworkins interpretation of natural law serves as a
bridge between Aquinas and Fuller. Unlike Aquinas, he
does not say unjust laws are invalid laws. And unlike
Fuller, he does not say that legality gives moral
obligation to follow.
Dworkin emphasizes that there is a moral aspect to legal
interpretation and it is based on its Integrity. There are
flaws to his assessment. He gives judges the authority to
base decisions on their morality rather than follow
established norms. In addition, he never explained why
law must necessarily have a moral dimension.
LEGAL POSITIVISM: OVERVIEW
External skepticism is the theory that we live in

an empirical world and that moral questions cannot be
answered because nothing in this empirical world can

Legal positivism rejects the idea from natural law

that laws are necessarily just. (Austin and Hart)

AUSTINS THEORY OF LAW
Law as command
however rejects the idea of international law, as there is

no global sovereign.
Assessing Austin
Austin, laws are rules laid down by superiors to

guide the actions of their subordinates. Rules are species
of command. Some commands require or prohibit
certain actions. And since laws are commands, they
impose an obligation to whom it is addressed. In
consequence of this, they are liable to sanctions in case
their obligation is breached.
Austins interpretation that the natural law

theorists refusal to implement unjust laws would lead to
confusion may be due to the different circumstances
during his time. It was unlike the medieval times when
there was a single value system, which was when
Aquinas theory was made.
Some rules are not laid down but are of general

opinion. For example, giving help to those in need is not
a positive law. He calls these, positive morality.
HART: LAW AS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RULES

Types of legal Rules: Harts critique of Austins command
theory
Positive laws are established by the sovereign of an

independent political society. The sovereign is the
supreme ruler- the source of power and not of justice or
other moral concept. The sovereign does not even have to
claim to be just. As such, there is no connection between
legal and moral obligation. The concept of law is purely
power.
According to Austin, to say that unjust laws are invalid
laws would lead to anarchy. This will show that the
judicial system is inconclusive. But he does not claim
that there is no connection between positive law and
morality. Positive moral-ity is a good source of positive
law, but it is not dependent on it. Moreover, Austin
recognizes that all humans are under moral obligation
imposed by God.
Certain types of rules cannot be adequately

understood as commands that prohibit or require. Some
legal rules instead empower individuals to do things that
would have otherwise been impossible for them to do.
The defendants at the Nuremberg trial used

Austinian theory when they asserted innocence. Austin

Power Conferring Rules legal rules that empower

individuals
- Private persons: e.g. rules of contract. Individuals
could agree with one another to do certain things,
but those agreements would not be legally binding
contracts with-out the rules of contract law.
-
Public officials: e.g. judges are conferred the power

to interpret and apply laws; legislators the power
to make and alter it; and executive officials the
power to enforce it.
Power Conferring Rules cannot be properly

considered as Commands. While the two are similar in
the sense that both their goals is to alter the world in
some way rather than just describe the world as it is,
their method of achieving this goal differs. A command
seeks to realize its goal by compelling or preventing an
act from an individual. Power Conferring Rules,
meanwhile, only allow an individual to do things he or
she would have otherwise been unable to do. There is no
compulsion to speak of.
However, Austin failed to draw a relevant distinction
be-tween the commands of the sovereign and the
declarations of a sovereign. Power conferring rules must
also issue from the sovereign, i.e., these rules are
declarations of the sovereign.
Legal Obligation: Government and Gunman
According to Hart, Austins conception of legal
obligation is seriously defective.
-
Austin: for a person to have a legal obligation to do

(or not do) an act, he must stand under some
general command of the sovereign and risks
having some sanction inflicted on him should he
fail to comply.
Hart: based on Austins conception, it is
impossible to correctly distinguish a government
from a gunman.
o Being obliged to do something is not the
same as being obligated to do it.

o Governments are different from gunmen, i.e.,

governments can create obligations by
enacting laws while gunmen through their
commands (threats and orders) cannot
create any obligationmoral, legal, or any
other kind.
o Hart rejects natural law approach to
distinguish governments from gunmen
based on a connection of law and morality,
which is absent from the gunmans orders.
o The idea of an obligation must be explained
in terms of the idea of rule
A rule exists when people generally (1) act in a certain
way and (2) regards deviations from that way of acting as
something to be criticized
-
condition (1) is external involving out-ward

behavior
condition (2) is internal involving the attitude

people take
Harts conception: a person has an obligation when a

certain kind of rule applies to him/her.
-
There must be a great deal of social pressure to

con-form to the rule
The rule must help maintain an aspect of society

that is important and valuable.

-
-
It must sometimes require a person to act contrary

to his/her individual self-interest.
All societies have rules that impose obligations but

not all have rules that impose legal obligation
because not all societies have legal systems.
In order to have a legal system, a society must

have certain special kinds of rules over and above
the rules that impose obligations
Primary and Secondary Rules

Primary Rules: Rules imposing obligations
Secondary Rules: Harts refers to the following three
special kinds of rules as secondary rules.
-
First, a society with a legal system must have a

rule that singles out the rules that actually do
impose obligations in that society.
o Rule of Recognition people in a society
recognize the rules under which they will be
officially held accountable. This helps
diminish
uncertainty
over
what
the
obligations of people in the society are.
o Rules singled out by the rule of recognition
are the legally valid rules of that society.
Second, a society must have rules that specify how

the legally valid rules can be changed.

Third, a society must have rules that empower

specific individuals to enforce and apply that
societys legally valid rules.
Hart: Legal system a system that brings together both

primary and secondary rules
In a functioning legal system:
- People must generally comply with the legally valid
primary rules; they do not need to have an internal
perspective; they only need to comply with those
rules and may do so only from fear of punishment;
primary rules are perceived merely as commands
and will not regard violations as something to be
criticized.
-
Public officials must accept the secondary rules

and the primary rules identified by the rule of
recognition; they must adopt an internal
perspective; departures are something to be
criticized.
Question: Is International Law (IL) a legal system based

on the Hart conception?
-
It is unclear whether there was any rule of

recognition specifying primary rules that obligated
nations
IL clearly lacks secondary rules authorizing

particular agencies to enforce those binding
primary rules
sovereigns and governments that operate through

a system of secondary and primary rules. It would
have been better for Hart to have described the
difference between arbitrary and rule-governed
political systems without insisting that only the
latter can impose legal obligations.
Hart: existence of a legal system is a matter of

degree, not an all-or nothing affair.
Assessing Hart
- Harts conception of obligation is no different from
Austins.
-
Harts extreme case scenario (where people comply

with the legally valid primary rules solely out of
fear) does not seem essentially different from the
gunman situation.
Harts conception can be maintained if he

concedes the natural approach by giving up the
positivist separation of positive law and morality.
Harts conception can be sustained is he were to

distinguish a government under the rule of law
from an arbitrary government. A government of
laws is unlike a gunman in that its exercise of
power
is
regulated
by
secondary
rules.
Government whether arbitrary or regulated by
rules has sovereign power, while the gunman lacks
it; it is not a matter of how it is exercised justly or
unjustly but rather it is matter of whether the
agent or agency has the sovereign power to rule
society.
The point of positivism is that law does not need to

meet any moral test in order to possess validity or
authority.
Hart: morality aside, there is no point of
distinguishing
between
arbitrary
Austinian

LAW AS THE UNION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY

RULES
A Fresh Start
The last three chapters demonstrate the failure of
the simple model of law, as the sovereigns coercive
orders, to demonstrate some of the salient features of a
legal system. Hence, the need for a fresh start.
Main reasons why the over-simple theory failed:
-
There are laws that commonly also apply to those

who enact it and not merely to the subordinates.
There are varieties of laws
There are legal rules which differ from order in

their mode of origin
The analysis of law in terms of the sovereign failed

to account for the continuity of legislative
authority
Other conceptions that failed

-
Tacit Order have no application to the complex

actualities of a modern legal system.
Power Conferring Rules a devise to reconcile the

self-binding character of legislation with the theory
that a statute is an order given to others
legislators have an official capacity and a separate
personality.
The elements on which the theory was constructed
order, obedience, habits, and threats, and their
combinations do not produce the idea of rule.
Rules: Primary and secondary the union of the two

elucidates the concepts that constitute the framework of
legal thought.
The Idea of Obligation
Crucial Step: Building a new account of law in terms of
the interplay of primary and secondary rules
- Gunman situation: A orders B to hand over his
money and threatens to shoot him if he does not
comply.
If B obeyed:
- B was obliged to do it. statement of beliefs and
motives with which the action is done; a
psychological one; normally carries the implication
that he actually did it.
-
B had an obligation to do it. was obligednot

sufficient to warrant this statement; beliefs and
motives are not necessary; remains true and
independent of the question of fact.

