Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law Case Digests
Constitutional Law Case Digests
economy
Respondents except. They maintain the beginning and not after it had
that: First, Sec. 10, second par., Art. lost in the bidding.
XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely Fourth, the reliance by petitioner on
a statement of principle and policy par. V., subpar. J. 1., of the bidding
since it is not a self-executing rules which provides that if for any
provision and requires implementing reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be
legislation(s) . . . Thus, for the said awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS
provision to Operate, there must be may offer this to the other Qualified
existing laws "to lay down conditions Bidders that have validly submitted
under which business may be done." bids provided that these Qualified
Second, granting that this provision is Bidders are willing to match the
self-executing, Manila Hotel does not highest bid in terms of price per share,
fall under the term national patrimony is misplaced. Respondents postulate
which only refers to lands of the public that the privilege of submitting a
domain, waters, minerals, coal, matching bid has not yet arisen
petroleum and other mineral oils, all since it only takes place if for any
forces of potential energy, fisheries, reason, the Highest Bidder cannot
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and be awarded the Block of Shares.
fauna and all marine wealth in its Thus the submission by petitioner
territorial sea, and exclusive marine of a matching bid is premature
zone as cited in the first and second since Renong Berhad could still
paragraphs of Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 very well be awarded the block of
Constitution. shares and the condition giving rise
What is more, the mandate of the to the exercise of the privilege to
Constitution is addressed to the State, submit a matching bid had not yet
not to respondent GSIS which taken place.
possesses a personality of its own the prayer for prohibition grounded on
separate and distinct from the grave abuse of discretion should fail
Philippines as a State. since respondent GSIS did not
Third, granting that the Manila Hotel exercise its discretion in a capricious,
forms part of the national patrimony, whimsical manner, and if ever it did
the constitutional provision invoked is abuse its discretion it was not so
still inapplicable since what is being patent and gross as to amount to an
sold is only 51% of the outstanding evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
shares of the corporation, not the hotel refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
building nor the land upon which the law. Similarly, the petition
building stands. Certainly, 51% of the for mandamus should fail as petitioner
equity of the MHC cannot be has no clear legal right to what it
considered part of the national demands and respondents do not
patrimony. Moreover, if the disposition have an imperative duty to perform the
of the shares of the MHC is really act required of them by petitioner.
contrary to the Constitution, petitioner
should have questioned it right from
constitutional provisions are treated as first and third paragraphs are not self-
requiring legislation instead of self-
executing, the legislature would have the executing because Congress is still to
power to ignore and practically nullify the enact measures to encourage the
mandate of the fundamental law. formation and operation of enterprises
fully
Quite apparently, Sec. 10, second par., of
Art XII is couched in such a way as not to
make it appear that it is non-self-executing
owned by Filipinos, as in the first Manila Hotel has become a landmark — a
paragraph, and the State still needs living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While
legislation to regulate and exercise it was restrictively an American hotel when it
authority over foreign investments within first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to
its national jurisdiction, as in the third be truly Filipino, Formerly a concourse for the
paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same elite, it has since then become the venue of
various significant events which have shaped
logic, the second paragraph can only
Philippine history. It was called the Cultural
be self-executing as it does not by its
Center of the 1930's. It was the site of the
language require any legislation in festivities during the inauguration of the
order to give preference to qualified Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as
Filipinos in the grant of rights, the Official Guest House of the Philippine
privileges and concessions covering Government. it plays host to dignitaries and
the national economy and patrimony. A official visitors who are accorded the
constitutional provision may be self- traditional Philippine hospitality.
executing in one part and non-self-
executing in another. For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel
has bore mute witness to the triumphs and
On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos;
Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is a its existence is impressed with public interest;
mandatory, positive command which is its own historicity associated with our struggle
complete in itself and which needs no for sovereignty, independence and
further guidelines or implementing laws or nationhood. Verily, Manila Hotel has become
rules for its enforcement. From its very part of our national economy and patrimony.
words the provision does not require any For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes
legislation to put it in operation. within the purview of the constitutional shelter
for it comprises the majority and controlling
stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns
As regards our national patrimony, a
the 51% will have actual control and
member of the 1986 Constitutional
management of the hotel. In this instance,
Commission explains —
34
51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated
from the hotel and the land on which the hotel
The patrimony of the Nation that should be edifice stands. Consequently, we cannot
conserved and developed refers not only to sustain respondents' claim that the Filipino
out rich natural resources but also to the First Policy provision is not applicable since
cultural heritage of our race. It also refers to what is being sold is only 51% of
our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. the outstanding shares of the corporation, not
Therefore, we should develop not only our the Hotel building nor the land upon which the
lands, forests, mines and other natural building stands.
resources but also the mental ability or faculty
of our people.
