KOR vs. DCMI-PDI.

, 2017
Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Executing and Non-Self Executing Provisions
A self-executing provision of the Constitution is one “complete in itself and becomes operative without
the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation.” It “supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right
it grants may be enjoyed or protected.” “If the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability
imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and
construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature
for action,” the provision is self-executing
Doctrine: "What is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is
contrary to morals, customs, and public order or the law itself"
FACTS:
KOR, an NGO- "civic, patriotic, cultural, nonpartisan, non-sectarian and non-profit organization" created
under Republic Act No. 646, filed a Petition for Injunction seeking a temporary restraining order, against
the construction of DMCIPDI's Torre de Manila condominium project. The KOR argues that the subject
matter of the present suit is one of CRUCIAL" transcendental importance, paramount public interest, of
overarching significance to society, or with far-reaching implication" involving the degradation of the
Rizal Monument invoking among others Article 14 of the constitution pertaining to the preservation of
cultural heritage.

The KOR asserts that the completed Torre de Manila structure will [Stand] out easily visible, [tower] over
all nearby structures within a two-kilometer radius" and "permanently disrupt the view of the Rizal
Monument in Luneta Park: The Torre de Manila building would rise behind it, casting a shadow over the
entire monument, whether seen up close or from a distance.

ISSUE:

Can the Court issue a writ of mandamus against the officials of the City of Manila to stop the construction
of DMCI-PDI's Torre de Manila project?

RULING: No.

There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background
"view, vista, sightline, or setting" of the Rizal Monument.

Section 15, Article XIV of the Constitution, which deals with the subject of arts and culture, provides that
"[t]he State shall conserve, promote and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and
resources x x x." Since this provision is not self-executory, Congress passed laws dealing with the
preservation and conservation of our cultural heritage thru RA 1006 of 2009 National Cultural Heritage
Act. It empowers the National Commission for Culture and the Arts and other cultural agencies to issue a
cease and desist order "when the physical integrity of the national cultural treasures or important cultural
properties [is] found to be in danger of destruction or significant alteration from its original state. "This
law declares that the State should protect the "physical integrity" of the heritage property or building if
there is "danger of destruction or significant alteration from its original state." Physical integrity refers to
the structure itself - how strong and sound the structure is. The same law does not mention that another
project, building, or property, not itself a heritage property or building, may be the subject of a cease and
desist order when it adversely affects the background view, vista, or sightline of a heritage property or
building.

ARTICLE II-DELCLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
Section 1: Form of Government and Sovereignty of the State
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
Section 2: Renunciation of war and adoption of generally accepted principles of international law
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.
Section 3: Civilian supremacy over the military
Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the
protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of
the national territory.
Section 4: Prime duty of the Government
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 citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
Section 5: Maintenance of peace and order
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the
general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
Section 6: The separation of Church and State
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable

ART.I NATIONAL TERRITORY

Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
Art 1: National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of
its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
Philippine archipelago-a sea or an area of it containing a large number of scattered islands. Internal waters
of the Philippines-all the waters that fall landward of the baseline, such as lakes, rivers, and tidewaters.
Internal waters-The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago regardless of
their breadth and dimension.
MAGALONA VS. ERMITA 2011
Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
TERRITORY
FACTS:

Petitioners assails the constitutionality of RA 9522 in adjusting the country’s archipelagic

baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories. They averred that RA 9522
"dismembers a large portion of the national territory" because it discards the pre-UNCLOS III
demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties, successively
encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
Petitioners theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutory provision
denying the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea recognized at
the time of the Treaty of Paris, That Spain supposedly ceded to the United States. Petitioners
argue that from the Treaty of Paris’ technical description, Philippine sovereignty over territorial
waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the
rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris.

ISSUE:

Is RA 9522 unconstitutional?

RULING: No.

UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12
nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines],
exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that
UNCLOS III delimits.

On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to
mark-out specific base points along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight
or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones
and continental shelf. Even under petitioners’ theory that the Philippine territory embraces the
islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the
baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because
this is the only way to draw the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot
be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of
Paris, but from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago."

2nd Issue
FACTS:

On RA 9522, Petitioners contend that the law unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into
archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage
under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights
indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in
violation of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Is RA 9522 unconstitutional?

RULING: No.

Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution or as

"archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty
over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the
submarine areas underneath. As affirmed by UNCLOS III.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and
adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the
breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most
vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the
Constitution and our national interest.