Objections to Empirical approach to obligation: Chance

or likelihood that a person having the obligation to do
something will suffer punishment or evil at the hands of
others in the event of disobedience.
(1)
Fundamental objection: where rules exist,

deviations from them are not merely grounds
for a prediction.
(2)
Simpler reason: statement that a person had an

obligation meant that he was likely to suffer in
the event of disobedience may as well be true
and unless in general, sanctions were likely to
be exacted from offenders, there would be no
point in making particular statements about a
persons obligation.
Obligation is not be found in the gunman situation

-Existence of social rules
a. Though unstated, making certain types of behavior
standard is the normal background or proper context
(normative
vocabulary:
ought,
must,
should;
obligation and duty)
b. Applying a general rule to a particular person by
calling attention to the fact that his case falls under it.
Differentiating social rules from mere habits
indispensable for understanding the notion
obligations or duty, but it is not sufficient by itself.
10
is
of

The statement that someone has or is under obligation
implies the existence of a rule. But it is not always the
case that rules exist when the standard of behavior
required by them is conceived of in terms of obligation.
He ought to have and He had an obligation to are not
always interchangeable expression. Note: rules of
etiquette or correct speech.
Rules are conceived and spoken of as imposing
obligation when the general demand for conformity is
insistent and the social pressure brought to bear upon
those who deviate or threaten to deviate is great.
Simple social structure - Society without a legislature,

courts or officials customs
Primary rules of obligation = Customs
Conditions:
a. Rules must contain some form of restrictions (e.g. free
use of violence, theft, etc.)
b. Those who accept the rules must be more than the
those who reject the rules
Primary characteristic: what is important is that the

seriousness of social pressure behind the rules is the
primary factor determining whether they are thought of
as giving rise to obligations.
Defects:
a. Uncertainty defect in the simple social structure
Two other characteristics: First: The rules are believed to

be necessary to the maintenance of social order or some
highly prized feature of it. (Sacrifice)
c. Inefficiency diffuse social pressure
Second: The conduct required by these rules may, while

benefiting others, conflict with what the person who
owes the duty may wish to do. (Renunciation)
Hence obligations and duties are thought of as
characteristically involving sacrifice and renunciation.
Bond = Obligation,Debt = Duty
Performanceexact the penalty
The Elements of Law

b. Static Character slow process of change and growth
Remedy: supplementing primary rules with secondary

rules
a. Uncertainty rule of recognition
b. Static Character rules of change
c. Inefficiency rules of adjudication
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Sources of Doubt
The idea of the union of primary and secondary
rules is a sufficient condition for the application of the
expression legal system.
11

Is International Law really law?
This question arises from the idea that
international law not only lacks the secondary rules of
change and adjudication which provide for legislature
and courts, but also a unifying rule of recognition
specifying sources of law and providing general criteria
for the identification of its rules.
Municipal law is taken as the clear standard
example of what law is.
Two Principal Sources of Doubts
a) The first has its roots deep in the conception of law
as fundamentally a matter of orders backed by
threats and contrasts the character of the rules of
international law with those of municipal law.
b) The second form of doubt springs from the
obscure belief that states are fundamentally
incapable of being the subjects of legal obligation,
and contrasts the character of the subjects of
international law with those of municipal law.
Obligations and Sanctions
What is meant by saying of a whole system of law
that it is binding?
The statement that a particular rule of a system is
binding on a particular person is one familiar to lawyers
and tolerably clear in meaning. We may paraphrase it by
the assertion that the rule in question is a valid rule,

and under it the person in question has some obligation

or duty.
Conflict of laws or in public international law
happens when we may be doubtful in certain
circumstances whether one legal system or another
applies to a particular person.
Two Forms of argument
a.) To argue that international law is not binding because of its lack of organized sanctions is tacitly to
accept the analysis of obligation contained in the theory
that law is essentially a matter of orders backed by
threats.
b.) The skeptic may point out that there are in a
municipal system, as we have ourselves stressed, certain
provisions which are justifiably called necessary; among
these are primary rules of obligation, prohibiting the free
use of violence, and rules of providing for the official use
of force as a sanction for these and other rules.
Just because the simple truisms which hold good for
individuals do not hold good for states, and the factual
background to international law is so different from that
of municipal law, there is neither a similar necessity for
sanctions nor a similar prospect of their safe and
efficacious use. This is so because aggression between
states is very unlike that between individuals. The use of
violence between states must be public, and though
there is no international police force, there can be very
little certainty that it will remain a matter between
12

aggressor and victim, as a murder or theft, in the
absence of a police force, might.
Even so much may be secured, it shows that no simple
deduction can be made from the necessity of organized
sanctions to municipal law, in its setting of physical and
psychological
facts.
Thus,
without
sanctions,
international law, in its very different setting, imposes no
obligations, is not binding, and so not worth the tile of
law.
The uncritical use of the idea of sovereignty has spread

similar confusion in the theory of both municipal and
international law. Belief in the necessary existence of the
legally unlimited sovereign prejudges the questions:
a) For municipal law - what is the extent of the
supreme legislative authority recognized in this
system?
b) For International law what is the maximum
areas of autonomy which the rules allow to states?
Obligation and the Sovereignty of states
Theory of auto-limitation
One of the most persistent sources of perplexity about

the obligatory character of international law has been
the difficulty felt in accepting or explaining the fact that
a state which is sovereign may also be bound by, or has
an obligation under, international law.
Individuals, naturally free and independent, were bound

by municipal law, by treating the obligation to obey the
law as one arising from a contract by being bound to
each other and in some cases with their rulers.
Threefold argument of auto-limitation against the
voluntarist theories of international law:
A State refers to:

a.) A population inhabiting a territory which lives under
a form of ordered government provided by a legal system
with its characteristic structure of legislature, courts,
and primary rules;
b.) A the government that enjoys a vaguely defined
degree of independence
Dependence of one territorial unit to another is not the
only way in which a States independence may be limited.
In-dependence may also be limited by an international
authority which affects units that are independent of
each other.

1. The theories fail to completely explain how it is known

that states can only be bound by self-imposed
obligations, or why this view of their sovereignty should
be accepted in advance of any examination of the actual
character of international law.
2. There is something incoherent in the argument
designed to show that states, because of their
sovereignty, can only be subject to or bound by rules
which they have imposed upon themselves.
3. The claim that states can only be bound by selfimposed obligations should be distinguished from the
13

claim that they could be bound in other ways un-der a
different system.
obey its rules, though this may be overridden in special

exceptional cases.
International Law and Morality
Analogies of form and content
The insistence that rules governing the relations between states are only moral rules is inspired by the old
dogmatism that any form of social structure that is not
reducible to order backed by threats can only be a form
of morality.
One salient difference between municipal and

international law is that the former usually does not
recognize the validity of agreements extorted by violence.
Reasons for resisting the classification of its rules as

morality.
-
States often reproach each other for immoral

conduct or praise themselves or others for living
up to the standard of international morality.
Claims under international law are not couched in

moral terms, but in municipal law, it may be
joined with a moral appeal.
Law, however, while it also contains moral importance,

can and does contain just moral rules, and the arbitrary
distinctions, formalities, and highly specific details
which would be most difficult to understand as part of
morality, are consequently natural and easily
comprehensible features of law.
Even if particular rules of Municipal Law conflict with
morality, the system as a whole must rest on a generally
diffused conviction that there is a moral obligation to

Kelsen and many modern theorists insist that, like

municipal law, international law possesses and indeed
must possess a basic norm, or what we have termed a
rule of recognition, by reference to which the validity of
the other rules of the system is assessed, and in virtue of
which the rules constitute a single system. The opposite
view is that this analogy of structure is false:
international law simply consists of a set of separate
primary rules of obligation which are not united in this
manner.
The validity of the rules cannot be demonstrated
by reference to any more basic rule. The rules of the
simple structure are, like the basic rule of the more
advanced systems, binding if they are accepted and
function as such.
It is worth noting that
- The analogy is one of the content not of form
-
In analogy of content, no other social rules are so

close to municipal law as those of international
law.
14
Day 2

Do I Have Rights?
A raiding team went to the house of Elizabeth Dimaano

(Dimaano, co-respondent), mistress of Ramas, armed
with a search warrant captioned Illegal Possession of
REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN
GR 104768, July 21, 2003
Firearms and Ammunition. The team then confiscated

military
equipment/items
and
communications
equipment, in addition, the team was also able to
Facts:
confiscate money in the amount of P2,870,000.00
Pres. Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1
and $50,000. Sworn statement in the record disclosed
creating
that Elizabeth Dimaano had no visible means of income.
the
Presidential
Commission
on
Good
Government (PCGG, petitioner). EO No. 1 primarily

tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former
The Solicitor General then filed an Amended Complaint
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family,
alleging
relatives, subordinates and close associates. The PCGG
properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as
then created the AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board)
an army officer and his other income from legitimately
tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and
acquired property, taking undue advantage of his public
corrupt practices by AFP personnel (active or retired).
office and/or using his power, authority and influence as
The
alleged
officer of the AFP and as a subordinate and close
unexplained wealth of Major General Josephus Q.
associate of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.
Ramas (Ramas, respondent).
This is in violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
PCGG
investigated
various
reports

of
that
Ramas
acquired
funds,
assets
15
and

Practices
Act)
and RA
1379 (The
Act
for
the
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case in favor of
Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property). The
Ramas and Dimaano, and also ruled that there was an
Amended Complaint prayed for the forfeiture of Ramas
illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated,
properties, funds and equipment in favor of the State.
making them inadmissible in evidence. Due to this

dismissal, the Republic of the Philippines filed this
During
the
continuation
of
the
trial,
the
PCGG
petition.
manifested its inability to proceed to trial because of the

absence of other witnesses or lack of further evidence to
present. The Sandiganbayan noted that petitioner had
already delayed the case for over a year mainly because
Issues:
1. Whether or not the PCGG has the jurisdiction to investigate
the respondents? - No, they did not have the jurisdiction
of its many postponements. The Sandiganbayan ordered

PCGG to prepare for presentation of its additional
2. Whether or not the case was properly dismissed by the
evidence, but they still failed to do so.
Sandiganbayan? - Yes
Ramas and Dimaano then filed their motions to dismiss
3. Whether or not the revolutionary government was bound by
based
the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the
on
Republic
v.
Migrino
(Cruz
Jr.
vs.
Sandiganbayan was also a cited case similar to this one).