Lastly, the word qualified is also determinable.
Petitioner was so considered by respondent
We agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning,
GSIS and selected as one of
the term patrimony pertains to
the qualified bidders. It was pre-qualified by
heritage. When the Constitution speaks of
35
national patrimony, it refers not only to the respondent GSIS in accordance with its
natural resources of the Philippines, as the own guidelines so that the sole inference
Constitution could have very well used the here is that petitioner has been found to be
term natural resources, but also to the cultural possessed of proven management
heritage of the Filipinos.
Besides, there is no time frame for group willing to match the bid of the
invoking the constitutional safeguard foreign group is to insist that government
unless perhaps the award has been finally be treated as any.
made. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel
to foreigners when there is a Filipino
Oposa v Factoran (1) Cancel all existing timber license
224 SCRA 792 agreements in the country;
J. Davide
Facts: (2) Cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements.
The principal plaintiffs therein, now the
principal petitioners, are all minors duly and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other
represented and joined by their respective reliefs just and equitable under the
parents. Impleaded as an additional premises."
plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological
Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-
stock and non-profit corporation organized
for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in The original defendant, Secretary
concerted action geared for the protection Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss
of our environment and natural resources. the complaint based on two (2)
grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have
no cause of action against him and (2)
the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a
The original defendant was the Honorable political question which properly
Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then pertains to the legislative or executive
Secretary of the Department of branches of Government.
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). His substitution in this petition
by the new Secretary, the Honorable In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the
Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1)
ordered upon proper motion by the the complaint shows a clear and
petitioners. unmistakable cause of action, (2) the
motion is dilatory and (3) the action
presents a justiciable question as it
The complaint2 was instituted as a involves the defendant's abuse of
taxpayers' class suit3 and alleges that the discretion.
plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of
the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to
the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the Respondent Judge issued an order
natural resource treasure that is the granting the aforementioned motion to
country's virgin tropical forests." The same dismiss.7 In the said order, not only was
was filed for themselves and others who the defendant's claim — that the complaint
are equally concerned about the states no cause of action against him and
preservation of said resource but are "so that it raises a political question —
numerous that it is impracticable to bring sustained, the respondent Judge further
them all before the Court." ruled that the granting of the relief prayed
The minors further asseverate that they for would result in the impairment of
"represent their generation as well as contracts which is prohibited by the
generations yet unborn."4 Consequently, fundamental law of the land.
it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
ordering defendant, his agents, Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil
representatives and other persons acting action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
in his behalf to Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court
to rescind and set aside the dismissal
order on the ground that the respondent
Judge gravely abused his discretion in even if TLAs may be considered protected
dismissing the action. Again, the parents by the said clause, it is well settled that
of the plaintiffs-minors not only they may still be revoked by the State
represent their children, but have also when the public interest so requires.
joined the latter in this case.
We resolved to give due course to the the respondents aver that the petitioners
petition and required the parties to submit failed to allege in their complaint a specific
their respective Memoranda after the legal right violated by the respondent
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed Secretary for which any relief is provided
a Comment in behalf of the respondents by law. They see nothing in the complaint
and the petitioners filed a reply thereto. but vague and nebulous allegations
concerning an "environmental right" which
Petitioners contend that the complaint supposedly entitles the petitioners to the
clearly and unmistakably states a cause of "protection by the state in its capacity
action as it contains sufficient allegations as parens patriae." Such allegations,
concerning their right to a sound according to them, do not reveal a valid
environment based on Articles 19, 20 cause of action. They then reiterate the
and 21 of the Civil Code (Human theory that the question of whether
Relations), Section 4 of Executive logging should be permitted in the country
Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, is a political question which should be
Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) properly addressed to the executive or
No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental legislative branches of Government. They
Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 therefore assert that the petitioners'
Constitution recognizing the right of resources is not to file an action to court,
the people to a balanced and healthful but to lobby before Congress for the
ecology, the concept of generational passage of a bill that would ban logging
genocide in Criminal Law and the totally.