In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic
zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living resources
within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the
delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to
UNCLOS III, the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by
it.

What is the original measure of maritime breadth of the Philippines enshrined in the Treaty of
Paris? Territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago,
embracing the rectangular area.

RA 9522- an act defining the archipelagic baseline of the Philippines.

Maritime Zone- A maritime zone refers to a specific area of the ocean or sea that is subject to a
set of legal regulations and jurisdictional rules.

Continental shelf- The extended portion of a continent's landmass that is submerged beneath the
ocean.

Maritime space- generally refers to the areas of the world's oceans and seas, and it encompasses
various zones and boundaries defined by international maritime law
Baseline- an area where the seawater and the sand first meet during low tide.

Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles

ART II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Section 1: Form of Government and Sovereignty of the State
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
Republican Government- is a democratic government by representatives chosen by the people at large.
The essence therefore is an indirect rule.
1. Popular sovereignty-The people have established the government to govern themselves. Its
officers from the highest to the lowest level are servant of the people and not their masters. They
can only exercise the powers delegated to them by the people who remain as the ultimate sources
of political power and authority.
2. Democratic- because the government while essentially a republican democracy, embodies some
features of a pure of direct democracy such as initiative, referendum and recall.
Sovereignty of the people- it implies the supreme authority inherent in the state by whih it is governed. As
the state in whom sovereignty resides, the Filipino people have the right to constitute their own
government, to change it, and to define its jurisdiction.
Indirect exercise of sovereignty- this is done by the lawmakers. Their law is binding to all and their act is
deemed the act of the people who elected them.
Direct exercise of sovereignty-the people themselves performs the act. Just like the right to express their
opinion towards the government and the exercise of the right to vote during election.
Bangsamoro-natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and
the archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization, and their descendants whether mixed or of full
blood, including their spouses. [MOA-AD]
Judicial Review-The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies;
An actual case or controversy-involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.
Ripeness for adjudication-For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that
something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the
picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a
result of the challenged action. That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate
ripeness.
Certiorari and Prohibition- are remedies granted by law when any tribunal, board or officer has acted, in
the case of certiorari, or is proceeding, in the case of prohibition, with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Mandamus-is a remedy granted by law when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right or office to
which such other is entitled. Locus standi:Citizen- When the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient
that the petitioner is a citizen and has an interest in the execution of the laws.
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO vs. GRP-PPAD 2008
Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
Section 1: Form of Government and Sovereignty of the State
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
FACTS:
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, were scheduled to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. MOA-
AD defines "Bangsamoro people" as the natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent
islands including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization, and their
descendants whether mixed or of full blood, including their spouses.
Thus, the concept of "Bangsamoro," as defined in this strand of the MOA-AD, includes not only "Moros"
as traditionally understood, but all indigenous peoples of Mindanao and its adjacent islands. Denoted
further Bangsamoro homeland," the ownership of which is vested exclusively in the Bangsamoro people
by virtue of their prior rights of occupation. Both parties to the MOA-AD acknowledge that ancestral
domain does not form part of the public domain.
Petitioners in this case prayed for the issuance of a Temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents
to sign the MOA-AD on the grounds that it violate the law and the constitution.
Issue:
Is the MOA-AD unconstitutional?
RULING: Yes.
Republic Act No. 8371, also known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, establishes a clear and
systematic procedure for the identification and demarcation of ancestral domains. This process includes a
crucial requirement: the acknowledgment of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous
Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the law explicitly does not authorize the Executive
Department or any government body to delineate or acknowledge an ancestral domain claim through
mere agreement or compromise. Our society operates on transparency, where all government actions are
open to public scrutiny and continuously accessible to public awareness. This transparency is essential for
maintaining a democratic nation, where sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority is
derived from them.
Ancestral domain-typically refers to the land, territories, and resources that indigenous or local
communities have traditionally owned, occupied, or used for their livelihoods.
 PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HEALTH SECRETARY
FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III

Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles

ART II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Section 2: Renunciation of war and adoption of generally accepted principle of international law as part
of the law of the land.
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by
transformation or incorporation. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation
pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution. The transformation method requires that an
international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local
legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law
is deemed to have the force of domestic law.
FACTS:
The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS) resolution adopted by the World
Health Assembly on 1981 recommending for the use of breastmilk as the best for babies 0-12 years old
and prohibits the promotion of other Brest milk formula or substitute. The Philippines enacted the Milk
code with adherence to the certain provisions of the ICMBS recommendation and did not completely
adopts all the provision. Which the petitioners assailed such international agreement entered into by the
Philippines
ISSUE:
Is the pertinent international agreements entered into by the Philippines are part of the law of the land and
may be implemented by the DOH through the RIRR;
RULING:
Yes.
Under section II of the constitution states that Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
Generally accepted principles of international law” refers to norms of general or customary international
law which are binding on all states. Custom or customary international law means “a general and
consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation [opinio juris].”
(Restatement) This statement contains the two basic elements of custom:
1. the material factor, that is, how states behave, and
2. the psychological or subjective factor, that is, why they behave the way they do.
Clearly, customary international law is deemed incorporated into our domestic system under the principle
of the state.

GUDANI VS. SENGA

Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
ARTICLE II CIVILIAN SUPREMACY
Section 3: The civilian authority is supreme over the military. The arm forces of the Philippines is the
protector of the people and the state, its goal is to secure the national sovereignty and the integrity of the
National territory.
FACTS:
Petitioner seeks for the annulment of the directive of the President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo enjoining
them and other military officers from testifying before congress without the president’s consent. Despite
the order of the president thru the chief of staff enjoining the petitioners from testifying in Senate hearing
petitioner still present themselves before the Senate. They argued that they are just compliant with the
authority of congress to conduct an inquiry and the same must not be accorded respect hence, neglecting
the order of their commander in chief.
ISSUE:
Is the President has the control power over the Military?
RULING: Yes
Under the constitution, civilian authority is supreme over the military. The president being a civilian, has
the power of control of the Military as the commander in chief of the Armed forces. In this regard, as part
of the military discipline and has a distinct role in the society, expected to give utmost respect and
obedience to the lawful order of their superiors even if such order is contrary to their own will. As in this
case, the petitioner blatantly disobeyed the orders given to them by their superior in accordance with
constitution.

2ND ISSUE:
Is the executive order issued by the president violates the constitutional right of information and
transparency on matters of public concern?
RULING: No.
Pursuant to the maintenance of civilian supremacy over the military the constitution allocated specific
roles to the legislative and executive branches of the government in relation to military affairs. Military
appropriations are determined by congress as is the power to declare the existence of a state of war and
the like. On the other hand, on particulars of civilian dominance and the administration over the military,
the Constitution is silent, except for the CIC clause which is fertile in meaning and implications as to
whatever inherent martial authority the president may possess. As a requirement in Military discipline, it
cannot be gainsaid that certain liberties of persons in the military service including the freedom of speech
may be circumscribed by the rules of military discipline. Thus, to a certain degree, individual rights may
be curtailed because the effectiveness of the military in fulfilling its duties under the law depends to a
large extent on the maintenance of discipline within its ranks. Hence, lawful orders must be followed
without questions and rules must be followed without question and rules must be faithfully complied
with, irrespective of a soldiers personal views on the matter.
ARTICLE XVI 1987 CONSTITUTION
ART.5 RULES APPLICABLE TO THE ARMED FORCES
Section 5 (1): All members of the Armed forces of the Philippines shall take an oath to uphold and defend
the constitution.
They are bound to obey and defend the provision of the constitution, therefore, what the constitution
impliedly or expressly must be complied with subject to the interpretation of the court.
3. The state shall strengthen the patriotic spirit of and nationalistic consciousness of the military,
and respect for the people’s rights in the performance of their duty.
The armed forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the state. State is composed of
people.
4. Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall
be a prime concern of the state.
The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics.
No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity,
except to vote.
5. No member of the armed forces in the active service shall at any time. Be appointed or designated
in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government including the government-owned or
controlled corporations or any of their subsidiary.
6. Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their services
7. The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately
from all provinces and cities as far as practicable.
8. The tour of duty of the Chief of staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. However,
in times of war or other national emergency declared by the congress, the president may extend
such tour of duty.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Article XVI s (16)-The state shall established and maintain one police force, which shall be:
1. National in scope and
2. Civilian in character,
3. To be administered and controlled by the national police commission.
The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
NAPOLCOM- independently administer the Philippine National Police. An attached agency under the
DILG. DILG is under the executive department and executive department is controlled by the president.
Therefore, the president has still the indirect control of the police force thru DILG.