The Court held in Migrino that the PCGG does not have
jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers
by reason of mere position held without a showing that
they are subordinates of former President Marcos.
interregnum, (after the actual and effective take-over of power

by President Cory Aquino)? - No, the revolutionary government
was not bound by the 1973 Constitution
4.Whether or not protection accorded to individuals under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant")
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration")
remained

in
effect during
the
interregnum?
Yes,
16
the

revolutionary
government
only
repudiated
the
1973
Constitution, not the Covenant or the Declaration
The Republic does not claim that Ramas case was

assigned to the PCGG. Therefore, Ramas case should
fall under the first category of AFP personnel before the
5.) Whether or not the search and seizure of Dimaanos

properties was legal? - Partly, Yes. It is only legal as to the
property indicated in the search warrant, those seized items not
in the warrant should be returned to Dimaano.
PCGG could exercise its jurisdiction over him. The main

argument for claiming that Ramas was a Marcos
subordinate
is
because
of
his
position
as
the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army. The

Supreme
Held:
Court
holds
that
Ramas
was
not
subordinate of former President Marcos in the sense
1.) The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only
contemplated under EO No. 1 and its amendments.
investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices
Mere position held by a military officer does not
of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two
automatically make him a subordinate absent a
categories mentioned in Section 2 of EO No. 1. These
showing that he enjoyed close association with former
are: (1) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten
President Marcos.
wealth during the administration of former President

Marcos by being the latters immediate family, relative,
Moreover, the resolution of the AFP Board and even the
subordinate
undue
Amended Complaint do not show that the properties
advantage of their public office or using their powers,
Ramas allegedly owned were accumulated by him in his
influence xxx; or (2) AFP personnel involved in other
capacity as a subordinate of President Marcos.
or
close
associate,
taking
cases of graft and corruption provided the President

assigns their cases to the PCGG.
Given the fact that Ramas case does not fall within any
of the 2 classes that the PCGG can investigate, then the
PCGG does not have jurisdiction over this case.

17

operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed
2.) The PCGG has only itself to blame for non-completion
Ramas and Dimaanos exclusionary right (that evidence
of the presentation of its evidence. First, this case has
illegally seized cannot be used against a suspect in a
been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan
criminal prosecution).
dismissed it. PCGG had almost two years to prepare its

evidence. However, despite this sufficient time, the
During the interregnum (a period of time when there is a
PCGG still delayed the presentation of the rest of its
vacancy or there is no formal government), the directives
evidence by filing numerous motions for postponements
and orders of the revolutionary government was the
and extensions. The Sandiganbayan gave petitioner more
supreme law because no constitution limited the extent
than sufficient time to finish the presentation of its
and scope of such directives and orders. With the
evidence. The Sandiganbayan overlooked petitioners
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the revolution,
delays and yet petitioner ended the long-string of delays
there was no municipal law higher than the directives
with the filing of a Re-Amended Complaint, which would
and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus,
only prolong the disposition of the case even more.
during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any

exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there
3.) The raid done on Dimaanos house was done 5 days
was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the
after the EDSA People Power. PCGG argues that a
interregnum
revolutionary government was operative at that time by
Constitution on February 2, 1987.
until
the
ratification
of
the
1987
virtue of Proclamation No. 1 announcing that President

Aquino and Vice President Laurel were taking power in
4.) The Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was
the name and by the will of the Filipino people, in
not operative during the interregnum. However, the
defiance of the 1973 Constitution. PCGG asserts that the
court rules that the protection accorded to individuals
revolutionary government effectively

under
withheld
the
International
Agreements
to
which
18
the

Philippines is a signatory, is still in effect during the
the same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As
Interregnum; the International Covenant on Civil and
the de jure government, the revolutionary government
Political Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration
could not escape responsibility for the States good faith
of Human Rights (Declaration).
compliance
with
its
treaty
obligations
under
international law.
The revolutionary government, after installing itself as
The Bill of Rights as found in the 1973 Constitution was
the de jure government (the legal, legitimate government
not operative during the period of Interregnum. However,
of a state and is so recognized by other states), assumed
due to the Philippines being signatory to the Covenant
responsibility for the States good faith compliance with
and the Declaration, Ramas and Dimaano still pretty
the Covenant. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each
much had their exclusionary rights and was protected
signatory
from Illegal Search and Seizures.
State
to
respect
and
to
ensure
to
all
individuals within its territory and subject to its

jurisdiction
the
present
5.) During the time of this case, all directives and orders
Covenant. Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the
issued by government officers were valid so long as these
revolutionary government had the duty to insure that
officers did not exceed the authority granted them by the
[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
revolutionary government, in addition they should not
interference
or
have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. The
correspondence. The Declaration provides in its Article
warrant, issued by a judge upon proper application,
17(2) that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
specified the items to be searched and seized and the
property.
warrant is thus valid with respect to the items
with
rights
his
recognized
privacy,
in
the
family,
home
specifically described in the warrant. The basis for the

The revolutionary government did not repudiate the
protection of the people from unlawful seizure is not the
Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum in

Bill of Rights but the Covenant and the Declaration.
19

The raiding team seized items not included in the
warrant; clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority
when it seized these items. The seizure of these items
was
therefore
void,
and
unless
these
items
Could Morality Be
Legislated?
are
contraband per se, they must be returned to the person
IMBONG v. OCHOA
G.R. No. 204819
from whom the raiding team seized them. However, the

court does not declare that such person is the lawful
owner of these items, merely that the search and seizure
warrant could not be used as basis to seize and withhold
Facts:
these items from the possessor. The court thus holds
The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health
that these items should be returned immediately to
Act of 2012, better known as the RH Law, was enacted
Dimaano.
on December 21, 2012 to address the issues of

population and birth control, and contraception and to
reign
in
the
issues
faced
by
the
poor
and
the
marginalized and to provide for the peoples right to

reproductive health to be achieved through a government
sponsored contraception program. The RH Law also
criminalizes certain acts of refusal to carry out its
mandates.
Its
constitutionality
was
immediately
challenged by a total of fourteen (14) petitions and two

(2) petitions-in-intervention.

20

II, Sec.12. Sec. 12 provides for the protection of the
Issues:
Whether or not the RH Law is unconstitutional for violating
the following (10):
sancity of the family and of the unborn child from the

moment of conception. Due to its nature as a
scientific and medical issue, the court has deemed it
proper not to determine as to when life actually
a) Right to Life - No
b) Right to Health No
c) Freedom of Religion and Right to Free Speech Yes
begins. The current law is silent with regard to this

issue and considering that there is still no unborn
upon the use of contraceptives, the protection
provided for by the Sec.12 of the Constitution cannot
d) The Family - Yes

e) Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom - No
f) Due Process - No
g) Equal Protection - No
h) Involuntary Servitude - No
i) Delegation of the Authority of the FDA - No
j) Autonomy of Local Governments/ARMM - No
set in.
b) No. As provided for under Art. II, Sec. 15 of the
Constitution, the state shall protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them. Art. XIII also provides
for the States duty to provide for the health of the
people. The Court held that the RH Law does not aim
Held:
a) No. The Right to Life of a human being is not violated
to
render
any
of
the
previous
laws
obsolete.
Considering the fact that existing contraceptives and
by the prescription and use of contraceptives. The
abortifacients require prior approval and prescription,
Constitutions protection begins at the moment of
the government provides for proper checks and
conception of the unborn as provided for under Art.
balances to ensure the peoples Right to Life and

consequently, the Right to Health.

21

procedures and modern family planning methods)
c) Yes, but only with regard to conscientious objectors
and Life Threatening Cases (emergency procedures).
in pursuit of medical practice. The court upheld the

Constitutional guarantee of complete separation of
e) No. Art. II, Sec. 12 of the Constitution provides that
the Church and the State as provided for in the
the natural and primary right and duty of the
Constitution. Such cannot be compelled by the law to
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency
violate their religious beliefs and conviction. One may
and development of moral character shall receive the
not be held liable for their refusal to act as the Free
support of the government. It is also the inherent
Exercise Clause provided for under Sec. 23 and Sec.
right of the State to act as parens patriae to aid the
29 must not be impaired. The court held that the
parents in the moral development of the youth. The
principle of non-coercion under the right to freely
court found that the legal mandate of the RH Law
exercise religion must not be violated.
supplements, rather than supplants, the rights and

duties of the parents in the moral development of
d) Yes. The court held that Sec. 23 (a) of the RH Law is
their children.
violative of Art. XV, Sec. 3 of the Constitution which

provides that the state shall defend the right of the
f)
No. The court held that the RH Law does not suffer
spouses to found a family. The RH Law cannot be
from the defect of vagueness as it does not lack in
allowed to infringe on the mutual decision-making
the comprehensible standards that men of common
accorded to spouses and independence by the
intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and
Constitution as it is a private matter which belongs
differ as to its application. The definition of a private
solely to them. The court also provided for two
health service provider should not cause any
exceptions: Access to Information (information about
confusion. The terms used are broad enough to
family planning services, reproductive

health
22

include
the
providing
of
information
and
the
services. It was also raised that the imposition is
rendering of medical procedures
within
the
powers
of
the
government,
the
accreditation of medical practitioners with PhilHealth

