Capellan, Glecie Suzanne T. Constitutional Law II I. Introduction - j. Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 128448. Fe ruar!

1" 2##1 FAC$%& The Mirasols are sugarland owners and planters. Private respondent Philippine National Ban !PNB" #inanced the Mirasols$ sugar production venture #or crop %ears, &'()*&'(+ and &'(+*&'(, under a crop loan #inancing sche-e. .nder said sche-e, the Mirasols signed Credit /gree-ents, a Chattel Mortgage on Standing Crops, and a 0eal 1state Mortgage in #avor o# PNB. The Chattel Mortgage e-powered PNB as the petitioners$ attorne%*in*#act to negotiate and to sell the latter$s sugar in 2oth do-estic and e3port -ar ets and to appl% the proceeds to the pa%-ent o# their o2ligations to it. Then President 4erdinand Marcos issued Presidential 5ecree !P.5." No. ,(' in Nove-2er, &'(+. The decree authorized private respondent Philippine 13change Co., Inc. !P6IL17" to purchase sugar allocated #or e3port to the .nited States and to other #oreign -ar ets. The decree authorized PNB to #inance P6IL17$s purchases. Believing that the proceeds o# their sugar sales to PNB, i# properl% accounted #or, were -ore than enough to pa% their o2ligations, petitioners as ed PNB #or an accounting o# the proceeds o# the sale o# their e3port sugar. PNB ignored the re8uest. Petitioners continued to as PNB to account #or the proceeds o# the sale o# their e3port sugar , insisting that said proceeds, i# properl% li8uidated, could o##set their outstanding o2ligations with the 2an . PNB re-ained ada-ant in its stance that under P.5. No. ,(', there was nothing to account since under said law, all earnings #ro- the e3port sales o# sugar pertained to the National Govern-ent and were su29ect to the disposition o# the President o# the Philippines #or pu2lic purposes. The Mirasols #iled a suit #or accounting, speci#ic per#or-ance, and da-ages against PNB with the 0egional Trial Court o# Bacolod Cit%: it was a-ended to i-plead P6IL17 as part%*de#endant. The trial court, without notice to the Solicitor General, declared Presidential 5ecree ,(' null and void 2eing in gross violation o# the Bill o# 0ights and ordered private respondents to pa% petitioners the whole a-ount corresponding to the residue o# the unli8uidated actual cost price o# sugar e3ported. ;n appeal, the Court o# /ppeals reversed the trial court<s decision. It ruled that the Solicitor General -ust 2e noti#ied o# an% action assailing the validit% o# a statute, treat%, presidential decree, order or procla-ation. =ithout the re8uired notice the govern-ent is deprived o# its da% in court and it was i-proper #or the trial court to pass upon the constitutionalit% o# the 8uestioned P5.

I%%'(%& a) =hether or not the Trial Court has 9urisdiction to declare a statute unconstitutional without notice to the Solicitor General where the parties have agreed to su2-it such issue #or the resolution o# the Trial Court. ) =hether or not P5 ,(' and su2se8uent issuances thereo# are unconstitutional. *(+,& a) It is settled that 0egional Trial Courts have the authorit% and 9urisdiction to consider the constitutionalit% o# a statute, presidential decree, or e3ecutive order. 6owever, Section ), 0ule >+ o# the 0ules o# Court provides that the Solicitor General -ust 2e noti#ied o# an% action assailing the validit% o# a statute, treat%, presidential decree, order or procla-ation. The purpose o# the -andator% notice is to ena2le the Solicitor General to decide whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the validit% o# a law or treat% is necessar%. To den% the Solicitor General such notice would 2e tanta-ount to depriving hi- o# his da% in court. 6ence, the Court o# /ppeals did not err in holding that lac o# the re8uired notice -ade it i-proper #or the trial court to pass upon the constitutional validit% o# the 8uestioned presidential decrees. ) The present case was instituted pri-aril% #or accounting and speci#ic per#or-ance. The Court o# /ppeals correctl% ruled that PNB$s o2ligation to render an accounting is an issue, which can 2e deter-ined, without having to rule on the constitutionalit% o# P.5. No. ,('. In #act there is nothing in P.5. No. ,(', which is applica2le to PNB$s intransigence in re#using to give an accounting. The governing law should 2e the law on agenc%, it 2eing undisputed that PNB acted as petitioners$ agent. In other words, the #ourth re8uisite #or the e3ercise o# 9udicial review that the constitutionalit% o# the law in 8uestion 2e the ver% lis mota o# the case is a2sent. Thus we cannot rule on the constitutionalit% o# P.5. No. ,('.