CARPIO VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
ART.II CIVILIAN SUPREMACY
FACTS:
After an act establishing Philippine National Police under a reorganized department of interior and
local government passed into law, Petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer and member of the bar sworn to
defend the constitution seeking for the declaration of said act as unconstitutional. He invoked the
ground that such act only interferes with the control power of the president because it diminishes the
president’s commander in chief power over the PNP. Which lead to the issue in this case.
ISSUE:
Is the president abdicated its Commander-in-chief Power over the PNP and NAPOLCOM by virtue of
RA 6975
RULING:No.
PNP and NAPOLCOM are not under the commander in chief power of the president. They are under
the President’s control power and power of supervision. So there is no abdication to speak of. The
president has the control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. In this case, PNP is under
the reorganized department of interior and local government an agency under the control power of the
president.
2ND ISSUE:
Is the local chief executive usurps the authority of the NAPOLCOM under the law?
RULING: No.
Under the constitution, the state shall established and maintain one police force, which shall be
national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police
commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be
provided by law.
The authority of the local chief executive is limited, they are designated as deputized representative of
the NAPOLCOM under such law and could choose the chief of police under their area of jurisdiction
in accordance with the parameters already provided by the same law. And such exercise of authority
 is still subject of review to the NAPOLCOM, hence, there is no usurpation of authority over the
NAPOLCOM in this case.

MILITARY CONSCRIPTION
Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
ART. II S (4) COMPULSORY MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE
Section 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 fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required under
conditions provided by law to render personal, military or civil service.
Defense of the state by the people against the foreign aggression is one of the duty of the citizens of the
Philippines.
People- it may include the alien since they are likewise subject to regulations adopted by the government
for the defense of the State.
Conditions provided by law- in terms of implementing the compulsory military and civil service it must
provide a guidelines duly passed by the legislators as a manner of procedure and requirements. This is to
prevent any arbitrariness of the part of the government official in its recruitment and implementation
process.
Defense of the army must be done through an army and cannot be done by the people by volunteering
they must be enlisted. This principle is reinforce by means of the formation of a citizen armed force.
Personal- means that the person must render such military or civil service himself and not thru others.
Civil service- any act that aid the military service for the defense of the state without involvement of the
application of force.
The three main service branches in the AFP:
1. Armed forces of the Philippines
2. Philippine Marines/Navy
3. Air force
 SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: Fundamental Principles
ART.II Section 6 SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Section 6- Separation of church and state shall be inviolable.
The church shall not interfere in purely political matters or temporal aspects of man’s life and the state, in
purely matter of religion and morals, which are the exclusive concerns of the other.
Church- covers all religious institutions or faiths. The state cannot give appropriations for the benefit of
any religion or sects, and the state has no official religion.
Art .III Section 5- No law shall be passed respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights.
Religious freedom- the right of a man to worship God, and to entertain such religious views as appeal to
his individual conscience, without the dictation or interference by any person or power, civil, or
ecclesiastical.
Religion- includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human
beings and imposing rules of conduct with future state of reward or punishment.
Freedom of religious profession and worship.
1. Freedom to believe in a religion
2. Freedom to act in accordance with such belief.

BAYAN VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: State Policy
ART II S (7) INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY
Section 7: The state shall pursue the independent foreign policy. In its relation with the other state, the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right
to self-determination.
Section 8: The Philippines consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom
from nuclear weapons in its territory.
FACTS:
Philippines and the USA forged a military bases agreement which formalized, among others, the use of
installations in the philippine territory by the USA military personnel. To further strengthen their defense
and security relationship, the Philippines and USA entered into a mutual defense treaty. Under the treaty
the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory armed forces, public vessels,
and aircraft.
The then President Ramos approved the VFA which was signed also by the USA. Later on it was ratified
by then President Estrada and senate concurs with the required vote to effect the treaty by means of their
resolution. Petitioner assails that VFA is unconstitutional as it is prohibited under Article XVIII of the
constitution.
ISSUE:
Is VFA unconstitutional?
RULING:
No
Visiting forces agreement entered into by the US and the Philippines is constitutional as it follows the
necessary requirement under article XVIII of the constitution concerning the military troops of foreign
country maybe allowed in the Philippines if it is in the form of a treaty upon which the General rule laid
down under article VII of the constitution.
2nd ISSUE:
Does the VFA violates the prohibition against freedom from nuclear weapon within the territory?
RULING:
No
There is nothing in the agreement that contains the storage of nuclear weapons in the foreign military
bases of the USA. In fact it take into account such constitutional prohibition in their agreement.