concept of man's inalienable right to
self-preservation and self-perpetuation As to the matter of the cancellation of the
embodied in natural law. Petitioners TLAs, respondents submit that the same
likewise rely on the respondent's cannot be done by the State without due
correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. process of law. Once issued, a TLA
No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to remains effective for a certain period of
a healthful environment. time — usually for twenty-five (25) years.
During its effectivity, the same can neither
It is further claimed that the issue of the be revised nor cancelled unless the holder
respondent Secretary's alleged grave has been found, after due notice and
abuse of discretion in granting Timber hearing, to have violated the terms of the
License Agreements (TLAs) to cover agreement or other forestry laws and
more areas for logging than what is regulations. Petitioners' proposition to
available involves a judicial question. have all the TLAs indiscriminately
cancelled without the requisite hearing
Anent the invocation by the respondent would be violative of the requirements of
Judge of the Constitution's non- due process.
impairment clause, petitioners maintain
Held:
that the same does not apply in this case
because TLAs are not contracts. They This case, however, has a special and novel
likewise submit that element. Petitioners minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as While the right to a balanced and healthful
generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ecology is to be found under the
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others Declaration of Principles and State Policies
of their generation and for the succeeding and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not
generations, file a class suit. follow that it is less important than any of
the civil and political rights enumerated in
Their personality to sue in behalf of the the latter. Such a right belongs to a
succeeding generations can only be based on different category of rights altogether for it
the concept of intergenerational responsibility concerns nothing less than self-
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly
ecology is concerned. Such a right, as and fittingly stressed by the petitioners —
hereinafter expounded, considers the advancement of which may even be
We do not hesitate to find for the petitioners said to predate all governments and
and rule against the respondent Judge's constitutions. As a matter of fact, these
challenged order for having been issued with basic rights need not even be written in the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of Constitution for they are assumed to exist
jurisdiction. from the inception of humankind.
We do not agree with the trial court's The right to a balanced and healthful ecology
conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
with sufficient definiteness a specific legal from impairing the environment.
right involved or a specific legal wrong
committed, and that the complaint is replete The said right implies, among many other
with vague assumptions and conclusions things, the judicious management and
based on unverified data. A reading of the conservation of the country's forests.
complaint itself belies these conclusions.
Without such forests, the ecological or
The complaint focuses on one specific environmental balance would be irreversiby
fundamental legal right — the right to a disrupted.
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the
first time in our nation's constitutional history, Conformably with the enunciated right to a
is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental balanced and healthful ecology and the right
law. Section 16, Article II. to health, as well as the other related
provisions of the Constitution concerning the
conservation, development and utilization of
the country's natural resources, then
13
reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the main sponsor of the proposed Article
2
unwarranted benefits and advantages to the the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, only two
timber license holders because he would have methods of proposing amendments to, or
forever bound the Government to strictly revision of, the Constitution were
respect the said licenses according to their recognized, viz.,
terms and conditions regardless of changes in (1) by Congress upon a vote of three-
policy and the demands of public interest and fourths of all its members and (2) by a
welfare. He was aware that as correctly constitutional convention. For this and the
4
pointed out by the petitioners, into every other reasons hereafter discussed, we
timber license must be read Section 20 of resolved to give due course to this
the Forestry Reform Code. petition.
DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM The petitioners herein — Senator Miriam
LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and
OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE Maria Isabel Ongpin — filed this special
civil action for prohibition raising the (5) The people's initiative is limited
following arguments: to amendments to the Constitution, not
to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term
(1) The constitutional provision on limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore,
people's initiative to amend the Constitution outside the power of the people's initiative.
can only be implemented by law to be passed
by Congress. No such law has been passed; (6) Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated
in fact, Senate Bill No. 1290 entitled An Act funds for people's initiative; neither the
Prescribing and Regulating Constitution COMELEC nor any other government
Amendments by People's Initiative, which department, agency, or office has realigned
petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 funds for the purpose.