g) No. The court held that it does not require the
being a privilege and not a right. As the practice of
universal application of laws to all persons or things
medicine is of public interest, it is both a power and
without distinction. What it simply requires is
duty of the state to control and regulate such. There
equality among equals as determined according to a
is also a lack of any form of compulsion, force or
valid
threat that could constitute involuntary servitude.
classification
which
is
permitted
by
the
Constitution. The classification, however, must pass

the
test
of
reasonableness:
it
must
rest
on
i)
No. The FDA does not only have the power but also
substantial distinctions, it is germane to the purpose
the competency to evaluate, register and cover health
of the law, it is not limited to existing conditions only,
services and methods. It is the only government
and it applies equally to all members of the same
entity empowered to render such services and highly
class. The RH Law does not impose any conditions
proficient to do so. The functions, powers and duties
among couples. The law simply seeks to provide
of the FDA are specific to enable the agency to carry
priority to the poor in the implementation of
out the mandates of the law. This is considered as a
government programs to promote basic reproductive
valid delegation of power to the FDA to regulate the
health care.
medicine and the implementation of the rules and

regulations of the RH Law.
h) No. Sec. 17 of the RH Law cannot be considered as

involuntary servitude as it provides for pro bono
services as reproductive health care service providers
have the discretion and time of rendering such

j)
No. The ARMM is not a separate and independent

state and is thus, under the complete supervision
and control of the national government.
23
The

autonomy of local governments is not absolute. The
RH Law does not infringe Sec. 17 of the Local
Government Code which provides for the delivery of
basic services and facilities. It has no power over a
Do You Care For

Me?
program for which funding has been provided by the

national government under the annual general
appropriations act, even if the program involves the
OPOSA V FACTORAN
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the

LGU. Except for the express and implied limitations
imposed on it by the Constitution, Congress cannot
be restricted to exercise its inherent and plenary
power to legislate on all subjects which extends to all
matters of general concern or common interest.
Facts:
A complaint, in this case, was instituted by the
petitioners praying that judgment be rendered ordering
the defendants Hon. Fulgencio Factoran, in his capacity
as the Secretary of DENR, and his agents, to (1) Cancel
all existing Timber License Agreements (TLA) in this
country and (2) Cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.

24

The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class suit
They assert that the defendants refusal to cancel the
(see footnote) where the plaintiff minors, as represented
TLAs is contrary to the Constitutional policy of the State
by their parents, allege that they are all citizens of the
(among others) to
Philippines entitled to the full benefit of the natural

resource treasure of the country.
As a class suit, the
"protect and advance the right of the people to a
complaint was filed for the petitioners themselves and
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
others equally concerned about the preservation of the
rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article
natural resources and the generations yet unborn.
II, 1987 Constitution)
As for their cause of action, the petitioners allege that at
Secretary Factoran filed a Motion to Dismiss the
the present rate of deforestation, the Philippines will be
complaint based on two grounds: (1) that the petitioners
bereft of forest resources after the end of the decade. The
have no cause of action2 (see footnote) against him and,
continued allowance by defendant of Timber License
(2) the issue raised by the petitioners is a political
Agreement holders to cut and deforest the remaining
question3(see footnote).
forest stands will work great damage and irreparable

injury to the plaintiffs and also their successors/next
generations.

1 A class suit is a suit which is brought before a court by a number of parties to
represent many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all parties

to present a controversy that is of common interest to all.


2 A cause of action is the act or omission of a person violative of the rights of
others. In this case, defendant claim that petitioners have failed to state, in
their petition, a specific cause of action against him since petitioners are only
claiming a vague allegations of environmental rights
3 Political Questions are those that are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretion has been delegated to
the Executive or Legislative Branch. Under the doctrine of Separation of
Powers, the Courts cannot interfere with policies and actions done by the
Executive and Legislative branches in their capacity as such unless they acted
contrary to law.
25

The judge in the lower court granted the Motion to
Dismiss. The judge reasoned that the complaint indeed
2. Whether or not the complaint raises a political question?
states no cause of action since they failed to allege a
No
specific legal right that they are seeking to enforce and

protect, or a specific legal wrong they are seeking to
3. Whether or not granting the relief (to cancel TLAs)
prevent and redress. The judge also ruled that the
prayed for will result in impairment of contracts? No
complaint raises a political question. He further ruled

that the granting of the relief prayed for (canceling of
TLAs) would result in the impairment of contracts4(see
footnote), which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Held:
1. Yes. Although the right invoked by the petitioners, the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology, is to be found
Thus, petitioners filed the instant case before the
under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Supreme Court.
(Article II of the Constitution), which are generally not

sources of enforceable rights, it does not follow that it is
Issues:
1. Whether or not the complainant has a sufficient cause of
action against the defendant? - Yes
less important that any of the rights enumerated in the

Bill of Rights (Article III of the Constitution). The right to
a balanced and healthful ecology belongs to a different
category of rights altogether for it concerns self-
preservation and self-perpetuation. These basic rights
obligation of contracts shall be passed. Any law, which changes the terms of a
legal contract between parties (this includes cancellation), is a law that
impairs the obligation of a contract and is null and void. Jurisprudence holds,
however, that a valid exercise of Police Power (by the State in protecting the
interest of the public) is superior to the obligation of contracts.
need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
4 Section 10 of Article III of the Constitution states that No law impairing the

assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.
26

In Executive Order 192 and the Administrative Code of
3. No. The TLAs are NOT even contracts. A TLA is only a
1987, the duties of the DENR to protect and advance the
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn
rights of the people to a balanced a healthful ecology is
whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as
also clear.
in this case.
President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated E.O. No. 192,

which expressly mandates that the DENR "shall be the
primary
government
agency
responsible
for
the
conservation, management, development and proper use

of the country's environment and natural resources
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS v.

REYES
G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
Under the Administrative Code, the DENR is mandated

to implement the policy of the State to ensure the full
Keywords: Resident Marine Mammals; Taon Strait;
exploration, development, and judicious disposition and
Environmental Case
conservation of the countrys natural resources.
Important Term Discussed: Locus Standi (Legal

Standing)
2. No. Policy formulation or determination by the executive
The legal right to bring a lawsuit or the ability of a
or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put
party to show to the court that the party is (or will be)
in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement
harmed from the law or action challenged to support
of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and
that party's participation in the case.
expressed in legislation.
Facts:

27

Petitioners, Resident Marine Mammals, are whales,
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in this suit.
dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species of
The DOE argues that the petitioners have no standing
Taon Strait of Negros and Cebu (yes, the petitioners
because the Rules of Court requires parties to an
are animals). They are joined by Ramos and Eisma-
action to be natural or juridical persons.
Osorio as their Stewards.

Respondents,
The
Government,
through
the
Department of Energy (DOE), entered into a Service

Contract (Serivce Contract No. 46) with Japan
Petroleum Exploration Co. (JAPEX) for the exploration,
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Resident Marine Mammals have
locus standi;
2. Whether or not the SC-46 is constitutional.
development, and production of petroleum resources

in Taon Strait. JAPEX conducted seismic surveys
and began to drill one exploration well.
Held:
1. Yes, Resident Marine Mammals have locus standi.
Resident Marine Mammals seek remedy from
Section 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Supreme Court to stop the DOE from implementing
Cases allows a "citizen suit," and permits any Filipino
SC-46 for violation of the Constitution. They claim the
citizen
adverse ecological impact of JAPEX's oil exploration
environmental laws on the principle that humans are
activities and state that a study made after the
stewards of nature5.
to
file
an
action
for
violations
of
our
seismic survey showed incidences of fish kill and that
The need to give the Resident Marine Mammals
the fish catch was reduced drastically by 50% to 70%
legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules,
due to the destruction of the Payao (fish aggregating

device/artificial reef).
Resident Marine Mammals claim that they have
the legal standing to file this action since they stand


5A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC - Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases: SECTION 5.
Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors

or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations
under environmental laws.
28

which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of
alleged that Congress was subsequently notified of
nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental
the execution of such contract. The absence of the
laws.
two conditions, that (1) the President be a signatory
The Stewards are joined as parties in the case and

not just in representation of the named cetacean
to SC-46, and that (2) Congress be notified of such

contract, renders it null and void.
species. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio,
The Taon Strait was declared a protected
having shown that there may be possible violations of
area by the National Integrated Protected Areas
laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine
System
Mammals, are therefore declared to possess the legal
utilization of this energy resource may be allowed
standing to file this petition.
only through a law passed by Congress. Since
(NIPAS)
Act.
The
exploitation
and
there is no such law specifically allowing oil

2. No, SC-46 is unconstitutional. Paragraph 4, Section
exploration and/or extraction in the Taon Strait,
2, Article XII of the Constitution requires that the
no energy resource exploitation and utilization
President himself enter into any service contract for
may be done in said protected seascape.
the exploration of petroleum with foreign-owned
Lastly, while surveying for energy resources
corporations. SC-46 was entered and signed only by
is allowed in Section 14 of the NIPAS Act7, it does
the DOE6. For Paragraph 5, neither is it shown nor
not mean that it is exempt from the Environmental
6 Paragraphs 4 & 5, section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution: (4) The
President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations

involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country.
(5) The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.

