G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989 by political leaders of Mr.

Marcos, the takeover of

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col.
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the
MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, unseccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to
PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and surreptitiously return from Hawii with mercenaries
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer
(PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO [Manila Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the
F. ESTRELLA, petitioners, vs. nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of
MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR their followers in the country. The ratification of the
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their 1987 Constitution enshrined the victory of "people
capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive power" and also clearly reinforced the constitutional
Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration moorings of Mrs. Aquino's presidency. This did not,
Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and however, stop bloody challenges to the government. On
Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents. August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the
major players in the February Revolution, led a failed
Facts: coup that left scores of people, both combatants and
The case "Marcos v. Manglapus" involves petitioners civilians, dead. There were several other armed sorties
Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, and other of lesser significance, but the message they conveyed
family members along with the Philippine Constitution was the same — a split in the ranks of the military
Association (PHILCONSA). establishment that thraetened civilian supremacy over
They filed a petition against government officials Raul military and brought to the fore the realization that
Manglapus, Catalino Macaraig, Sedfrey Ordoñez, civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious
Miriam Defensor Santiago, Fidel Ramos, and Renato De military.
Villa.
The case arose when President Corazon Aquino's But the armed threats to the Government were not only
government barred the return of former President found in misguided elements and among rabid
Marcos and his family to the Philippines due to national followers of Mr. Marcos. There are also the communist
security concerns. insurgency and the seccessionist movement in
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr.
September 15, 1989, ruling that the President did not Marcos, to the extent that the communists have set up
act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion. a parallel government of their own on the areas they
Following Marcos' death on September 28, 1989, the effectively control while the separatist are virtually free
petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on to move about in armed bands. There has been no let
October 2, 1989, arguing that barring their return up on this groups' determination to wrest power from
violated their constitutional rights. the govermnent. Not only through resort to arms but
The Solicitor General argued the motion was moot also to through the use of propaganda have they been
regarding the deceased Marcos and that allowing their successful in dreating chaos and destabilizing the
return posed national security risks. country.
The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration on Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The
October 27, 1989. accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation
attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the
We recall that in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos economy devastated. The efforts at economic recovery,
was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent three years after Mrs. Aquino assumed office, have yet
"people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of
stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the the masses, while the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth
Republic under a revolutionary government. Her of the Marcoses has remained elusive.
ascension to and consilidation of power have not been Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish
unchallenged. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. Aquino,
considering the dire consequences to the nation of his upon which it was based, been made known to
return at a time when the stability of government is petitioners so that they may controvert the same?
threatened from various directions and the economy is
just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood c. Is the President's determination that the return of
firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos former President Marcos and his family to the
and his family. Philippines is a clear and present danger to national
security, public safety, or public health a political
The Petition question?
This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for d. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether
the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile the return of former President Marcos and his family is
after causing twenty years of political, economic and a clear and present danger to national security, public
social havoc in the country and who within the short safety, or public health, have respondents established
space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by such fact?
itself.
This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the 3. Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing
Courts to order the respondents to issue travel the President's decision to bar the return of former
documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members President Marcos and his family, acted and would be
of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the acting without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction,
President's decision to bar their return to the or with grave abuse of discretion, in performing any act
Philippines. which would effectively bar the return of former
President Marcos and his family to the Philippines?
The Issue [Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-
The issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in 236.1
the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution,
the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning Ruling:
to the Philippines. According to the petitioners, the The Supreme Court denied the Motion for
resolution of the case would depend on the resolution Reconsideration filed by the petitioners.
of the following issues: Yes, President Cory Aquino has discretion in
1. Does the President have the power to bar the return determining the return of former President Marcos and
of former President Marcos and family to the his family under the present circumstances which poses
Philippines? a serious threat to national interest and welfare. The
a. Is this a political question? power involved is the President’s residual power to
protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded
2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar on the duty of the President,as steward of the people.