I. Introduction - - ./lease see notes in red) ,u0lao vs. Co00ission on (lections G.R. No. +-12241. 2anuar! 22" 138# FAC$%& This is a Petition #or Prohi2ition with Preli-inar% In9unction and?or 0estraining ;rder #iled 2% petitioners see ing to en9oin respondent Co--ission on 1lections !C;M1L1C" #ro- i-ple-enting certain provisions o# Batas Pa-2ansa Blg. ,&, ,@, and ,) #or 2eing unconstitutional. The Petition alleges that petitioner, Patricio 5u-lao, is a #or-er Governor o# Nueva Aizca%a, who has #iled his certi#icate o# candidac% #or said position o# Governor in the #orthco-ing elections o# Banuar% )C, &'DC. Petitioner, 0o-eo B. Igot, is a ta3pa%er, a 8uali#ied voter and a -e-2er o# the Bar who, as such, has ta en his oath to support the Constitution and o2e% the laws o# the land. Petitioner, /l#redo Salapantan, Br., is also a ta3pa%er, a 8uali#ied voter, and a resident o# San Miguel, Iloilo. Petitioner 5u-lao speci#icall% 8uestions the constitutionalit% o# section + o# Batas Pa-2ansa Blg. ,@ as discri-inator% and contrar% to the e8ual protection and due process guarantees o# the Constitution. Petitioner 5u-lao alleges that the provision is directed insidiousl% against hi-, and that the classi#ication provided therein is 2ased on Epurel% ar2itrar% grounds and, there#ore, class legislation.E 4or their part, petitioners Igot and Salapantan, Br. assail the validit% o# the provisions on the ter- o# o##ice, election o# certain local o##icials, election and ca-paign period, and Section + which provides that FG that a 9udg-ent o# conviction #or an% o# the a#ore-entioned cri-es shall 2e conclusive evidence o# such #act and the #iling o# charges #or the co--ission o# such cri-es 2e#ore a civil court or -ilitar% tri2unal a#ter preli-inar% investigation shall 2e pri-a #acie evidence o# such #act.H I%%'(%& a) =hether or not the re8uisites #or 9udicial review have 2een co-plied with. .I. Introduction" -.) ) =hether or not Section + o# BP Blg. ,@ is contrar% to the sa#eguard o# e8ual protection. .4I. (5ual /rotection" c.)

c) =hether or not the second paragraph o# Section + is null and void, #or 2eing violative o# the constitutional presu-ption o# innocence guaranteed to an accused. .64III. Ri78ts of t8e Accused" o.) *(+,& a) It -a% 2e conceded that the third re8uisite has 2een co-plied with, which is, that the parties have raised the issue o# constitutionalit% earl% enough in their pleadings. This Petition, however, has #allen #ar short o# the other three criteria. /s to the #irst re8uisite o# actual case and controvers%, petitioner 5u-lao assails the constitutionalit% o# the #irst paragraph o# section + o# Batas Pa-2ansa Blg. ,@, as 2eing contrar% to the e8ual protection clause guaranteed 2% the Constitution, and see s to prohi2it respondent C;M1L1C #ro- i-ple-enting said provision. Iet, 5u-lao has not 2een adversel% a##ected 2% the application o# that provision. No petition see ing 5u-lao$s dis8uali#ication has 2een #iled 2e#ore the C;M1L1C. ;n the second re8uisite o# proper part%, the long*standing rule has 2een that Ethe person who i-pugns the validit% o# a statute -ust have a personal and su2stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct in9ur% as a result o# its en#orce-entE. In the case o# petitioners Igot and Salapantan, it was onl% during the hearing, not in their Petition, that Igot is said to 2e a candidate #or Councilor. 1ven then, it cannot 2e denied that neither one has 2een convicted nor charged with acts o# dislo%alt% to the State, nor dis8uali#ied #ro- 2eing candidates #or local elective positions. Neither one o# the- has 2een alleged to have 2een adversel% a##ected 2% the operation o# the statutor% provisions the% assail as unconstitutional. Theirs is a generalized grievance. The% have no personal nor su2stantial interest at sta e. In the a2sence o# an% litigate interest, the% can claino locus standi in see ing 9udicial redress. It is true that petitioners Igot and Salapantan have instituted this case as a ta3pa%er$s suit, however, the statutor% provisions 8uestioned in this case, na-el%, sec. (, BP Blg. ,&, and sections +, &, and > BP Blg. ,@, do not directl% involve the dis2urse-ent o# pu2lic #unds. =hile, concededl%, the elections to 2e held involve the e3penditure o# pu2lic -one%s, nowhere in their Petition do said petitioners allege that their ta3 -one% is E2eing e3tracted and spent in violation o# speci#ic constitutional protections against a2uses o# legislative powerE or that there is a -isapplication o# such #unds 2% respondent, or that pu2lic -one% is 2eing de#lected to an% i-proper purpose. Lastl%, on the #ourth and last re8uisite o# unavoida2ilit% o# constitutional 8uestion, =e have alread% stated that, the present is not an Eappropriate caseE #or either petitioner 5u-lao or #or petitioners Igot and Salapantan. The% are actuall% without cause o# action. It #ollows that the necessit% #or resolving the issue o# constitutionalit% is a2sent, and procedural regularit% would re8uire that his suit 2e dis-issed.

