CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

Contents
ARTICLE II, 1987 CONSTITUTION.................................................................................................................3
SECTION 1 ARTICLE II...............................................................................................................................3
Villavicencio v. Lukban.........................................................................................................................3
Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC.............................................................................................................3
Section 2..................................................................................................................................................4
Doctrine of Incorporation........................................................................................................................4
Kuroda vs Jalandoni.............................................................................................................................4
Agustin v. Edu......................................................................................................................................5
CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

ARTICLE II, 1987 CONSTITUTION

SECTION 1
- Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them. OURS IS A GIVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN

1. Villavicencio v. Lukban
Facts:
170 women who lived in the segregated district of women of ill repute in Manila were, by orders of
respondent Mayor Lukban and the chief of Police, isolated from society; and without their consent and
opportunity to defend their rights, the 170 women were forcibly hustled on board vessels for
deportation to Mindanao. Such order was given for the best of all deportation to Mindanao. Such order
was given for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice. Deportees petitioned for habeas corpus and
contended that they were illegally restrained of their liberty.
ISSUE:
Whether Mayor Lukban who is acting in good faith have the right to deport said women of ill-repute
against their privilege of domicile in restraint of their liberties
RULING:
No, No law, order or regulation authorized Mayor Lukban to force citizens of the Philippines to change
their domicile. No official, no matter how high is above the law. The courts shall not permit a
government of men, but instead of laws. Petition Granted.

2. Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC
Facts:
Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares is a foundling adopted when she was 5 years old by celebrities
known as Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces. When she was 18 years old, she registered for voting in
Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. Grace Poe eventually migrated to the United States and got a
Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Studies from Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. She
then married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, a person with dual-citizenship to the Philippines
and the USA. For this, the couple flew to the United States to reside. There, they had their first child.
October 2001, Poe became an American Citizen.
Three years later(2004), she came back to the Philippines to support her father on his presidential
candidacy and flew back. Not long later, she went back to the Philippines upon learning of her father’s
medical condition, fell into coma then later died. Because of this, she and her husband decided to live In
the Philippines for Poe’s mother, Susan Roces. They began to settle transactions pertaining to their
forthcoming residence in the country such as the enrolment of their siblings, relocating their goods from
the US to the Philippines as well as bringing their pet dog. She briefly stayed at her mother’s place
before purchasing a condo located in San Juan City. Her husband, staying at the US, officially declared
their abandonment of US address and sold their house thereafter.
Poe later took her Oath of Allegiance and reacquired her Philippine citizenship, registered as a voter
again, got her passport renewed, renunciate her allegiance and citizenship to the US. And worked as a
chairperson for MTRCB and a Philippine Senator in 2006.
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

Issue:
Whether Poe is a Filipino citizen and if she is qualified to run for presidency
Ruling:
Poe has found to be a natural-born citizen and is declared to be qualified to run for presidency. Under
the International law, foundlings are presumed to have been born of citizens of the place where they
are found; Consequently, the petitioner is considered as a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

Section 2
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations

Doctrine of Incorporation
Every State, by membership of the family of nations, is bound by the general principles of international
law, which automatically is incorporated in its own lands (becomes part of it)

3. Kuroda vs Jalandoni
Facts:

Petitioner Kuroda was the general of Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines from 1943-1944. He is
now charged with having unlawfully disregarded and having failed to “discharge his duties as such
commander to control the operations of members in his command, permitting them to commit high
crimes in violation of the laws and customs of war” under EO 68 – issued in conformity with the
generally accepted principles of international law established in the Hague Convention. Kuroda Argues
that EO 68 is unconstitutional as the Philippines, is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague
Convention. He contends the Commission, which is prosecuting him, established pursuant to EO 68 is
therefore without jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether Kuroda may be prosecuted under EO 68 which is adherent to the Hague Convention even
though Philippines is not a signatory thereof?

Ruling:

Yes. Article II, of our constitution provides that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the nation. Furthermore, when the crimes were committed, the
Philippines was under the sovereignty of the US and thus we were equally bound together with the US
to the treaty as the US is a signatory to the convention. Petition to declare EO 68 null and void denied.
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

4. Agustin v. Edu
Facts:

In the interest of safety on all streets and highways, Pres. Marcos issued Letter of Instruction (LOI) No.
229, directing, among others, all owners, users or drivers of motor vehicles to have at all times in their
motor vehicles at least 1 pair of early warning device (EWD). Petitioner Agustin after setting forth that
he “is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car xxx already properly equipped xxx with blinking lights fore
and aft, which could very well serve as an EWD xxx” allege that said LOI is unconstitutional as it is an
invalid exercise of police power. He asserts it is contrary to the precepts of a compassionate New Society
[as being] compulsory and confiscatory on the part of the motorists who could very well provide a
practical alternative road safety device to the specified set of EWDs. He insists it is arbitrary and
unconscionable to the motoring public, and illegal and immoral because they will make manufacturers
and dealers instant millionaires at the expense of car owners.