former President Marcos and his family from returning To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the
to the Philippines, in the interest of "national security, power of the President but also his duty to do anything
public safety or public health not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the
a. Has the President made a finding that the return of needs of the nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at
former President Marcos and his family to the 153]. It is a power borne by the President’s duty to
Philippines is a clear and present danger to national preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be
security, public safety or public health? viewed as a power implicit in the President’s duty to
b. Assuming that she has made that finding take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see
(1) Have the requirements of due process been Hyman, The American President, where the author
complied with in making such finding? advances the view that an allowance of discretionary
(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners? power is unavoidable in any government and is best
(3) Has there been a hearing? lodged in the President].The power of the President to
(4) Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the
with, has the President's decision, including the grounds commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or
to leading the State against external and internal
threats to its existence.The President is not only clothed On March 30, 1988, the Secretary of Justice denied
with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is petitioners' motion for reconsideration and upheld the
also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining
of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic the City Fiscal's finding of a prima facie case against
tranquillity in times when no foreign foe appears on the petitioners. A second motion for reconsideration filed
horizon. Wide discretion,within the bounds of law, in by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of
fullling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any Justice on April 7, 1988. On appeal, the President,
way diminished by the relative want of an emergency through the Executive Secretary, affirmed the resolution
specied in the commander-in-chief provision. For in of the Secretary of Justice on May 2, 1988. The motion
making the President commander-in-chief the for reconsideration was denied by the Executive
enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to Secretary on May 16, 1988. With these developments,
exclude the President’s exercising as Commander-in- petitioners' contention that they have been denied the
Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or administrative remedies available under the law has lost
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or factual support.
declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and It may also be added that with respect to petitioner
maintain public order and security. That the President Beltran, the allegation of denial of due process of law in
has the power under the Constitution to bar the the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that
Marcoses from returning has been recognized by instead of submitting his counter- affidavits, he filed a
members of the Legislature, and is manifested by the "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed," in effect
Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing
and signed by 103 of its members urging the President counter-affidavits. Due process of law does not require
to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his
genuine unselsh gesture for true national reconciliation counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is
and as irrevocable proof of our collective adherence to deemed completed. All that is required is that the
uncompromising respect for human rights respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-
affidavits if he is so minded.
G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988
MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, ANTONIO V. ROCES, FREDERICK The second issue, raised by petitioner Beltran, calls for
K. AGCAOLI, and GODOFREDO L. MANZANAS, an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the
petitioners, issuance of warrants of arrest. The pertinent provision
vs. THE HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, Presiding Judge of reads:
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in
UNDERSECRETARY SILVESTRE BELLO III, of the their persons, houses, papers and effects against
Department of Justice, LUIS C. VICTOR, THE CITY unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
FISCAL OF MANILA and PRESIDENT CORAZON C. and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
AQUINO, respondents. warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
three principal issues were raised: (1) whether or not probable cause to be determined personally by the
petitioners were denied due process when informations judge after examination nder oath or affirmation of the
for libel were filed against them although the finding of complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
the existence of a prima facie case was still under particularly describing the place to be searched and the
review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently, by persons or things to be seized.
the President; (2) whether or not the constitutional The addition of the word "personally" after the word
rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC "determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority
judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other
examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to responsible officers as may be authorized by law," has
determine probable cause; and (3) whether or not the apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the
President of the Philippines, under the Constitution,may Constitution now requires the judge to personally
initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners examine the complainant and his witnesses in his
through the filing of a complaint-affidavit. determination of probable cause for the issuance of
warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate from requiring all of the office holder's time, also
interpretation. demands undivided attention.
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the
himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying President by virtue of the office and may be invoked
himself of the existence of probable cause for the only by the holder of the office; not by any other person
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required in the President's behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal
to personally examine the complainant and his case in which the President is complainant cannot raise
witnesses. Following established doctrine and the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the
procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report case from proceeding against such accused.
and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus,
basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the if so minded the President may shed the protection
basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's
disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the
of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in privilege or to waive it is solely the President's
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and
cause. imposed by any other person.