) The assertion that Section + o# BP Blg. ,@ is contrar% to the sa#eguard o# e8ual protection is not well ta en. The constitutional guarantee o# e8ual protection o# the laws is su29ect to rational classi#ication. I# the groupings are 2ased on reasona2le and real di##erentiations, one class can 2e treated and regulated di##erentl% #roanother class. 4or purposes o# pu2lic service, e-plo%ees >, %ears o# age, have 2een validl% classi#ied di##erentl% #ro- %ounger e-plo%ees. 1-plo%ees attaining that age are su29ect to co-pulsor% retire-ent, while those o# %ounger ages are not so co-pulsoril% retira2le. In the case o# a >,*%ear old elective local o##icial, who has retired #ro- a provincial, cit% or -unicipal o##ice, there is reason to dis8uali#% hi#ro- running #or the same o##ice #ro- which he had retired, as provided #or in the challenged provision. The need #or new 2lood assu-es relevance. The tiredness o# the retiree #or govern-ent wor is present, and what is e-phaticall% signi#icant is that the retired e-plo%ee has alread% declared hi-sel# tired and unavaila2le #or the sa-e govern-ent wor , 2ut, which, 2% virtue o# a change o# -ind, he would li e to assu-e again. It is #or the ver% reason that ine8ualit% will neither result #ro- the application o# the challenged provision. Bust as that provision does not den% e8ual protection, neither does it per-it such denial !see People vs. Aera, >, Phil. ,> J&'))K". Persons si-ilarl% situated are si-ilarl% treated. c) 13plicit is the constitutional provision that, in all cri-inal prosecutions, the accused shall 2e presu-ed innocent until the contrar% is proved, and shall en9o% the right to 2e heard 2% hi-sel# and counsel !/rticle IA, section &', &'() Constitution". /n accusation, according to the #unda-ental law, is not s%non%-ous with guilt. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presu-ption o# innocence, as a candidate is dis8uali#ied #ro- running #ro- pu2lic o##ice on the ground alone that charges have 2een #iled against hi- 2e#ore a civil or -ilitar% tri2unal. It conde-ns 2e#ore one is #ull% heard. / person dis8uali#ied to run #or pu2lic o##ice on the ground that charges have 2een #iled against hi- is virtuall% placed in the sa-e categor% as a person alread% convicted o# a cri-e. There#ore, that portion o# the second paragraph o# section + o# Batas Pa-2ansa Bilang ,@ providing that E. . . the #iling o# charges #or the co--ission o# such cri-es 2e#ore a civil court or -ilitar% tri2unal a#ter preli-inar% investigation shall 2e prima facie evidence o# such #actE, is here2% declared null and void, #or 2eing violative o# the constitutional presu-ption o# innocence guaranteed to an accused.

I. Introduction - l. +acson vs. /ere9 G.R. No. 14::8#. Ma! 1#" 2##1 FAC$%& ;n Ma% &, @CC&, President Macapagal*/rro%o, #aced 2% an Eangr% and violent -o2 ar-ed with e3plosives, #irear-s, 2laded weapons, clu2s, stones and other deadl% weaponsE assaulting and atte-pting to 2rea into MalacaLang, issued Procla-ation No. )D declaring that there was a state o# re2ellion in the National Capital 0egion. She li ewise issued General ;rder No. & directing the /r-ed 4orces o# the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to suppress the re2ellion in the National Capital 0egion. =arrantless arrests o# several alleged leaders and pro-oters o# the Ere2ellionE were therea#ter e##ected. /ggrieved 2% the warrantless arrests, and the declaration o# a Estate o# re2ellion,E which allegedl% gave a se-2lance o# legalit% to the arrests, these #our related petitions were #iled 2e#ore the Court. /ll these petitions assail the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion 2% President Gloria Macapagal*/rro%o and the warrantless arrests allegedl% e##ected 2% virtue thereo#, as having no 2asis 2oth in #act and in law. Signi#icantl%, on Ma% >, @CC&, President Macapagal*/rro%o ordered the li#ting o# the declaration o# a Estate o# re2ellionE in Metro Manila. /ccordingl%, the instant petitions have 2een rendered -oot and acade-ic. /s to petitioners$ clai- that the procla-ation o# a Estate o# re2ellionE is 2eing used 2% the authorities to 9usti#% warrantless arrests, the