Impact
Assessment
(EIA)
under
Section
12.
Surveying for energy resources under Section 14 is

7 SECTION 14 of the NIPAS Act: Survey for Energy Resources: Protected areas,
except strict nature reserves and natural parks, may be subjected to

exploration only for the purpose of gathering information on energy resources
and only if such activity is carried out with the least damage to surrounding
areas.
29

not an exemption from complying with the EIA;
instead,
Section
14
provides
that,
Any
Phillenials All
exploitation and utilization of energy resources

found within NIPAS areas shall be allowed only
through a law passed by Congress.

DISINI vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

April 22, 2014
The assigned case (April 22, 2014 Decision) is a

Motion for Reconsideration of the February 11, 2014
decision of the same case
Facts:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme
Courts decision that declared invalid some provisions of
the Cybercrime Act of 2012 and upheld the
constitutionality of other provisions of the same act.
The MR stemmed from consolidated petitions which
sought to declare several provisions of the Cybercrime
Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10175) unconstitutional and void.
The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of
the cyberspace.

30

Petitioners claim that the means adopted by the
cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace
activities violate certain of their constitutional rights.
The government of course asserts that the law merely
seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities,
punish wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attack on the
system.
the NBI) from implementing the law until further orders.
The petitioners claim that a number of provisions of the
Cybercrime Law violates freedom of expression, due
process,
equal
protection,
privacy
of
communications, as well as the Constitutional
sanctions against double jeopardy, undue delegation
of legislative authority and the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures:
The
Supreme
Court
declared
unconstitutional several provisions.
as
valid
and
The following are the provisions of the Cybercrime Act

declared by the SC as valid and constitutional and are
subject of this Motion for Reconsideration (being sought
by the petitioners to be declared unconstitutional):
Section 6 which imposes penalties one degree higher
when crimes defined under the RPC are committed with
the use of information and communications technology
Section 4(c)(4) which penalizes online label
(constitutional and valid with respect to the original
author of the post but unconstitutional and void with
respect to others who simply receive the post and react to
it)

Issues:
1. Whether or not Section 6 is unconstitutional for the
absence of definition of the term information and
technology? No
2. Whether or not Section 6 is unconstitutional for
arbitrarily distinguishing crimes committed through
information and technology and those committed
through conventional means? No
3. Whether or not Section 6 is unconstitutional for
producing a chilling effect to the freedom of speech
by raising a higher penalty
4. Whether or not Section 4(c)(4) is vague and
overbroad - No
Held:
1. No. The parameters of the term information and
technology exist in many other laws. These
parameters, along with common usage of the term,
provide the needed boundaries within which the
law may be applied.
2. No. The vast potential and benefits of the Internet
are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as
its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity.
For this reason, while many governments advocate
freedom online, they recognize the necessity to
regulate certain aspects of the use of this media to
protect the most vulnerable.
3. No. What the stiffer penalty truly targets are those
who choose to use this most pervasive of media
without qualms, to tear down the reputation of
private individuals, not their freedom of speech.
The law does not target the right of the people to
31
disagree if the exercise of which does not

constitute libel.
4. Online libel is not a new crime. It is essentially the
old crime of libel found in the 1930 Revised Penal
Code and transposed to operate in the cyberspace.
Consequently, the mass of jurisprudence that
secures the freedom of expression from its reach
applies to online libel. Any apprehended
vagueness in its provisions has long been settled
by precedents
Peace Be With You

Cruz v. DENR
G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
Facts:
Isagani Cruz and Europe filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus
assailing the constitutionality of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
and its implementing rules and regulations.
Isagani argues that several provisions of IPRA and its IRR is
unconstitutional on the ground of unlawful deprivation of the
States ownership over lands of the public domain including
minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation therefore
of the Regalian Doctrine.
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the IPRA is
only partly unconstitutional in relation to its granting of ownership
over natural resources to indigenous peoples.
Assailed Provisions:
"(1) Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral
domains, and Section 3(b) which, in turn, defines ancestral lands;

32

"(2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that
Regalian Doctrine:
ancestral domains including inalienable public lands, bodies of

water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
are private but community property of the indigenous peoples;
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,

fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
"(3) Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands;
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.

The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
"(4) Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The
indigenous peoples over the ancestral domains;
State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
(5) Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the

indigenous peoples over the ancestral lands;
"(6) Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous
peoples in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploration of
minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be
their ancestral domains, and the right to enter into agreements with
nonindigenous peoples for the development and utilization of
natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years,
renewable for not more than 25 years; and
"(7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with

Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per
centum
of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,

renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such
terms and conditions as may provided by law. In cases of water
rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other
than the development of waterpower, beneficial use may be the
measure and limit of the grant.
Issues:
Whether or not suit should be dismissed?
to maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains

and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical
watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected
areas, forest cover or reforestation."

33
Held:
YES
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V.

GRP PEACE PANEL
Section 7. Procedure if opinion is equally divided. Where the

court en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary
majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on, and
if after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original action
Factual Antecedents Surrounding the Controversy
commenced in the court shall be dismissed, in appealed cases, the
The MOA-AD is the product of the long peace process talks that started
judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all
in 1996.
incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.

A General Framework of Agreement of Intent was signed on August
Initially seven members of the Supreme Court voted to dismiss the
27, 1998.
petition and also seven members voted to grant the petition. Upon
redeliberation, voting remained the same
The process went well until the early 2000s when the MILF attacked
several municipalities in Central Mindanao, which prompted President
Estrada to call for an all-out-war against the MILF. This lasted until
the assumption of office of President Gloria Arroyo. President Arroyo
asked the Government of Malaysia to help convince the MILF to return
to the negotiating table. The MILF eventually decided to meet with the
GRP.
The parties met in Kuala Lumpur with the talks facilitated by the
Malaysian government. The parties signed on the same date the
Agreement on the General Framework for the Resumption of Peace
Talks between the GRP and the MILF. The MILF thereafter suspended
all its military actions. Formal peace talks between the parties were

34

held in Tripoli, Libya, the outcome of which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli
powers,
according
to
the
MOA-AD,
will
be
based
on
Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001).
Comprehensive Compact that shall be negotiated on after the

signing of the MOA-AD.
In 2005, several exploratory talks were held between the parties in

Kuala Lumpur, eventually leading to the crafting of the draft MOA-AD
The
MOA-AD
also
provides
that
its
provisions
requiring
in its final form, which was set to be signed last August 5, 2008.
amendments to the existing legal framework shall take effect

upon signing of the Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting
The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF did not
amendments with due regard to the non-derogation of prior
materialize because of the petitions, and the SC issued a Temporary
agreements and within the stipulated time stipulated in the
Restraining Order.
Comprehensive Compact.
Facts:
In this case, numerous petitioners pray, among others, that the
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the
signing of the MOA-AD be enjoined and for the defendants be
MILF, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the
ordered to furnish complete and official copies of the MOA-AD
Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli
invoking their Right to Information of Public Concern. In the
Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
alternative, they pray that the MOA-AD be declared null and void
for being Unconstitutional.
The main body of the MOA-AD is divided into four (4) parts:
By Resolution, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining
Concepts and Principles, Territory, and Governance. It also creates
Order, commanding the defendants to cease and desist from signing
an entity called the Bangsamoro Juridicial Entity (BJE) to which
of the MOA-AD pending the final disposition of the case.
it grants authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and

Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro.
Issues:
It is stated in the body of the MOA-AD that the Central Government
of the Philippines and the BJE will have what is called an
1. Whether or not the Right to Information of Public Concern is

violated? - Yes.
Associative Relationship characterized by shared authority and

responsibility. The structure of governance of the BJE and its

35

2. Whether or not the MOA-AD is Constitutional? No (MOA-AD is
Unconstitutional)
Undoubtedly, the MOA-AD subject of the present cases is of public
a. Associative
Relationship
is
not
contemplated
in
the
Constitution
concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity

of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large.
b. BJE Powers cannot be qualified as a mere autonomous

region
The policy of full public disclosure complements the right to access
c. MOA-AD Requires amendments to the Constitution
information on matters of public concern. While the right to access
d. The international law principle of self-determination has
information guarantees the right of the citizens to demand
evolved within a framework of respect for the territorial
information, the State policy of full public disclosure recognizes the
integrity of existing states.
duty of officialdom to give information even of nobody demands for
e. The President cannot unilaterally assure that amendments
it.
to the Constitution will be obtained with certainty

Duty of the PAPP under EO No 3
Executive Order No. 3 also establishes petitioners' right to be
Held:
1. Yes. The Right to Information of Public Concern was violated.
consulted on the peace agenda, as a corollary to the constitutional

right to information and disclosure.
Rights and Duties under the Constitution

Under
the
1987
Constitution, The
right
of the
people
to
The preambulatory clause of E.O. No. 3 declares that there is a need
information (Right to Information found in Article III of the
to
further
enhance
the
contribution
of
civil
society
to
the
Constitution) on matters of public concern shall be recognized The
comprehensive peace process by institutionalizing the people's
State also adopts a policy of full public disclosure of all its
participation.
transactions involving public interests (State Policy of Full Public

Disclosure found in Article II of the Constitution). Access to
EO No 3 mandates the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
official records pertaining to official acts, as well as to government
(PAPP) to conduct regular dialogues with the National Peace Forum
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
(NPF), the principal forum that the PAPP must consult, and other
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided
peace partners. The PAPP committed grave abuse of discretion when
by law.
he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation. The furtive process

36

by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to
In international practice, the "associated state" arrangement has
and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical,
usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on
capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof.
their way to full independence. i.e. Grenada. MOA-AD contains

many provisions which are consistent with the international legal
The PAPP thus committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed

to conduct the pertinent consultation.
concept of association such as:

o
The BJE's capacity to enter into economic and trade

relations with foreign countries;
2. No. The MOA-AD is Unconstitutional
The commitment of the Central Government to ensure

the BJE's participation in meetings and events in the
a. Associative Relationship between the Central Government and the

BJE - Unconstitutional
ASEAN and the specialized UN agencies;

o
BJE's right to participate in Philippine official missions

bearing on negotiation of border agreements, environ-
The concept of association is not recognized under the present
mental protection, and sharing of revenues pertaining to
Constitution. It also implies the recognition of the associated
the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands
entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not contemplate
forming part of the ancestral domain;
any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much
less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any
part of Philippine territory for independence. Even the mere concept
b. The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region
of the MOA-AD requires amendment of constitutional provisions.
recognized in the Constitution
An association is formed when two states of unequal power
BJE, basically, is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria
voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, one state,
of a state as laid down in International Law (a permanent
the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the
population, a defined territory, a government, and sovereignty). Even
principal, while maintaining its international status as a state, i.e.
assuming that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any
US-Federate States of Micronesia.
portion of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it runs

counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Republic.