Issue:

Whether LOI 229 is unconstitutional

Ruling:

No. While the Court found none of the constitutional defects alleged against the LOI, it still exerted
effort in making the following observation: “The conclusion reached by this Court xxx is reinforced by
[the] consideration that [this] petition itself quoted the whereas clauses of the assailed LOI: ‘[Whereas],
the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies
concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signal and the United
Nations Organization (U.N.); [Whereas], the said Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine
Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of
road safety signs and devices, xxx.’ It cannot be disputed then that [the Incorporation clause] in the
Constitution possesses relevance xxx. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it
had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which
is, moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.”

5. Gonzales v. Hechanova
Facts:

Respondent Exec. Sec. Hechanova entered into a contract with Vietnam and Burna for the purchase of
rice. RA 2207 and 3452 explicitly prohibits the importation of rice and corn by the government.
Petitioners thus aver that the respondents acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction when
the contract was entered into. Respondents contended that under American jurisprudence where a
treaty and a statute are inconsistent with each other, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the one
which is latest in point of time, which in this case are the contracts,

Issue:
Whether the alleged executive agreements be upheld over RA 2207 and 3452
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

Ruling:

No, the alleged executive agreements are clearly prohibited by the foregoing statutes. Under the
principle of separation of powers, an executive may not defeat legislative enactments as that would
interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the Congress. For the American theory to be
applicable, said treaty must be entered into with the consent of its Senate, and, hence, of a branch of
the legislative department. Thus, in this case, the American theory cannot be made to apply to the
executive agreements as they are not authorized by previous legislation without completely upsetting
the principle of separation of powers.

6. Inchong v. Hernandez
Facts:

Petitioner asks for invalidation of RA 1180 which is the Retail Trade Nationalization Act – prohibiting
aliens to engage in retail trade in our country on the ground, among others, that it contravened several
treaties namely the Charter of the UN and the Declaration of Human Rights, and the Treaty of Amity
between RP and Rep of China

Issue:
Whether RA 1180 be declared invalid on the ground that it contravened several treaties which adhere to
generally accepted principles of international law

Ruling:

No, the Court found no treaties or international obligations infringed. But even supposing that the law
infringes upon said treaties, a treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by subsequent law,
and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State. There is no
question that RA 1180 was approved in the exercise of police power. Petition denied.

Article 4
The Prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon
the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizen may be required, under
conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service

7. People v. Lagman
Facts:

Respondents Lagman and de Sosa are charged with violation of the National Defense Law which
establishes compulsory military service. Both refused to register to military service. Lagman aver he has
a father to support, has no military learnings and does not wish to kill or be killed. Sosa reasons he is
fatherless and has a mother and an 8-year-old brother to support. Respondents questioned the
constitutionality of said law.

Issue:
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

Whether National Defense Law is Unconstitutional

Ruling:

No, the said law is not unconstitutional – the establishment of compulsory military service does not go
against Art II section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, thus it is in compliance therewith. The duty of the
government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the
organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the government
excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. The right of the
government to require military service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State.

Section 6
Separation of Church and State is inviolable

8. Aligpay v. Ruiz
Facts:
Respondent Director of Posts Ruiz issued a sold postage stamps commemorative of the 33 rd
International Eucharistic Congress. Such act was undertaken pursuant to Act 4052 – which authorizes
the Director of Posts to dispose of the amount appropriated for the cost of plates and printing of stamps
with new design as may be deemed advantageous to the Government. Petitioner Aligpay, Supreme
Head of the Philippine Independent Church, prays for a writ of inhibition to prevent Director Ruiz from
issuing and selling the commemorative postage stamp, averring it violates Article VI Section 13 of the
Constitution – No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied or used directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church denomination, sectarian institution or
system of religion…
Notably, the stamps as actually designed and printed, instead of showing a Catholic Church
chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of the City of Manila,
and an inscription as follows: “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb 3-7, 1937.”
Issue:
Whether Act 4025 contemplate a religious purpose
Whether the issuance and selling of the commemorative postage stamps contrary to Art VI, sec 13 of
1935 Constitution
Ruling:
No. Article VI section 13 is a direct corollary of the principle of separation of church and state. The
stamps were not issued and sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor were money derived
from the sale of the stamps given to that church. The only purpose in issuing and seeling the stamps was
to “advertise the Philippines and attract more tourist to this country.” The officials concerned merely
took advantage of an event considered of international importance to give publicity to the Philippines
and its people. It is obvious that while the issuance and sale of the stamps may be said to be inseparably
linked with an event of religious character, the resulting propaganda. If any, received by the Roman
Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the Government
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