Secretar% o# Bustice denies that it has issued a particular order to arrest speci#ic persons in connection with the Ere2ellion.E 6e states that what is e3tant are general instructions to law en#orce-ent o##icers and -ilitar% agencies to i-ple-ent Procla-ation No. )D. I%%'(& =hether or not the petitions -a% prosper. *(+,& Several considerations inevita2l% call #or the dis-issal o# the petitions at 2arM G.R. No. 14::8# In connection with their alleged i-pending warrantless arrest, petitioners Lacson, /8uino, and Mancao pra% that the Eappropriate court 2e#ore who- the in#or-ations against petitioners are #iled 2e directed to desist #ro- arraigning and proceeding with the trial o# the case, until the instant petition is #inall% resolved.E This relie# is clearl% pre-ature considering that as o# this date, no co-plaints or charges have 2een #iled against an% o# the petitioners #or an% cri-e. G.R. No. 14::81 The petition herein is deno-inated 2% petitioner 5e#ensor*Santiago as one #or -anda-us. Mandamus will not issue unless the right to relie# is clear at the ti-e o# the award. .p to the present ti-e, petitioner 5e#ensor*Santiago has not shown that she is in i--inent danger o# 2eing arrested without a warrant. In point o# #act, the authorities have categoricall% stated that petitioner will not 2e arrested without a warrant. G.R. No. 14::33 Petitioner Lu-2ao, leader o# the People$s Move-ent against Povert% !PM/P", #or his part, argues that the declaration o# a Estate o# re2ellionE is violative o# the doctrine o# separation o# powers, 2eing an encroach-ent on the do-ain o# the 9udiciar% which has the constitutional prerogative to Edeter-ine or interpretE what too place on Ma% &, @CC&, and that the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion cannot 2e an e3ception to the general rule on the allocation o# the govern-ental powers. =e disagree. To 2e sure, Section &D, /rticle AII o# the Constitution e3pressl% provides that EJtKhe President shall 2e the Co--ander*in*Chie# o# all ar-ed #orces o# the Philippines and whenever it 2eco-es necessar%, he -a% call out such ar-ed #orces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or re2ellion..E The Court, in a proper case, -a% loo into the su##icienc% o# the #actual 2asis o# the e3ercise o# this power. 6owever, this is no longer #easi2le at this ti-e, Procla-ation No. )D having 2een li#ted.

G.R. No. 14:81# Petitioner Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino is not a real part%*in*interest. The rule re8uires that a part% -ust show a personal sta e in the outco-e o# the case or an in9ur% to hi-sel# that can 2e redressed 2% a #avora2le decision so as to warrant an invocation o# the court$s 9urisdiction and to 9usti#% the e3ercise o# the court$s re-edial powers in his 2ehal#. 6ere, petitioner has not de-onstrated an% in9ur% to itsel# which would 9usti#% resort to the Court. Petitioner is a 9uridical person not su29ect to arrest. Thus, it cannot clai- to 2e threatened 2% a warrantless arrest. Nor is it alleged that its leaders, -e-2ers, and supporters are 2eing threatened with warrantless arrest and detention #or the cri-e o# re2ellion. 1ver% action -ust 2e 2rought in the na-e o# the part% whose legal right has 2een invaded or in#ringed, or whose legal right is under i--inent threat o# invasion or in#ringe-ent. 6IT/1C =61014;01, pre-ises considered, the petitions are here2% dis-issed.

I. Introduction - 0. %AN+A;A% vs. Re!es G.R. No. 113#81. Fe ruar! <" 2##4 FAC$%& So-e three hundred 9unior o##icers and enlisted -en o# the /r-ed 4orces o# the Philippines !/4P" stor-ed into the ;a wood Pre-iere apart-ents. Bewailing the corruption in the /4P, the soldiers de-anded, a-ong other things, the resignation o# the President, the Secretar% o# 5e#ense and the Chie# o# the Philippine National Police !PNP". In the wa e o# the ;a wood occupation, the President issued later in the da% Procla-ation No. +@( and General ;rder No. +, 2oth declaring Ea state o# re2ellionE and calling out the /r-ed 4orces to suppress the re2ellion. B% the evening o# Bul% @(, @CC), the ;a wood occupation had ended. /#ter hours*long negotiations, the soldiers agreed to return to 2arrac s. The President, however, did