37

powers found in the MOA-AD must, itself, comply with other
The Constitution provides that the creation of the Autonomous
provisions of the Constitution.
Region shall be effective when approved in a plebiscite provided
For example, it would not do to merely pass legislation vesting the BJE
that
with treaty-making powers in order to accommodate the provisions on
only
favorably
provinces,
in
such
cities,
and
plebiscite
geographic
shall
be
areas
included
voting
in
the
RESOURCES in the MOA-AD
Autonomous Region.
Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution must also be amended
Such provision provides that
c. The MOA-AD would require amendments to the Constitution
The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural

communities within the framework of national unity and development.
Section 20, Article X of the Constitution would have to be

expanded
An Associative arrangement such that which is stated in the MOAAD, does not uphold national unity.
Section 20 of Article X provides that

Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this
d. The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions
international law as part of the law of the land
shall provide for legislative power over:

(1) Administrative Organization;
International
law
(2) Creation of sources revenue;
determination
of
has
long
peoples
recognized
but
such
the
right
right
should
to
self-
not
be
understood as extending to a unilateral right of secession.
(9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion
of the general welfare of the people of the region*
The international law principle of self-determination has evolved

within a framework of respect for the territorial integrity of existing
The MOA-AD would require Section 20 to be expanded since the
states.
mere passage of new legislation pursuant to paragraph nine (9)*

would not suffice, since any law that might vest in the BJE the
e. The President Cannot Delegate to the GRP Peace Panel Powers

which she herself does not posses

38

Through the MOA-AD and the GRP Peace Panel, the President
The President does not possess constituent powers
(see
effectively
guarantees
to
the
MILF
that
the
required
footnote). Such power may only be exercised by the Congress, a
amendments will eventually be put in place or at least be
Constitutional Convention, or the people through initiative and
submitted to a plebiscite
referendum9(see footnote). The Presidents authority is only to

preserve and defend the Constitution. She cannot, by herself,
The MOA-AD states that the contemplated changes to the legal
allow changes to the Constitution.
framework shall be wit due regard to non-derogation of prior

agreements and within the stipulated timeframe to be contained the
The President, in conducting peace negotiations may validly
Comprehensive Compact (hence a guarantee to amendments to the
consider implementing even those policies that require changes to
Constitution
the Constitution, but she may not unilaterally implement them

without the intervention of Congress, or act in any way as if the
Other Notable Issues:
assent of Congress can be obtained as a certainty.

The
President
may
only
recommend
amendments
to
the
Constitution not even as a formal proposal to be voted on in a

plebiscite10 but only for the independent consideration of whether
the recommendations merit being formally proposed through the
initiative and referendum. These amount to nothing more than
suggestions to the people.
Locus Standi (legal standing)

For a party to have locus standi, one must allege "such a personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which
the
court
so
largely
depends
for
illumination
of
difficult
constitutional questions."
In any case, the Court has discretion to relax the procedural
Constituent power is defined as the power to formulate a Constitution or to

propose amendments to or revisions of the Constitution and to ratify such proposal.
This can be exercised by Congress, by a Constitutional Convention, or by the
people through initiative and referendum
9
An electoral process by which a percentage of voters can propose legislation and
compel a vote on it by the legislature or by the full electorate (proposal)
10
A direct vote of a country's electorate to decide a question of public importance,
such as union with another country or a proposed change to the constitution
(voting)
technicality on locus standi. The Court's forbearing stance on locus

standi on issues involving constitutional is-sues has for its purpose

the protection of fundamental rights.
In the petitions at bar, petitioners Province of North Cotabato,
Province of Zamboanga del Norte, City of Iligan, and City of
Zamboanga
and
petitioners-in-intervention
Province
of
39
Sultan

Kudarat, City of Isabela and Municipality of Linamon have locus
Intervening respondents Muslim Multi-Sectoral Movement for Peace
standi in view of the direct and substantial injury that they, as
and Development, and Muslim Legal Assistance Foundation Inc.,
LGUs, would suffer as their territories, are to be included in the
allege that they stand to be benefited or prejudiced in the resolution
intended domain of the BJE.
of the petitions concerning the MOA-AD, and prays for the denial of
the petitions on the grounds therein stated. Such legal interest
Petitioners Ernesto Maceda, JejomarBinay and Aquilino Pimentel III
suffices to clothe them with standing.
would have no standing as citizens and taxpayers for their failure to

specify that they would be denied some right or privilege or there
would be wastage of public funds.
Ripeness
The petitions are ripe for adjudication. The failure of respondents to
consult the local government units or communities affected
Franklin Drilon and Adel Tamano, in alleging their standing as
constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate under
taxpayers, assert that government funds would be expended for the
E.O. No. 3. Moreover, respondents exceeded their authority by the
conduct of an illegal and unconstitutional plebiscite to delineate the
mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution. Any
BJE territory. On that score alone, they can be given legal standing.
alleged violation of the Constitution by any branch of government is

a proper matter for judicial review.
With regard to Senator Manuel Roxas, his standing is premised on

his being a member of the Senate and a citizen to enforce
As
the
petitions
compliance by respondents of the public's constitu-tional right to be
paramount public interest or of transcendental importance, the
informed of the MOA-AD. He thus possesses the requisite standing
Court
as an intervenor.
intervening respondents the requisite locus standi,
grants
the
involve
constitutional
petitioners,
issues
which
are
petitioners-in-intervention
of
and
With respect to Ruy Elias Lopez, Marino Ridao, KisinBuxani, they
Mootness11
failed to allege any proper legal interest in the present petitions.
Court finds that the present petitions provide an exception to the
Just the same, the Court exercises its discretion to relax the
"moot and academic" principle in view of (a) the grave violation of
procedural technicality on locus standi given the paramount public
interest in the issues at hand.
A matter is moot when the controversy no longer exists; a moot case is a case
that presents only an abstract question that does not arise from existing facts or
rights

11
40

the Constitution involved; (b) the exceptional character of the
statute does not grant the Executive Department or any government
situation and paramount public interest; (c) the need to formulate
agency the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public;
claim by mere agreement or compromise.
and (d) the fact that the case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.
Executive Privilege cannot be invoked
The fact that the MOA-AD was not signed and the dissolution GRP
The invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege12 as a defense to
Peace Panel does not mean that the petitions are now rendered moot
the general right to information or the specific right to consultation
and academic.
is untenable. The MOA-AD is one that involves public interest.

Moreover, The various explicit legal provisions fly in the face of
It bears stressing that the MOA-AD did not push through due to the
executive secrecy
Supreme Courts issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.

Moreover, the MOA-AD is a significant part of a series of agreements
to carry out the Tripoli Agreement. Surely, the MOA-AD can be
renegotiation or another one will be drawn up.
A decision on the merits in this case is needed to formulate
controlling principles to guide the public and the government in
negotiating with the MILF regarding Ancestral Domain.
Violation of IPRA
Three, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
of 1997 provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and
delineation of ancestral domain, which entails, among other things,
the observance of the free and prior informed consent of the
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the


12
A privilege, based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, that

exempts the executive branch of the government from usual disclosure
requirements when the matter to be disclosed involves national security or foreign
policy
41
Of Pork And Beans
Timeline of PDAF History

Pre-Martial Law (1922-1972)
Act 3044 (Public Works Act)
Use of funds was subject to the post-enactment approval of the
legislators. The legislators were also given discretion which projects
Belgica v. Executive Secretary

Ochoa
November 19, 2013
Keyword: PDAF (Pork barrel System) Case
Important Terms Discussed:
Pork Barrel System
would be implementeda discretion which was formerly exercised by

the Secretary of Commerce.
Martial Law Period (1972-1986)
Appropriations for Local Development Projects were made. Each
legislator (assemblyman) was given 500,000 pesos and was asked to
inform the Budget Minister regarding his/her projects.
Corazon Aquino Administration (1986-1992)
Convinced that development had to be decentralized, the Cory
Collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner by
Administration
which lump-sum discretionary funds, primarily intended for local
Development Funds focused heavily on infrastructure projects and
projects are utilized through the respective participations of the
basic social services in the said regions. This, however, led legislators
Legislative and Executive branches, including its members
from Luzon to lobby for the same benefits thereby creating the
Congressional Pork Barrel
introduced
the
Visayas
and
Minadanao
Countrywide Development Funds.
Lump-sum discretionary fund wherein legislators, either individually
Fidel Ramos Administration (1992-1998)
or collectively organized into committees, are able to effectively control
General Appropriations Acts of 1993 to 1997 contained provisions on
certain aspects of the funds utilization through various post-enactment
Countrywide Development Funds where projects were listed and this
measures and/or practices
time, apart from the legislators, appropriations were also made for the
Presidential Pork Barrel
Vice President.
Lump-sum discretionary fund which allows the President to determine
Apart from the CDF, Congressional Insertions (CIs) were also included
the manner of its utilization
in the GAAs where individual legislators listed projects and

appropriated funds for such.