November 1995, is still pending before the
Senate Committee on Constitutional This Court (a) required the respondents to
Amendments. comment on the petition within a non-
extendible period of ten days from
(2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for notice; and (b) issued a temporary
three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on restraining order, effective immediately
the Constitution, on statutes, and on local and continuing until further orders,
legislation. However, it failed to provide any enjoining public respondent COMELEC
subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike from proceeding with the Delfin Petition,
in the other modes of initiative, which are and private respondents Alberto and
specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting a
Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates signature drive for people's initiative to
that the matter of people's initiative to amend amend the Constitution.
the Constitution was left to some future law.
Former Senator Arturo Tolentino stressed this private respondents, through Atty Quadra,
deficiency in the law in his privilege speech filed their Comment on the petition. They
15
The Congress shall provide for the A distinction has to be made that under this
implementation of the exercise of this right. proposal, what is involved is an amendment to
the Constitution. To amend a Constitution
This provision is not self-executory. In his would ordinarily require a proposal by the
book, Joaquin Bernas, a member of the
29
National Assembly by a vote of three-fourths;
1986 Constitutional Commission, stated: and to call a constitutional convention would
require a higher number. Moreover, just to
Without implementing legislation Section 2 submit the issue of calling a constitutional
cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of convention, a majority of the National
amending the Constitution is a mode of Assembly is required, the import being that
amendment which bypasses congressional the process of amendment must be made
action, in the last analysis it still is dependent more rigorous and difficult than probably
on congressional action. initiating an ordinary legislation or putting an
end to a law proposed by the National
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to Assembly by way of a referendum.
directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative The conclusion then is inevitable that, indeed,
would remain entombed in the cold niche of the system of initiative on the Constitution
the Constitution until Congress provides for its under Section 2 of Article XVII of the
implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution is not self-executory.
Constitution has recognized or granted that
right, the people cannot exercise it if Has Congress "provided" for the
Congress, for whatever reason, does not implementation of the exercise of this right?
provide for its implementation. Those who answer the question in the
affirmative, like the private respondents and
It was made clear during the interpellations intervenor Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No.
that the aforementioned Section 2 is 6735.
limited to proposals to AMEND — not to
REVISE — the Constitution; There is, of course, no other better way for
Congress to implement the exercise of the
"SECTION 2. — AMENDMENTS TO THIS right than through the passage of a statute or
CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE legislative act.
DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE
THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its
OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE history reveals, intended to cover initiative to
TOTAL NUMBER Of REGISTERED propose amendments to the Constitution. The
VOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE Act is a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505
DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT and Senate Bill No. 17. The former was
LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE prepared by the Committee on Suffrage and
REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO Electoral Reforms of the House of
Representatives on the basis of two House Third. While the Act provides subtitles for
Bills referred to it, viz., (a) House Bill No. National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II)
497, which dealt with the initiative and
47
and for Local Initiative and Referendum
referendum mentioned (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided
in Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the for initiative on the Constitution. This
Constitution; and (b) House Bill No. conspicuous silence as to the latter simply
988, which dealt with the subject matter of
48
means that the main thrust of the Act is
House Bill No. 497, as well as with initiative initiative and referendum on national and local
and referendum under Section 3 of Article X laws. If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to
(Local Government) and initiative provided for fully provide for the implementation of
in Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution. the initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, it could have provided for a
But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the subtitle therefor, considering that in the
power and duty of Congress to "provide for order of things, the primacy of interest, or
the implementation of the exercise of the hierarchy of values, the right of the people
right?" to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution is far more important than the
A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative initiative on national and local laws.
answer.
This petition must then be granted, and the
First. Contrary to the assertion of public COMELEC should be permanently enjoined
respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
does not suggest an initiative on amendments petition for initiative on amendments to the
to the Constitution. Constitution until a sufficient law shall have
been validly enacted to provide for the
implementation of the system.