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges
would be unduly laden with the preliminary As regards the contention of petitioner Beltran that he
examination and investigation of criminal complaints could not be held liable for libel because of the
instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases privileged character or the publication, the Court
filed before their courts. reiterates that it is not a trier of facts and that such a
defense is best left to the trial court to appreciate after
On June 30, 1987, the Supreme Court unanimously receiving the evidence of the parties.
adopted Circular No. 12, setting down guidelines for the As to petitioner Beltran's claim that to allow the libel
issuance of warrants of arrest. The procedure therein case to proceed would produce a "chilling effect" on
provided is reiterated and clarified in this resolution. press freedom, the Court finds no basis at this stage to
It has not been shown that respondent judge has rule on the point.
deviated from the prescribed procedure. Thus, with The petitions fail to establish that public respondents,
regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest, a through their separate acts, gravely abused their
finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. Hence,
or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot
Anent the third issue, petitioner Beltran argues that issue .WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion
"the reasons which necessitate presidential immunity amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part
from suit impose a correlative disability to file suit." He of the public respondents, the Court Resolved to
contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of DISMISS the petitions in G. R. Nos. 82585, 82827 and
the President's filing of her complaint-affidavit, she may 83979. The Order to maintain the status quo contained
subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution, in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated April 7,
bringing her under the trial court's jurisdiction. This, 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution dated April 26,
continues Beltran, would in an indirect way defeat her 1988 is LIFTED.
privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the
witness stand, she would be exposing herself to Ruling: the allegation of denial of due process of law in
possible contempt of court or perjury. the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that
The rationale for the grant to the President of the instead of submitting his counter-affidavits, he filed a
privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed," in effect...
of Presidential duties and functions free from any waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing
hindrance or distraction, considering that being the counter-affidavits. Due process of law does not require
Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his
counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is testifying on the witness stand, she would be exposing
deemed completed. herself to... possible contempt of court or perjury.
All that is required is that the respondent be given the
opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so The rationale for the grant to the President of the
minded. on the issuance of warrants of arrest privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise
of Presidential duties and functions free from any
Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in hindrance or distraction, considering that being the
their persons, houses, papers and effects against Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature from... requiring all of the office-holder's time, also
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search demands undivided attention.
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon... But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the
probable cause to be determined personally by the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of only by the holder of the office; not by any other person
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, in the President's behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal
and particularly describing the place to be searched and case in which the President is complainant cannot...
the persons or things to be seized. raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent
the case from proceeding against such accused.
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus,
himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying if so minded the President may shed the protection
himself of the existence of probable cause for the afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not... jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the
required to personally examine the complainant and his privilege or to... waive it is solely the President's
witnesses. Following established doctrine and prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and
procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report imposed by any other person.
and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal that he could not be held liable for libel because of the
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the privileged character of the publication, the Court
basis thereof,... issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the reiterates that it is not a trier of facts and that such a
basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may defense is best left to the trial court to appreciate
disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission after... receiving the evidence of the parties.
of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable G.R. No. 170516 July 16, 2008
cause. AKBAYAN CITIZENS ACTION PARTY ("AKBAYAN"),
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG MGA SAMAHAN SA
would e Unttoly laden with the preliminary examination KANAYUNAN ("PKSK"), ALLIANCE OF PROGRESSIVE
and investigation of criminal complaints instead of LABOR ("APL"), VICENTE A. FABE, ANGELITO R.
concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed MENDOZA, MANUEL P. QUIAMBAO, ROSE BEATRIX
before their courts. with regard to the issuance of the CRUZ-ANGELES, CONG. LORENZO R. TANADA III, CONG.
warrants of arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion MARIO JOYO AGUJA, CONG. LORETA ANN P. ROSALES,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be CONG. ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, AND
sustained. CONG. EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, Petitioners,
the reasons which necessitate presidential immunity vs. THOMAS G. AQUINO, in his capacity as
from suit impose a correlative disability to file suit." He Undersecretary of the Department of Trade and
contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of Industry (DTI) and Chairman and Chief Delegate of the
the President's filing of her complaint-affidavit,... she Philippine Coordinating Committee (PCC) for the
may subsequently have to be a witness for the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement,
prosecution, bringing her under the trial court's EDSEL T. CUSTODIO, in his capacity as Undersecretary
jurisdiction. This, continues Beltran, would in an indirect of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and Co-
way defeat her privilege of immunity from suit, as by Chair of the PCC for the JPEPA, EDGARDO ABON, in his
capacity as Chairman of the Tariff Commission and They filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition to
lead negotiator for Competition Policy and Emergency obtain the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic
Measures of the JPEPA, MARGARITA SONGCO, in her Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), including negotiation
capacity as Assistant Director-General of the National offers and attachments.