9. Garces v. Estenzo
Facts:

Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City passed two resolutions, Resolution No. 5 – reviving the
traditional socio-religious celebration every fifth of April. This provided for the acquisition of the image
of San Vicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. Funds for these projects will be obtained
through the selling of tickets and cash donations. Resolution No. 6 – the chairman or hermano mayor of
the fiesta would be the caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image would remain in
his residence for one year until the election of his successor. The image would be made available to the
Catholic Church during the celebration of the saint’s feast day.

These resolutions are ratified by 272 voters, and said projects were implemented. The image was
temporarily placed in the altar of the Catholic Church of the barangay. However, after a mass, Father
Sergio Marilao Osmena refused to return the image to the barangay council stating that it is the church’s
property since church funds were used in its acquisition.

Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against the
priest for the recovery of the image. Resolution No. 12 appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as representative
of the case. The priest, in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priest with
Andres Garces – petitioner, member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that sec 8 Article IV and Sec 18
Article VIII of the constitution was violated

Issue:

Whether freedom of religion clause in the Constitution were violated

Ruling:

No. As said by the court this case is a petty quarrel over the custody of the image. The image was
purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any
religion not interfering with religious matters or beliefs of the barrio residents. Any activity intended to
facilitate the worship of a patron saint is not illegal. Practically, the image was placed I a layman’s
custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in
connection with prayers and novena. It was the council’s funds that were used to buy the image,
therefore it is their property. Right of the determination of custody is their right, and even if they
decided to give it to the Church, there is no violation to the Constitution, since private funds were used.
Not every government activity involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious
tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding the separation of church and state, freedom of
worship and banning the use of public money or property.
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

10. Estrada v. Escritor

Facts:

Escritor is the Court interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Pinas City. Estrada requested an investigation
of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she
was still married. Estrada believes that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the
image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear
that the court condones such act.

Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral
conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehova’s Witness and Watch Tower
Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religion which allows
members of Jehova’s witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital
relations. The declaration makes the union moral and binding within the congregation throughout the
world except in countries where divorce is allowed.

Issue:

Whether Escritor is guilty of gross immoral act for having an illicit relationship
Whether religious belief justify such act

Ruling:

Yes, the act is grossly immoral. The court ruled that government employees engaged in illicit relations
are guilty of disgraceful act and immoral conduct for which he may be held administratively liable. In
these cases, there was not on dissent to the majority’s ruling that their conduct was immoral. The
respondents themselves did not foist the defense that their conduct was not immoral, but instead
sought to prove that they did not commit the alleged act or have abated from committing the act.

No, Escritor is not guilty of gross immorality and she cannot be penalized for her freedom of religion
justifies her conjugal arraignment. In interpreting the free exercise clause, the realm of belief poses no
difficulty. The early case of Gerona v. Secretary of Education: the realm of belief, including religious
belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one’s imagination and thought. So is the
freedom of belief, including religious belief and without bounds. One may believe in most anything,
however strange, bizarre and unreasonable the same may appear to others, even heretical when
weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal standards. But between the freedom of belief and the
exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to travel. The Court recognizes that the state
interest must be upheld in order that freedom, including religious freedom, may be enjoyed.

11. In Re Letter of Tony Valenciano

Facts:

This controversy originated from a series of letters written by Valenciano and addressed to the Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno reporting that the basement of the Hall of Justice of Quezon City had been
converted into a Roman Catholic Chapel, complete with Catholic Religious icons and other instrument
for religious activities. He believe that such practice violated the constitutional provisions on the
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

separation of Church and State and the constitutional prohibition against the appropriation of public
money and property for the benefit of a sect, church, denomination, or any other system of religion. He
further averred that the holding of masses at the basement of Hall of Justice showed that it tended to
favor Catholic litigants; that the rehearsals and other activities caused great disturbance to the
employees; and that court functions are affected due to the masses that is being held from 12:00 – 1:15
in the afternoon

Issue:

Whether the holding of masses at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice violates constitutional
principle of separation of church and state as well as the constitutional prohibition against the
appropriation of public money and property for the benefit of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution or other system of religion.

Ruling:

Holding of Religious Rituals in the Hall of Justice does not amount to the Union of Church and State.
1987 Consti provides that separation of church and state shall be inviolable. Allowing religion to flourish
is not contrary to the principle of separation of state and church. In fact these two principles are in
perfect harmony with each other. The roman catholic express their worship through holy mass and to
stop these would be tantamount to repressing the right to the free exercise of their religion.