S
 IN RE: LETTER OF TONY Q. VALENCIANO A.M 10-4-19, 2017
FACTS:
This controversy originated from the series of letters written by Valenciano addressed to justice Puno
about the Holding of religious rituals at the hall of justice building in Quezon City. He said that such hall
had been converted into a place of religious worship. The hall has religious images, icons and a projector.
He believed that such practice had violated the constitutional provision about the separation of church and
state and the constitutional prohibition of non-establishment of religious worship and appropriating funds
for the benefit of such religious denomination. The letter was referred to the Judge of the MeTC

Judge Lutero opined that it is not the conduct of masses in public places which the Constitution
prohibited, but the passage of laws or the use of public funds for the purpose of establishing a religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. She conveyed the fact that no law or rule had been passed and that
no public funds had been appropriated or used to support the celebration of masses. She added that the
holding of Catholic masses did not mean that Catholics had better chances of obtaining favorable
resolutions from the court.
ISSUE:
Is the holding of masses at the basement of the Quezon City hall of justice violates the constitutional
principle of separation of church and state?
RULING: No.
Allowing religion to flourish is not contrary to the principle of separation of Church and State. Roman
Catholics express their worship through the holy mass and to stop these would be tantamount to
repressing the right to the free exercise of their religion. Religious freedom, however, is not absolute. It
cannot have its way if there is a compelling state interest. As reported by the Executive Judges of Quezon
City, the masses were being conducted only during noon breaks and were not disruptive of public
services. The court proceedings were not being distracted or interrupted and that the performance of the
judiciary employees were not being adversely affected. Moreover, no Civil Service rules were being
violated. As there has been no detrimental effect on the public service or prejudice to the State, there is
simply no state interest compelling enough to prohibit the exercise of religious freedom in the halls of
justice.
2nd ISSUE:
Does the mass violate the non-establishment of religion clause of the constitution?
RULING: No.
In order to give life to the constitutional right on freedom of religion, the State adopts a policy of
accommodation. Accommodation is a recognition of the reality that some governmental 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. The non-establishment clause reinforces the wall of separation between Church and State.
It simply means that the State cannot set up a Church. The holding of Catholic masses at the basement of
the QC Hall of Justice is not a case of establishment, but merely accommodation
 CALALANG VS. WILLIAMS
JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER: DEFINITION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: State Policies
Section 1: The congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and
remove cultural inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for common good.
FACTS:
A petition for the writ of prohibition was filed by a private citizen and taxpayer Maximo Calalang against
Williams among others from implementing the rules and regulations which stem from C.A 548 passed by
the National assembly with the policy to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and
streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the
President of the Philippines. The Director of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to regulate and control
the use of and traffic on such roads and streets. And to close them temporarily to any or all classes of
traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable
in the public convenience and interest.
In view of such law, the secretary of public works and communications approved the rules and
regulations which prohibits animal-drawn vehicles from passing along Rosario Street extending from
Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmarinas Street, and along Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad
crossing at Antipolo Street to Azcarraga Street, for more or less 9 hours a day for a period of one year
from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. And that as a consequence, all animal-
drawn vehicles are not able to pass and pick up passengers in the places mentioned to the detriment not
only of their owners but of the riding public as well. The petitioner avers that such measure infringes
upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and
economic security of all the people.

ISSUE:

Is the petitioner’s claim of infringement on social justice correct?

RULING: No.

Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the
maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-
honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Said Act, by virtue of which the rules and regulations
complained of were promulgated, aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national
roads, in the interest and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, therefore, the National
Assembly was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire
to relieve congestion of traffic. which is, to say the least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then,
lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may
interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property
may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the state (U.S. v. Gomez Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). To this fundamental aim of our Government
the rights of the individual are subordinated.