Economic Development Authority (NEDA) and lead Respondents were Thomas G. Aquino, Undersecretary
negotiator for Trade in Services and Cooperation of the of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and
JPEPA, MALOU MONTERO, in her capacity as Foreign Chairman of the Philippine Coordinating Committee
Service Officer I, Office of the Undersecretary for (PCC) for the JPEPA, and other officials.
International Economic Relations of the DFA and lead Petitioners argued that non-disclosure violated their
negotiator for the General and Final Provisions of the right to information on public matters and hindered
JPEPA, ERLINDA ARCELLANA, in her capacity as their effective participation in decision-making.
Director of the Board of Investments and lead Multiple requests for documents were denied by
negotiator for Trade in Goods (General Rules) of the respondents, citing confidentiality in diplomatic
JPEPA, RAQUEL ECHAGUE, in her capacity as lead negotiations.
negotiator for Rules of Origin of the JPEPA, GALLANT The JPEPA was signed on September 9, 2006, by
SORIANO, in his official capacity as Deputy President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Japanese Prime
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and lead Minister Junichiro Koizumi, and was later endorsed to
negotiator for Customs Procedures and Paperless the Senate for concurrence.
Trading of the JPEPA, MA. LUISA GIGETTE IMPERIAL, in
her capacity as Director of the Bureau of Local Petitioners – non-government organizations,
Employment of the Department of Labor and Congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers – seek via the
Employment (DOLE) and lead negotiator for present petition for mandamus and prohibition to
Movement of Natural Persons of the JPEPA, PASCUAL obtain from respondents the full text of the Japan-
DE GUZMAN, in his capacity as Director of the Board of Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA)
Investments and lead negotiator for Investment of the including the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
JPEPA, JESUS MOTOOMULL, in his capacity as Director during the negotiation process and all pertinent
for the Bureau of Product Standards of the DTI and attachments and annexes thereto.
lead negotiator for Mutual Recognition of the JPEPA, Petitioners Congressmen Lorenzo R. Tañada III and
LOUIE CALVARIO, in his capacity as lead negotiator for Mario Joyo Aguja filed on January 25, 2005 House
Intellectual Property of the JPEPA, ELMER H. DORADO, Resolution No. 551 calling for an inquiry into the
in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge of the Government bilateral trade agreements then being negotiated by the
Procurement Policy Board Technical Support Office, Philippine government, particularly the JPEPA. The
the government agency that is leading the Resolution became the basis of an inquiry subsequently
negotiations on Government Procurement of the conducted by the House Special Committee on
JPEPA, RICARDO V. PARAS, in his capacity as Chief Globalization (the House Committee) into the
State Counsel of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and negotiations of the JPEPA.
lead negotiator for Dispute Avoidance and Settlement
of the JPEPA, ADONIS SULIT, in his capacity as lead In the course of its inquiry, the House Committee
negotiator for the General and Final Provisions of the requested herein respondent Undersecretary Tomas
JPEPA, EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his capacity as Aquino (Usec. Aquino), Chairman of the Philippine
Executive Secretary, and ALBERTO ROMULO, in his Coordinating Committee created under Executive Order
capacity as Secretary of the DFA,* Respondents. No. 213 ("Creation of A Philippine Coordinating
Committee to Study the Feasibility of the Japan-
Facts: Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement")1 to
The case "Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino" (G.R. study and negotiate the proposed JPEPA, and to furnish
No. 170516) was decided on July 16, 2008. the Committee with a copy of the latest draft of the
Petitioners included various non-government JPEPA. Usec. Aquino did not heed the request, however.
organizations, Congresspersons, citizens, and taxpayers.