42

Joseph Estrada (1998-2001)
CDF was removed and replaced by 3 CIs:
a.) Food Security Program Fund;
b.) Lingap Para sa Mahihirap Program Fund; and
c.) Rural/Urban Development Infrastructure Program Fund
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
Prior consultation with the representative before funds were directly
released to the implementing agency.
Realignment of funds to any expense category was allowed,
provided no amount shall be used to fund personal services and
other personnel benefits
Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo (2001-2010)
GAAs for 2002-2010 all contained provisions for PDAF. This is also
the period when participation of NGOs in utilizing PDAF started.
Benigno Aquino III Administration (2010-present)
2011 GAA contained specific PDAF provisions for the legislator and for
the Vice President
For 2012 and 2013 GAAs, implementing agencies had to come up with
priority lists where projects are based on. Allocation for the Vice
President was, however, deleted.
Facts:
The NBI began its probe into allegations that "the government has
been defrauded of some P10 Billion over the past 10 years by a
syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and
various government agencies for scores of ghost projects
The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6) whistleblowers who declared that JLN Corporation "JLN" standing for
Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) had swindled billions of pesos from
the public coffers for "ghost projects" using no fewer than 20
dummy NGOs for an entire decade. While the NGOs were
supposedly the ultimate recipients of PDAF funds, the whistleblowers declared that the money was diverted into Napoles private
accounts.
Subsequently, the Commission on Audits (CoA) report on the
"Priority
Development
Assistance
Fund
(PDAF)
and
Various
Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP)," were made public.

The total releases covered by the audit amounted to P8.374 Billion
in PDAF and P32.664 Billion in VILP, representing 58% and 32%,
respectively, of the total PDAF and VILP releases that were found to
have been made nationwide during the audit period. Highlighted
primarily are:
Amounts released for projects identified by a considerable number
of legislators significantly exceeded their respective allocations.
Amounts were released for projects outside of legislative districts
of sponsoring members of the Lower House.

43

Total VILP releases for the period exceeded the total amount
Procurement by the NGOs, as well as some implementing
appropriated under the 2007 to 2009 GAAs.
agencies, of goods and services reportedly used in the projects were

not compliant with law.
Infrastructure projects were constructed on private lots without

these having been turned over to the government.
Issues:
Significant amounts were released to implementing agencies
Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other similar
without the latters endorsement and without considering their
Congressional Pork Barrel Laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
mandated functions, administrative and technical capabilities to

implement projects.
Implementation of most livelihood projects was not undertaken by
the implementing agencies themselves but by NGOs endorsed by the
Held:
YES. These are unconstitutional on the following SUBSTANTIVE
GROUNDS:
proponent legislators to which the Funds were transferred.

The funds were transferred to the NGOs in spite of the absence of
any appropriation law or ordinance.
a.) Separation of Powers

Note the following functions of three co-equal branches of the
Philippine Government:
Executive- implements the laws
Legislative- creates/enacts the laws
Selection of the NGOs were not compliant with law and
Judiciary- interprets the laws
regulations.
How violated:
Eighty-Two (82) NGOs entrusted with implementation of seven
From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law
hundred seventy two (772) projects amount to P6.156 Billion were
that empowers Congress or any of its members to play ANY ROLE in
either found questionable, or submitted questionable/spurious
the implementation or enforcement of law violates the principle of
documents, or failed to liquidate in whole or in part their utilization
powers and is thus unconstitutional.
of the Funds.
The enforcement of the national budget is a function both

constitutionally assigned and properly assigned to the Executive
branch. In the case of the 2013 PDAF Article, it cannot be doubted

44

that legislators have been accorded post-enactment authority to: a.)
d.) Accountability
Identify PDAF projects; b.) participate in fund release; and c.)
Constitutional Basis:
participate in fund realignment. These acts are constitutionally
Public office is a public trust (Sec. 1, Art. XI, Constitution)
lodged in the executive that cannot be legally acted upon by the

legislative.
How violated:
The conduct of oversight would be tainted as legislators, who are
vested with post-enactment authority, would in effect, be checking
b.) Non-delegability of legislative powers
on activities in which they themselves participate
Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress (Sec. 1, Art. VI,
e.) Local Autonomy
1987 Constitution)
How violated:
The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments (Sec. 25,
The 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it confers post-enactment

identification
authority
to
individual
legislators,
violates
Art. II, Constitution)
the
How violated:
principle of non-delegability since legislators are effectively allowed
By undue interference by the national government in purely local
to INDIVIDUALLY exercise the power of appropriation, which is
affairs which are best resolved by the officials and inhabitants of
lodged in Congress
such political units.

c.) Checks and Balances
Insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely
local matters and thereby subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013
Power of the President to veto an item written into an appropriation,
PDAF Article as well as all other similar forms of Congressional Pork
revenue or tariff bill submitted to him by Congress for approval (bill
Barrel is deemed unconstitutional.
presentment) found in Sec. 27(2), Art. VI, Constitution

How violated:
Note that the argument that the 2013 PDAF Article, as well as
In the current system where the PDAF is a lump-sum appropriation,
similar
the legislators identification of the projects after the passage of the
constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasties is NOT
GAA denies the President the chance to veto that item later on
meritorious.

Congressional
Pork
Barrel
Laws,
is
violative
45
of
the

SEC 26, ART 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is not self-
The constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System is a legal issue
executing; it does not by itself provide a judicially enforceable
which the
constitutional right.
Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon as the

Court is given greater prerogative to determine what it can do to
On the Presidential Pork Barrel

The
use
of
the
Malampaya
prevent GADALEJ on the part of any government branch or

Funds
was
also
declared
instrumentality.
unconstitutional for violating the principle of non-delegability of

legislative power as it gives the President wide latitude to use the
Important to note is the fact that when the judiciary mediates to
Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may direct and in effect,
allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority
allows him to unilaterally appropriate public funds beyond the
over the other departments; it only asserts the solemn obligation
purview of the law.
assigned to it by the Constitution.
Other Notable Issues (Procedural)

Justiciability13- AFFIRMATIVE
Requirement of contrariety of legal rights is clearly satisfied by the
antagonistic positions of the parties on the constitutionality of the
Pork Barrel System. Questions are ripe for adjudication since the
challenged funds and provisions allowing for their utilization are
currently existing and operational.
Application of the Political Question Doctrine14- NEGATIVE
13 Requisites for judicial inquiry:
1. Actual case or controversy;

2. Standing to sue;
3. Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
4. Issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Locus Standi (legal standing)- AFFIRMATIVE

Petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers as the subject of the
case herein primarily deals with public funds. It is also interesting
to note that issue of legal standing is usually relaxed when the issue
involved is of transcendental importance.
Application of Stare Decisis and Res Judicata15- NEGATIVE

14 Political Question Doctrine deals with questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity;
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure!
15 Res Judicata- A judgment on the merits in a previous
case rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction would bind a subsequent
case if there exists an identity of:
1. Parties;
2. Subject matter; and
3. Causes of action
46

The PHILCONSA and LAMP cases involved different subjects such as
issuances
the 1994 CDF and the 2004 PDAF Article. Also, the LAMP decision
unconstitutional insofar as they violate Sec 25(5), Art VI
was primarily decided on procedural grounds.
allegedly
implementing
the
DAP
of the Constitution. This MR reviews the constitutionality

of certain acts and practices under the DAP as well as
the permissibility of cross-border transfers of savings of
the Executive to augment the appropriations of other
offices as provided in the General Appropriations Act
Araullo v Aquino
G.R. No. 209287. February 3, 2015
(Motion for Reconsideration)
Facts:
This is a motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by
respondents challenging the previous Court Ruling in
GR
No.
209442
which
ruled
the
Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP) 16 and all other executive

Stare Decisis- A conclusion reached in one case should
be doctrinally applied to those that follow
if the facts are substantially the same
even though the parties may be different. It bars any attempt to re-litigate the
same
issue
16 Nature and History of the Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP): According to the July 1, 2014 case of Araullo v. Aquino (first
case), the DAP funds emerged from several memoranda initiated by