not i--ediatel% li#t the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion and did so onl% on /ugust &, @CC), through Procla-ation No. +),. In the interi-, several petitions were #iled 2e#ore this Court challenging the validit% o# Procla-ation No. +@( and General ;rder No. +. In G.R. No. 113#81 !Sanla as and PM v. 13ecutive Secretar%, et al.", @ part%*list organizations Sanla as and Partido ng Manggagawa !PM", contend that Section &D, /rticle AII o# the Constitution does not re8uire the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion to call out the ar-ed #orces. Petitioners in G.R. No. 1131#< !SJS Officers/Members P. Hon. Executi e Secretar!" et al ." are o##icers?-e-2ers o# the Social Bustice Societ% !SBS", E4ilipino citizens, ta3pa%ers, law pro#essors and 2ar reviewers.E Li e Sanla as and PM, the% clai- that Section &D, /rticle AII o# the Constitution does not authorize the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion. In G.R. No. 113181 !#ep. Suplico et al. . President Macapagal$%rro!o and Executi e Secretar! #omulo ", petitioners 2rought suit as citizens and as Me-2ers o# the 6ouse o# 0epresentatives whose rights, powers and #unctions were allegedl% a##ected 2% the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion. The% argue, however, that the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion is a Esuper#luit%,E and is actuall% an e3ercise o# e-ergenc% powers. Such e3ercise, it is contended, a-ounts to a usurpation o# the power o# Congress granted 2% Section @) !@", /rticle AI o# the Constitution. In G.R. No. 11313= !Pimentel . #omulo" et al.", petitioner Senator assails the su29ect presidential issuances as Ean unwarranted, illegal and a2usive e3ercise o# a -artial law power that has no 2asis under the Constitution.E In the -ain, petitioner #ears that the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion Eopens the door to the unconstitutional i-ple-entation o# warrantless arrestsE #or the cri-e o# re2ellion. 0e8uired to co--ent, the Solicitor General argues that the petitions have 2een rendered -oot 2% the li#ting o# the declaration. In addition, the Solicitor General 8uestions the standing o# the petitioners to 2ring suit. I%%'(& =hether or not the petitions -a% prosper. *(+,& The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance o# Procla-ation No. +),, declaring that the state o# re2ellion has ceased to e3ist, has rendered the case -oot. /s a rule, courts do not ad9udicate -oot cases, 9udicial power 2eing li-ited to the deter-ination o# Eactual controversies.E Nevertheless, courts will decide a 8uestion, otherwise -oot, i# it is Ecapa2le o# repetition %et evading review.E The case at 2ar is one such case. The -ootness o# the petitions in Lacson . Pere& and acco-pan%ing cases precluded this Court #ro- addressing the constitutionalit% o# the declaration. To prevent si-ilar 8uestions #ro- ree-erging, we seize this opportunit% to #inall% la% to rest the validit% o# the declaration o# a state o# re2ellion

in the e3ercise o# the President$s calling out power, the -ootness o# the petitions notwithstanding. ;nl% petitioners 0ep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pi-entel, as Me-2ers o# Congress, have standing to challenge the su29ect issuances. This Court has recognized that an act o# the 13ecutive which in9ures the institution o# Congress causes a derivative 2ut nonetheless su2stantial in9ur%, which can 2e 8uestioned 2% a -e-2er o# Congress. In such a case, an% -e-2er o# Congress can have a resort to the courts. Petitioners Sanla as and PM, and SBS ;##icers?Me-2ers, have no legal standing or locus standi to 2ring suit. Petitioner part%*list organizations clai- no 2etter right 5e-o rati ong Pilipino, whose standing this Court re9ected which =e ruled that petitioner has not de-onstrated an% would 9usti#% the resort to the Court. Petitioner is a 9uridical arrest. than the La2an ng in Lacson . Pere& in in9ur% to itsel# which person not su29ect to

That petitioner SBS o##icers?-e-2ers are ta3pa%ers and citizens does not necessaril% endow the- with standing. / ta3pa%er -a% 2ring suit where the act co-plained o# directl% involves the illegal dis2urse-ent o# pu2lic #unds derived #rota3ation. No such illegal dis2urse-ent is alleged. / citizen will 2e allowed to raise a constitutional 8uestion onl% when he can show that he has personall% su##ered so-e actual or threatened in9ur% as a result o# the allegedl% illegal conduct o# the govern-ent: the in9ur% is #airl% tracea2le to the challenged action: and the in9ur% is li el% to 2e redressed 2% a #avora2le action. /gain, no such in9ur% is alleged in this case. =61014;01, the petitions are here2% dis-issed.