Congressman Aguja later requested for the same Amid speculations that the JPEPA might be signed by
document, but Usec. Aquino, by letter of November 2, the Philippine government within December 2005, the
2005, replied that the Congressman shall be provided present petition was filed on December 9, 2005.4 The
with a copy thereof "once the negotiations are agreement was to be later signed on September 9, 2006
completed and as soon as a thorough legal review of by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Japanese
the proposed agreement has been conducted." Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in Helsinki, Finland,
following which the President endorsed it to the Senate
In a separate move, the House Committee, through for its concurrence pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of
Congressman Herminio G. Teves, requested Executive the Constitution. To date, the JPEPA is still being
Secretary Eduardo Ermita to furnish it with "all deliberated upon by the Senate.
documents on the subject including the latest draft of
the proposed agreement, the requests and offers etc."2 The JPEPA, which will be the first bilateral free trade
Acting on the request, Secretary Ermita, by letter of agreement to be entered into by the Philippines with
June 23, 2005, wrote Congressman Teves as follows: another country in the event the Senate grants its
consent to it, covers a broad range of topics which
In its letter dated 15 June 2005 (copy enclosed), [the] respondents enumerate as follows: trade in goods, rules
D[epartment of] F[oreign] A[ffairs] explains that the of origin, customs procedures, paperless trading, trade
Committee’s request to be furnished all documents on in services, investment, intellectual property rights,
the JPEPA may be difficult to accomplish at this time, government procurement, movement of natural
since the proposed Agreement has been a work in persons, cooperation, competition policy, mutual
progress for about three years. A copy of the draft recognition, dispute avoidance and settlement,
JPEPA will however be forwarded to the Committee as improvement of the business environment, and general
soon as the text thereof is settled and complete. and final provisions.5
(Emphasis supplied) While the final text of the JPEPA has now been made
accessible to the public since September 11, 2006,6
Congressman Aguja also requested NEDA Director- respondents do not dispute that, at the time the
General Romulo Neri and Tariff Commission Chairman petition was filed up to the filing of petitioners’ Reply –
Edgardo Abon, by letter of July 1, 2005, for copies of the when the JPEPA was still being negotiated – the initial
latest text of the JPEPA. drafts thereof were kept from public view.
Chairman Abon replied, however, by letter of July 12, Before delving on the substantive grounds relied upon
2005 that the Tariff Commission does not have a copy by petitioners in support of the petition, the Court finds
of the documents being requested, albeit he was it necessary to first resolve some material procedural
certain that Usec. Aquino would provide the issues.
Congressman with a copy "once the negotiation is
completed." And by letter of July 18, 2005, NEDA Issue;Whether or not petitioners have legal standing to
Assistant Director-General Margarita R. Songco request for the full text of JPEPA.
informed the Congressman that his request addressed Whether or not the President can validly exclude
to Director-General Neri had been forwarded to Usec. Congress, exercising its power of inquiry and power to
Aquino who would be "in the best position to respond" concur in treaties, from the negotiation process.
to the request.
In its third hearing conducted on August 31, 2005, the Ruling:
House Committee resolved to issue a subpoena for the The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
most recent draft of the JPEPA, but the same was not The Court held that the claim of executive privilege over
pursued because by Committee Chairman Congressman the JPEPA negotiation documents was valid.
Teves’ information, then House Speaker Jose de The need for confidentiality in diplomatic negotiations
Venecia had requested him to hold in abeyance the was emphasized to protect national interest and ensure
issuance of the subpoena until the President gives her successful negotiations.
consent to the disclosure of the documents.3
G.R. No. 161434 March 3, 2004 Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his
MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, parents were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe,
JR., petitioners, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a
vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RONALD ALLAN Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a
KELLY POE (a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR.) and VICTORINO Spanish subject. Granting, petitioner asseverated, that
X. FORNIER, respondents. Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have
Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter
whom the state believes are deserving of the privilege. being an illegitimate child of an alien mother. Petitioner
It is a "precious heritage, as well as an inestimable based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of
acquisition,"1 that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - respondent on two assertions - first, Allan F. Poe
either by those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it. contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez
Before the Court are three consolidated cases, all of before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and, second, even if
which raise a single question of profound importance to no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe,
the nation. The issue of citizenship is brought up to married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of
challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate respondent.
