Week 4

IX. Transcendental importance doctrine

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1

Art. 8, Section 1.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

• CONST. art. II, § 16

Art. 2, Section 16.

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.

• Kilosbayan v. Guingona, G.R. No. 113375, 232 SCRA 110, May 5, 1994 (read the majority opinion, Justice Feliciano’s concurring opinion and Justice Puno’s
dissent; focus on discussion on standing and transcendental importance; ignore the discussion about the contract being assailed)

- Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office held an auction for an online sight that could improve the revenues of PCSO, in which Berjaya Group Berhad, represented
by Philippine Gaming Management Corporation won the auction.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby Justice Feliciano’s concurring opinion - I submit, Justice Puno’s dissenting opinion
GRANTED and the challenged Contract of Lease with respect, that it is not enough for the Court 1. petitioners had no standing in the case -
executed on 17 December 1993 by respondent simply to invoke "public interest" or even Not one of the petitioners is a party to the
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and "paramount considerations of national interest," Contract of Lease executed between PCSO
respondent Philippine Gaming Management and to say that the specific requirements of such and PGMC. None of the petitioners
Corporation (PGMC) is hereby DECLARED contrary public interest can only be ascertained on a "case participated in the bidding, and hence they
to law and invalid. to case" basis. For one thing, such an approach is are not losing bidders. They are complete
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 11 not intellectually satisfying. For another, such an strangers to the contract.
April 1994 is hereby MADE PERMANENT. answer appears to come too close to saying that 2. The fundamental aspect of standing is that
locus standi exists whenever at least a majority of it focuses on the party seeking to get his
the Members of this Court participating in a case complaint before a federal court and not
feel that an appropriate case for judicial on the issues he wishes to have
intervention has arisen. adjudicated. The "gist of the question of
standing" is whether the party seeking
 1. Firstly, the character of the funds or other relief has "alleged such a personal stake in
assets involved in the case is of major the outcome of the controversy as to
importance. assure that concrete adverseness which
2. the presence of a clear case of disregard of sharpens the presentation of issues upon
a constitutional or statutory prohibition by which the court so largely depends for
the public respondent agency or illumination of difficult constitutional
instrumentality of the government. A questions."
showing that a constitutional or legal
provision is patently being disregarded by
the agency or instrumentality whose act is
being assailed, can scarcely be disregarded
by court.
3. the lack of any other party with a more
direct and specific interest in raising the
questions here being raised.

• Kilosbayan v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, 250 SCRA 130, Nov. 16, 1995 (focus on discussion on standing and transcendental importance; ignore the discussion
about the contract being assailed)

• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on discussion on standing and transcendental importance)

- doctrinal definition of transcendental importance, (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;
(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government;
and
(3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised. (90)

• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on discussion on standing and transcendental importance)

X. Non self executing provisions

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1

Art. 8, Section 1.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
• CONST. art. II, § 16

Art. 2, Section 16.

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.

• Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 SCRA 792, Jul. 30, 1993 (Feliciano, J., concurring) (focus on the distinction between a policy and a legal right)

Notes Policy
 A cause of action is defined as an act or omission of one party in  extrinsic
violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential  an external mechanism that guides and facilitates the conduct of a
elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the person/ organization
defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said Legal Right
legal right.  intrinsic
 admitting such alleged facts to be true, may the court render a valid  an inherent aspect of a person that must be recognized by fellow
judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? persons and the corresponding government
 based on this legal right, what is the specific remedy that a petitioner
seeks

• CONST. art. II, § 19

SECTION 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.

• CONST. art. XII, §§ 10, 12

• CONST. art. XII, §§ 1, 13

SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities,
income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation
for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for
all, especially the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and
natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the
State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
 In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given
optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and
similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.

SECTION 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when
the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as
Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.

In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the
State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.

The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction
and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.

SECTION 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and
locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.

SECTION 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms
and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

• Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, 267 SCRA 408, 431, Feb. 3, 1997 (read the majority opinion and the dissents of
Justices Puno and Panganiban; focus on the implementation of the “Filipino First” policy and whether a Filipino bidder was allowed to match a foreign bidder)

The GSIS were auctioning the 30 -51% shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation. Manila Hotel Corporation offered to pay 41.58/ share while Renong Berhad (RB),
a Malaysian firm, offered to pay 44/ share. MHC matched the bid or RB, however, it was disregarded by the GSIS.

WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE  j. puno

INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL
CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION  Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as self-executing,9 rather than as
and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE requiring future legislation for their enforcement. 10 The reason is not difficult to discern. For if they
COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law ratified by the sovereign
selling 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel people can be easily ignored and nullified by Congress. Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the
Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT unyielding rule that legislative actions may give breath to constitutional rights but congressional in
the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE action should not suffocate them.
HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51%  The second and third paragraphs of Section 10 are different. They are directed to the State and not to
of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at Congress alone which is but one of the three great branches of our government. Their coverage is
P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the
necessary clearances and to do such other acts and also broader for they cover "the national economy and patrimony" and "foreign investments within
deeds as may be necessary for purpose. [the] national jurisdiction" and not merely
SO ORDERED.  "certain areas of investments." Beyond debate, they cannot be read as granting Congress the
exclusive power to implement by law the policy of giving preference to qualified Filipinos in the
conferral of rights and privileges covering our national economy and patrimony. Their language does
not suggest that any of the State agency or instrumentality has the privilege to hedge or to refuse its
implementation for any reason whatsoever. Their duty to implement is unconditional and it is now.
The second and the third paragraphs of Section 10, Article XII are thus self-executing.
 the constitutional command to enforce the Filipino First policy is addressed to the State and not to
Congress alone. Hence, the word "laws" should not be understood as limited to legislations but all
state actions which include applicable rules and regulations adopted by agencies and
instrumentalities of the State in the exercise of their rule-making power.
 But while the Filipino First policy requires that we incline to a Filipino, it does not demand that we
wrong an alien.

Notes Expounding further on the Filipino First Policy provision Commissioner

 But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative Nolledo continues —
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. Instead of "MUST," it will be "SHALL —
which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS. This embodies
may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional the so-called "Filipino First" policy. That means that Filipinos should be given
provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right preference in the grant of concessions, privileges and rights covering the
conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, national patrimony. 42
so that they can be determined by an examination and construction
of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is “qualified Filipinos" simply means that preference shall be given to those
referred to the legislature for action. 13 citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common good, because of
 In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still credible competence and efficiency. It certainly does NOT mandate the
enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or organizations
by the constitution, further the operation of such a provision, that are incompetent or inefficient, since such an indiscriminate preference
prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a would be counterproductive and inimical to the common good.
convenient remedy for the protection of the rights secured or the
determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the
exercise of the right.
 A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-
self-executing in another. 19
 In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the
government are considered "state action" covered by the
Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in is a "public function;"
(2) when the government is so significantly involved with the private
 actor as to make the government responsible for his action; and, (3)
when the government has approved or authorized the action.

• Tanada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 272 SCRA 18, 54, May 2, 1997 (focus on the sections “Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing” and “Economic
Nationalism Should Be Read with Other Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development of Economy”)

Petitioners question the validity of Senate’s acts in ratifying the WTO Agreement

1. Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing

a. They were rather directives addressed to the executive and to the legislature. If the executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of
the article, the available remedy was not judicial but political.
b. Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.
i. To my mind, the court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus
of law, considering the general policy principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and
that the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a
motion to dismiss.
ii. It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right,
rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been
violated or disregarded is given specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and
effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
iii. The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved,
petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII
of the Constitution
iv. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative and
executive departments — must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to
implement them before the courts should intervene.
2. Economic Nationalism Should Be Read with Other Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development of Economy
a. the Constitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism
i. by expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos "in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy
and patrimony" 27 and in the use of "Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced goods";
ii. by mandating the State to "adopt measures that help make them competitive;
iii. by requiring the State to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos."
b. the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of
the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the
country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign
competition that is unfair

• CONST. art. XII, § 3

 SECTION 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands,
and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according
to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may
lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by
purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the
requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public
domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.

• Duncan Ass’n of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo-Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994, 438 SCRA 343, Sep. 17, 2004 (focus on the discussion of Glaxo having
a right to guard its trade secrets and a right to reasonable returns on investments; ignore the discussion on the right to marry)

• CONST. art. XIII, § 4

Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform

SECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of
farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till
or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities
and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall
further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

• Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, 653 SCRA 154, Jul. 5, 2011 (Corona, C.J., concurring and dissenting) (focus on the
section “Court’s duty to confront constitutional question and compare the discussion of whether the constitutional provision on land reform is self executing
with the discussion in the majority opinion)