MMDA vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY

RIGHT TO A HEALTFUL AND BALANCED ECOLOGY

FACTS:

This case started when, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, among them the
petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that
the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code. In their individual causes of
action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila
Bay constitutes a violation of, among others; Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a
balanced ecology.
The trial and appellate court favored the petitioner’s resident of Manila bay and ordered MMDA to clean
up Manila bay hence, this appeal.
Petitioners, maintained that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the
cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart from raising
concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning purposes, petitioners also asserted that the
cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
ISSUE:
Is the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila bay is not a ministerial act of the petitioners that can be
compelled of by Mandamus
RULING: No.
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty." It connotes an act in
which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. MMDA is duty-bound to put up and
maintain adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal system as well as other alternative
garbage disposal systems. It is primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the
provisions of RA 9003, which would necessary include its penal provisions, within its area of jurisdiction.
The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD
1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to
radically transform and improve waste management. It implements Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987
Constitution, which explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Even assuming the
absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the
men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to
keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a
betrayal of the trust reposed in them.

Under MMDA charter as part of their scope of services, includes

1. Solid waste disposal and management which includes formulation, implementation of policies,
standards and programs for proper sanitary waste disposal.

CHAVEZ vs. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY

ART. III FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
Section 7: The right of the people to information on matters of public concerns shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded
the citizen subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
As a General rule, matter of public concern and governmental records shall be publish, except on matters
affecting records of national security, national interest, military proceedings, intelligence matter.
Syllabus: Constitution of Liberty: State Policies
FACTS:

The government, through the Commissioner of Public Highways, signed a contract with the Construction
and Development Corporation of the Philippines to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila
Bay. The then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree creating Public Estate Authority (PEA).
Tasked "to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire,
lease and sell any and all kinds of lands." On the same date, then President Marcos issued Presidential
Decree transferring to PEA the "lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay" under
the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP).

Former President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent, granting and transferring to PEA "the parcels
of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP)
Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Parañaque issued Transfer Certificates of Title
to PEA, covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at southern coast of
Paranaque City.
PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the Freedom
Islands. PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding. Board of
Directors of PEA, in its Resolution confirmed the JVA. And approved by President Ramos.
Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the Senate and denounced the JVA as
the "grandmother of all scams." As a result, two Senate Committee conducted a joint investigation and
one of the findings in their report stated that JVA is illegal on the grounds that the parcel of lands PEA
seeks to transfer to AMARI are inalienable. And President Ramos ordered the creation of task force to
investigate the matters reported by the Senate committee. The task force upheld the legality of the JVA
contrary to the conclusion of Senate. Later on Daily inquirer reported that there is an on-going
renegotiation between PEA and AMARI.

Petitioner Frank I. Chavez as a taxpayer, filed the instant Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner prays that PEA
publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking among others, Section 7, Article III,
of the 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Petitioner
assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant violation of Section 3, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations.

Despite this, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture Agreement. Then President Joseph E.
Estrada approved the Amended JVA.

Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of the President, petitioner now prays that on
"constitutional and statutory grounds the renegotiated contract be declared null and void."

ISSUE:

Is the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a
final agreement?

RULING:

Article III of the Constitution explains the people's right to information on matters of public concern in
this manner:

Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law

The right covers three categories of information which are "matters of public concern," namely:
(1) Official records; refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of government
agencies or officials
(2) Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions; -refers to documents and
papers recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official acts,
transactions or decisions of government agencies or officials
(3) Government research data used in formulating policies. The third category refers to research data,
whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in formulating government
policies

The information that petitioner may access on the renegotiation of the JVA includes evaluation reports,
recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference and other
documents attached to such reports or minutes, all relating to the JVA. However, the right to information
does not compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like relating to the renegotiation of the
JVA.34 The right only affords access to records, documents and papers, which means the opportunity to
inspect and copy them. One who exercises the right must copy the records, documents and papers at his
expense. The exercise of the right is also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the
public records and to minimize disruption to government operations, like rules specifying when and how
to conduct the inspection and copying.

The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized as privileged information under
the separation of powers. The right does not also apply to information on military and diplomatic secrets,
information affecting national security, and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement
agencies before the prosecution of the accused, which courts have long recognized as confidential. The
right may also be subject to other limitations that Congress may impose by law.

There is no claim by PEA that the information demanded by petitioner is privileged information rooted in
the separation of powers. The information does not cover Presidential conversations, correspondences, or
discussions during closed-door Cabinet meetings which, like internal deliberations of the Supreme Court
and other collegiate courts, or executive sessions of either house of Congress, are recognized as
confidential. This kind of information cannot be pried open by a co-equal branch of government. A frank
exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested
parties, is essential to protect the independence of decision-making.

We rule, therefore, that the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going
negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by
the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and
diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order. 40 Congress has also
prescribed other limitations on the right to information in several legislations.