The inclusion of the word "Constitution"
therein was a delayed afterthought. That word
is neither germane nor relevant to said Lambino v COMELEC
section, which exclusively relates to initiative G.R. No. 174153
and referendum on national laws and local October 25, 2006; J. Carpio
laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That Facts:
section is silent as to amendments on the
Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado
on the Constitution is confined only to ("Lambino Group"), with other groups 1 and
proposals to AMEND. The people are not individuals, commenced gathering
accorded the power to "directly propose, signatures for an initiative petition to
enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, change the 1987 Constitution. The
the Constitution" through the system Lambino Group filed a petition with the
of initiative. They can only do so with respect COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will
to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." ratify their initiative petition under
Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of
Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative
Terms) of the Act defines initiative on and Referendum Act ("RA 6735").
amendments to the Constitution and mentions
it as one of the three systems of initiative, and The Lambino Group alleged that their
that Section 5 (Requirements) restates the petition had the support of 6,327,952
constitutional requirements as to the individuals constituting at least
percentage of the registered voters who must twelve per centum (12%) of all
submit the proposal. But unlike in the case of registered voters, with each legislative
the other systems of initiative, the Act does district represented by at least
not provide for the contents of a petition three per centum (3%) of its registered
for initiative on the Constitution. voters. The Lambino Group also claimed
that COMELEC election registrars had entire proposal on its face is a petition
verified the signatures of the 6.3 million by the people. This means two essential
individuals. elements must be present. First, the
people must author and thus sign the
The Lambino Group's initiative petition entire proposal. No agent or
changes the 1987 Constitution by representative can sign on their behalf.
modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI Second, as an initiative upon a petition,
(Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1- the proposal must be embodied in a
4 of Article VII (Executive petition.
Department)5 and by adding Article XVIII
entitled "Transitory Provisions."6 These These essential elements are present only
proposed changes will shift the present if the full text of the proposed
Bicameral-Presidential system to a amendments is first shown to the people
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of who express their assent by signing such
government. complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT amendment is "directly proposed by
OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 the people through initiative upon a
CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE petition" only if the people sign on a
FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE petition that contains the full text of the
PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL proposed amendments.
TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE Thus, there is no presumption that the
XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS proponents observed the constitutional
FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE requirements in gathering the signatures. The
SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? proponents bear the burden of proving that
the COMELEC issued its Resolution they complied with the constitutional
denying due course to the Lambino requirements in gathering the signatures
Group's petition for lack of an enabling law - that the petition contained, or
governing initiative petitions to amend the incorporated by attachment, the full text of
Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this the proposed amendments.
Court's ruling in Santiago v.
Commission on Elections8 declaring The Lambino Group did not attach to their
RA 6735 inadequate to implement the present petition with this Court a copy of the
initiative clause on proposals to amend paper that the people signed as their initiative
the Constitution.9 petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this
Court a copy of a signature sheet20 after the
Held: oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when
The Lambino Group miserably failed to they filed their Memorandum on 11 October
comply with the basic requirements of the 2006. The signature sheet with this Court
Constitution for conducting a people's during the oral arguments was the signature
initiative. Thus, there is even no need to sheet attached21 to the opposition in
revisit Santiago, as the present petition intervention filed on 7 September 2006 by
warrants dismissal based alone on the intervenor Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra.
Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply
with the basic requirements of the Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence
Constitution. For following the Court's that the proposed amendment must be
ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative
discretion is attributable to the Commision petition signed by the people. In the present
on Elections. initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed
changes were not incorporated with, or
The essence of amendments "directly attached to, the signature sheets. The
proposed by the people through Lambino Group's citation of Corpus Juris
initiative upon a petition" is that the Secundum pulls the rug from under their feet.
Thus, the members of the interim Parliament proposition and not only the unrelated
will decide the expiration of their own term of subject matter.
office. This allows incumbent members of the
House of Representatives to hold office
beyond their current three-year term of office,
and possibly even beyond the five-year term
of office of regular members of the
Parliament. Certainly, this is contrary to the
representations of Atty. Lambino and his
group to the 6.3 million people who signed
the signature sheets. Atty. Lambino and
his group deceived the 6.3 million
signatories, and even the entire nation.