People of the Philippines vs Loreta Gozo

No. L-36409 12 October 1973 En Banc Ponente: Fernando, J.:

Doctrines/Nature or Keywords: Auto-Limitation
Petitioner: Respondents:
Loreta Gozo The People of the Philippines

Recit-ready Summary:
Loreta Gozo appeals to set aside a judgement of the Court of First Instance of Zambales convicting her with
violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14 s. of 1964; which requires a permit for the construction, erection of a
building, as well as the modification, alteration, repair or demolition thereof. The accused bought a house and lot
situated inside the United States Naval Reservation in Olongapo City. She demolished the original house and began
to build a new one in its place. She did not secure a building permit as she was told by her neighbor, Ernesto Evalle,
an assistant in the City Mayor’s office that such building permit was not necessary. On December 22, 1966, the
construction was stopped by Juan Malones, a building an lot inspector of the City Engineer's Office with Patrolman
Ramon Macahilas of the Olongapo City Police force. Loreta Gozo was charged with the violation of the Municipal
Code No.14 S. of 1964 and was ordered to pay P200.00 and to demolish the house constructed. She elevated the
case to the Court of Appeals which noted the constitutional question raised and certified the case to the Supreme
Court. She put in issue the validity of the ordinance on a constitutional ground and its applicability to the location of
her house. The supreme court affirmed the decision of the lower court as their was a difference between the
circumstances in Fajardo vs. the Philippines. The Municipal Order is valid for the US Naval Base was within the
territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City.

Facts of the case:

1. The accused bought a house and lot located in the United States Naval Reservation in Olongapo City. She
opted to demolish the original house and replace it with a new one.
2. On December 22, 1996, Juan Malones, a building and lot inspector and Ramon Macahilas of the Olongapo
City ordered the stop of the construction of the new house.
3. Loreta Gozo was charged with the violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14 s. of 1964. She appealed the case
in the Court of Appeals which notified the constitutional question raised and certified the case to the
supreme court.
4. Loreta's
Issue: Ruling:
 WON due process question can be raised similar to Fajardo v. The YES
Philippines
 WON Municipal Ordinance No. 14 S. of 1964 is enforceable in the US YES
Naval Base
Rationale:
1. Loreta Gozo's due process question relying on People vs Fajardo, under careful scrutiny is easily
distinguishable from her case. The application of the ordinance to Fajardo's case was oppressive, having
failed to obtain a building permit twice after their house was destroyed by a typhoon, whereas Gozo never
attempted to comply with the ordinance.
2. The Supreme Court held that the Philippine Government has not abdicates its sovereignty over the bases as
part of the Philippine Territory. Citing the case of Raegan vs CIR, it should be noted that the Philippine
Government merely consents the US to exercise jurisdiction in certain cases given purely as a matter of
comity, courtesy or expediency. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdiction not granted but
also such ceded right as the US Military authorities for reasons of their own decline. The principle of
sovereignty as an auto-limitation means that the Philippine jurisdictional rights may be diminished but will
never disappear.