(GAA).
Sec. Florencio Abad from October 2011 to May 2013. These funds
were intended by the Aquino Administration to accelerate
government spending. Accordingly, President Aquino also issued
National Budget Circular No. 541 permitting Sec. Abad to withdraw
unreleased appropriations and unobligated or unused allotments as
savings.
A few months after, Senator Jinggoy Estrada delivered in
Senate a privilege speech disclosing that he and other Senators each
received 50 million pesos as incentive for voting in favour of the
impeachment of former Chief Justice (DJ) Renato Corona. Sec. Abad,
among other agents of the Aquino administration, denied this
allegation, arguing that the DAP funds were released even prior to
the impeachment of CJ Corona with the intention of accelerating
government spending. The DBMs website also justified the DAP,
arguing that the DAP releases were sourced from savings from
unused funds derived from the pooling of unreleased appropriations
and the withdrawal of unobligated allotments earlier released to the
agencies of the National government.
The DBM argued that Section 25(5), Art VI of the
Constitution allowed the President to augment an item for his office
in the GAA. Nevertheless, the SC held such as unconstitutional,
arguing that unused allotments under the DAP were not considered
as savings.
47
Issue:
means that the utilization and management of savings
Whether or not the Disbursement Acceleration Program is
shall
unconstitutional for violating Section 25(5), Article VI17 of
interpretation is essential in order to keep the Executive
the Constitution and the separation of powers?
and other budget implementers within the limits of their
also
be
strictly
construed.
Such
strict
prerogatives during budget execution as well as prevent
Held:
The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED respondents MR.
The Court UPHELD its former ruling with regards to its
power of judicial review since the interpretation of the
GAA and its definition of savings is a foremost judicial
function chiefly because the power of judicial review
vested in the Court is exclusive. The Court also upheld
its former ruling that the exercise of the power to
augment shall be strictly construed, this being an
exception to the general rule that the funding of
programs, activities, and projects shall be limited to the
amount fixed by Congress for the purpose. This also

17Sec
25(5), Art VI of the Constitution states: No law shall be

passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.

them from unduly transgressing Congress power of the

purse. However, the Court rendered a caveat that
augmentations under the DAP made by the Executive
within its department shall remain valid so long as the
requisites under Section 25(5) are complied with. Lastly,
The Court upheld its former ruling that cross-border
transfers18 are constitutionally impermissible, reasoning
that Section 25(5), Art. VI of the Constitution prohibits
only the transfer of appropriations, not savings.
Nevertheless, the Court REVERSED its former ruling in
the first Araullo v Aquino case (GR No. 209442, July 1,
2014)
and
held
that
there
is
no
constitutional
requirement for Congress to create allotment classes

within an item. What is required is for Congress to create
items to comply with the line-item veto of the President.

18 Cross-border transfers refer to the movement of funds from one

branch of government to another.
48

The Court nevertheless clarified that there must be an
which the Congress had set aside a specified amount of
existing item, project or activity, purpose or object of
public funds, savings may be transferred thereto for
expenditure with an appropriation to which savings may
augmentation purposes.
be
transferred
for
the
purpose
of
augmentation.
Accordingly, so long as there is an item in the GAA for

49
Day 3
ADR: Alternative
Can Be Appropriate
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) SYSTEM
Introduction
Alternative Dispute Resolution is any process or
procedure of settling disputes or controversies, wherein
instead of the conventional adjudication of a presiding
judge in court or an officer of a government agency, a
neutral third party participates in resolving the issues
involved.
Dispute resolution machinery, an important feature of a
sound political system, was already executed in the
earliest communities in the Philippines. Controversies
were brought before the elders of such communities and
resolved along the principles of justice and fairness.
Through time, a system was developed and it evolved to
include the Western-type of judicial systems.
The essential elements of the early system, however,
were not lost. The Arbitration Law was enacted in 1953
which aimed to re-establish the non-judicial forum for
dispute resolution, while emphasizing that the regular
court shall still be considered as the primary recourse.

Hence, the concept of alternative dispute resolution was

introduced.
In 1978, Presidential Decree 1508 was enacted which
formed a community-based justice system known as the
Katarungang Baranggay or Baranggay Justice System. It
provided for the use in the baranggay of some forms of
dispute resolution, such as mediation conciliation and
arbitration. This was then integrated into the Local
Government Code and eventually further improvements
were made. There are at least twelve agencies that use
alternative dispute resolution at present.
Importance of ADR
The ADR system provides for an efficient forum of
settling controversies by promoting party autonomy,
which is the freedom of the parties to make their own
arrangements of resolving disputes. Thus, it serves as
effective means to achieve speedy administration of
justice and de-clog court dockets.
Benefits of ADR
The ADR system ensures party autonomy, therefore,
enabling the parties to be creative in settling their
disputes. It also al-lows flexibility and confidentiality of
proceedings. This may then lead to the preservation of
relationships and less stress due to reduced cost and
time in the resolution of conflict, as opposed to long and
expensive court litigation.
50

Forms of ADR
The various forms of ADR are: Arbitration, Mediation,
Conciliation, early Neutral Evaluation, Mini-Trial and
Good Offices. The first three are the most commonly
used methods.
Arbitration is the voluntary dispute resolution process
in which one or more arbitrators, appointed in
accordance with the agreement of the parties, or rules
promulgated pursuant to relevant legislation and rules
and regulations, resolve a dispute by rendering an award.
Mediation is a voluntary process in which a mediator,
selected
by
the
disputing
parties,
facilitates
communication and negotiation, and assists the parties
in reaching a voluntary agreement regarding a dispute.
Conciliation is a process whereby parties request a
third person or persons (the conciliator) to assist them
in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their
dispute arising out of or relating to a contractual or
other legal relationship. The conciliator does not have
the authority to impose upon the parties a solution to
the dispute.
Early Neutral Evaluation is an ADR process wherein
parties and their lawyers are brought together early in
pre-trial phase to present summaries of their cases and
receive a non-binding assessment by an experienced
neutral person with expertise in the subject in the
substance of the dispute.

Mini-Trial is a structured dispute resolution method in

which the merits of a case are argued before a panel
composed of senior decision makers with or without the
presence of a neutral third person. After which the
parties seek a negotiated settlement.
Good Offices are offices that essentially provide
logistical support to parties to come up with
consultation. It is merely the provision of venue only and
not the consultation itself. It is plainly administrative
support.
Procedural Aspect
Party autonomy allows the parties to exercise freedom in
various aspects: (a) freedom to choose the would-be
judges who are experts in the field relevant to the
controversy when cases are technical in nature (b)
freedom to agree on the procedure to be followed by the
tribunal, thus, the atmosphere becomes less formal and
allows the parties to present their sides openly (c)
freedom to choose the place of arbitration, and (d)
freedom to choose the language to be used in the ADR
proceeding.
In mediation proceedings, the information obtained shall
be privileged and confidential. The records, evidence,
and arbitral awards obtained in arbitral proceedings are
also confidential and shall only be published if with the
consent of the parties or for a limited purpose of
disclosing to the court relevant documents in cases
where resort to the court is al-lowed.
In case one of the parties failed to comply with the
agreement, he shall be liable for all damages resulting
51

from his non-compliance, including all expenses and
attorneys fees paid to obtain the judicial enforcement of
the order.
The ADR system shall not be applied in the settlement of
the following disputes:
a. Labor disputes covered by the Labor Code of the
Philippines
b. The civil status of persons;
Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. The OADR has three

main objectives: (a) to promote, develop and expand the
use of ADR in the private and public sectors, (b) to assist
in the monitoring, study and evaluation of the use of
ADR, and (c) to recommend to Congress needful
statutory changes to develop, strengthen and improve
ADR practices in accordance with world standards which
the Congress had set aside a specified amount of public
funds, savings may be transferred thereto for
augmentation purposes.
c. The validity of marriage;

d. Any ground for legal separation;
e. The jurisdiction of courts;
f. Future legitime;
g. Criminal liability;
h. Those which by law cannot be compromised; and
i. Disputes referred to court-annexed mediation.
The Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution of the

DOJ
It is the policy of the state to actively promote the
freedom of the party to make their own arrangements to
resolve their disputes, thus, an Office for ADR was
created through RA 9285 known as the Alternative

52

Alf Itl 2015 Unencrypted Edited Table

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alf Itl 2015 Unencrypted Edited Table

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To

AQUILA LEGIS FRATERNITY

Fly Higher Brother Fly!

4th place, 1951

Solon Garcia, 1969A

4th place, 1972

Jose Reyes, 1950

4th place, 1953

Vicente Solis, 1970B

1st place, 1973

Antonio Quintos, 1951

7th place, 1954

Augusto Panlilio, 1972A

4th place, 1975

Rufino Luna, 1951

7th place, 1955

6th place, 1975

Gabriel Singson, 1952

2nd place, 1952

Ruben Cleofe, 1973A

8th place, 1977

9th place, 1952

Nicolas Gomez, Jr., 1973A

Ernesto Maceda, Jr., 1953

10th place, 1956

1st place, 1977

Amado Santiago, 1954

9th place, 1958

Vicente Ruaro, 1974A

4th place, 1974

Antonio Navarette, 1955

2nd place, 1957

Gregorio Batiller, Jr., 1975A

1st place, 1979

Sergio Apostol, 1955

7th place, 1958

Marius Corpus, 1975A

4th place, 1979

Jose Brillantes, 1956

6th place, 1960

4th place, 1960

Noel Sanchez, 1976

7th place, 1980

Adolfo Angala, 1960

7th place, 1964

Reynaldo Salutan, 1976

5th place, 1980

Arthur Cabilete, 1963B

7th place, 1966

Jose Jesus Laurel, 1977A

6th place, 1981

Ramon Aviado, Jr., 1963A

9th place, 1966

Efren de Leon, 1978A

7th place, 1982

3rd place, 1967

Thaddeus Venturanza, 1985

5th place, 1989

5th place, 1967

Ding Concepcion, 1987B

9th place, 1990

TeodoroVillarmia, Jr., 1964B

3rd place, 1966

Nelson Victorino, 1989B