It is also in view of the Supreme Court that the holding of mass at the basement of the City Hall of
Justice is not a case of establishment but merely accommodation wherein the government recognize the
reality that some measures may not be imposed on a certain portion of the population for the reason
that these measures are contrary to their religious beliefs. As long as it can be shown that the exercise
of the right does not impair the public welfare, the attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such right
would be an unconstitutional encroachment.

12. Fonancier v. Court of Appeals

Facts:

Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI), represented by its supreme bishop Gerardo M. Bayaca, filed a case
with the Court of First Instance of Manila Against Bishop Santiago A. Fonacier. The IFI sought to require
bishop Fonancier to render an accounting of his administration of all the temporal properties in his
possession belonging to the church and to recover the properties from him. The IFI claimed that
Fonacier ceased to be its Supreme Bishop.

Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes Jr., having been elected as Supreme Bishop after the filing of the original
complant, was later made a co-plaintiff in a supplementary complaint

Fonacier claimed in his defense that: he has not been properly removed as Supreme Bishop; his legal
successor was Juan Jamias who had been elected in accordance with the church constitution; Bishop de
los Reyes formally joined the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and for this reason ceased to be a
member of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente; Bishop De los Reyes and Bayaca having abandoned the
faith, fundamental doctrines and practices of the IFI, ceased to be members and consequently have no
personality in filing the complaint.
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

On May 17, 1950, the court rendered judgement declaring Mons. Isabelo de los Reyes Jr., as the sole
and legitimate Supreme Bishop of the IFI and ordering Mons Fonacier to render an accounting of his
administration of the properties and funds of the church. The court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the CFI. Fonacier then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court

Issue:

Whether CA erred in its decision

Ruling:

The civil courts have jurisdiction to review the action regarding the ouster.

Where the decision of an ecclesiastical court plainly violates the law, it professes to administer or is in
conflict with the laws of the land, it will not be followed by the civil courts.

Expulsion of a member without notice or an opportunity to be heard is not conclusive upon the civil
courts when a property right is involved.

Since it is claimed that the ouster was made by an unauthorized person, or in a manner contrary to the
constitution of the church, and that the ousted bishop was not given notice of the charge against them
nor were they opportunity to be heard, the civil courts, have jurisdiction to review the action regarding
the ouster.

13. Taruc v. Dela Cruz

Facts:

Petitioners Taruc, et al., were lay members of the Philippine Independent Church (PIC) in Socorro,
Surigao del Norte. They have been clamoring for the transfer of Fr. Florano, their parish priest. Their
Bishop respondent Dela Cruz refused to transfer Fr. Florano. Meanwhile, over the objections of Bishop
Dela Cruz, Taruc organized an open mass celebrated by a certain Fr. Ambong who was not a member of
the clergy of the diocese of Surigao and whose credentials as a parish priest, in the view of Bishop Dela
Cruz were in doubt. Whereupon Bishop Dela Cruz expelled/excommunicated Taruc, et al. for
disobedience to the duly constituted authority of the PIC and for inciting dissention, among others.
Claiming their expulsion to be illegal for having been done without trial allegedly in violation to their
right to due process, Taruc, et al., filed a complaint for damages against Bishop Dela Cruz. Bishop Dela
Cruz allege lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether the courts have jurisdiction to hear a case involving expulsion/excommunication of members
of a religious institution

Ruling:

No. Our jurisdiction, we hold the Church and the State to be separate and distinct with each other. “Give
to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s.” In form of government where the complete
separation of civil and ecclesiastical authority is insisted upon, the civil courts must not allow themselves
to intrude unduly in matters of an ecclesiastical nature. In dispute involving religious institutions or
organization, there is one area which the Court should not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary differences.
 CONSTI MODULE 4 CASE DIGESTS

The power of excluding from the church those allegedly unworthy of membership are unquestionably
ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts.

14. Tanada v. Angara

Facts:

Petitioner Tanada prayed for the nullification on constitutional grounds, of the concurrence of the
Philippine Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization WTO and for the prohibition of its implementation and enforcement through
the release and utilization of public funds, the assignment of public officials and employees, as well as
the use of government properties and resources by respondent-heads of various executive offices
concerned therewith

15. Calalang v. Williams

Facts:

National Traffic Commission recommend to public works that animal drawn vehicle be prohibited form
passing Rosario St. and Rizal ave on periods of time.

CA 548 – regulate and control traffic on national roads

Ruling:

Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and
opportunities