to hold the highest office of the land. Our people are
waiting for the judgment of the Court with bated In the hearing before the Third Division of the COMELEC
breath. Is Fernando Poe, Jr., the hero of silver screen, on 19 January 2004, petitioner, in support of his claim,
and now one of the main contenders for the presidency, presented several documentary exhibits - 1) a copy of
a natural-born Filipino or is he not? the certificate of birth of FPJ, 2) a certified photocopy of
The moment of introspection takes us face to face with an affidavit executed in Spanish by Paulita Poe y Gomez
Spanish and American colonial roots and reminds us of attesting to her having filed a case for bigamy and
the rich heritage of civil law and common law traditions, concubinage against the father of respondent, Allan F.
the fusion resulting in a hybrid of laws and Poe, after discovering his bigamous relationship with
jurisprudence that could be no less than distinctly Bessie Kelley, 3) an English translation of the affidavit
Filipino. aforesaid, 4) a certified photocopy of the certificate of
birth of Allan F. Poe, 5) a certification issued by the
Facts: On 31 December 2003, respondent Ronald Allan Director of the Records Management and Archives
Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (hereinafter Office, attesting to the fact that there was no record in
"FPJ"), filed his certificate of candidacy for the position the National Archives that a Lorenzo Poe or Lorenzo Pou
of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the resided or entered the Philippines before 1907, and 6) a
Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the certification from the Officer-In-Charge of the Archives
forthcoming national elections. In his certificate of Division of the National Archives to the effect that no
candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural- available information could be found in the files of the
born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be National Archives regarding the birth of Allan F. Poe.
"Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth On his part, respondent, presented twenty-two
to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be documentary pieces of evidence, the more significant
Manila. ones being - a) a certification issued by Estrella M.
Domingo of the Archives Division of the National
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner in G.R. No. 161824, Archives that there appeared to be no available
entitled "Victorino X. Fornier, Petitioner, versus Hon. information regarding the birth of Allan F. Poe in the
Commission on Elections and Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, registry of births for San Carlos, Pangasinan, b) a
also known as Fernando Poe, Jr., Respondents," certification issued by the Officer-In-Charge of the
initiated, on 09 January 2004, a petition docketed SPA Archives Division of the National Archives that no
No. 04-003 before the Commission on Elections available information about the marriage of Allan F. Poe
("COMELEC") to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course and Paulita Gomez could be found, c) a certificate of
or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis birth of Ronald Allan Poe, d) Original Certificate of Title
that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his No. P-2247 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of
certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Pangasinan, in the name of Lorenzo Pou, e) copies of
Tax Declaration No. 20844, No. 20643, No. 23477 and decisions of the COMELEC. While it recognized G.R. No.
No. 23478 in the name of Lorenzo Pou, f) a copy of the 161824 (Fornier vs. COMELEC and
certificate of death of Lorenzo Pou, g) a copy of the Poe) based on Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
purported marriage contract between Fernando Pou Revised Rules of Civil Procedure due to
and Bessie Kelley, and h) a certification issued by the its direct challenge on COMELEC’s ruling on FPJ’s
City Civil Registrar of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, stating disqualification case, it dismissed G.R.
that the records of birth in the said office during the No. 161434 and G.R. No. 161634 for lack of jurisdiction
period of from 1900 until May 1946 were totally and prematurity, underlining that
destroyed during World War II. the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction as an electoral tribunal
pertains to a post-election
On 23 January 2004, the COMELEC dismissed SPA No.
04-003 for lack of merit. Three days later, or on 26 election -a formal and organized choice by vote of a
January 2004, Fornier filed his motion for person; an act or process of electing; the right, power,
reconsideration. The motion was denied on 06 February or privilege of making a choice
2004 by the COMELEC en banc. On 10 February 2004,
petitioner assailed the decision of the COMELEC before Canvass is used by political parties and issue groups to
this Court conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Rule identify supporters, persuade the undecided, and add
65, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition, voters to the voters list through voter registration, and
docketed G. R. No. 161824, likewise prayed for a it is central to get out the vote operations. It is the core
temporary restraining order, a writ of preliminary element of what political campaigns call the ground
injunction or any other resolution that would stay the game or field.
finality and/or execution of the COMELEC resolutions. to go through (a district) or go to (persons) in order to
The other petitions, later consolidated with G. R. No. solicit orders or political support or to determine
161824, would include G. R. No. 161434, entitled opinions or sentiments
"Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, and Felix B. Desiderio, Jr., vs.
The Commission on Elections, Ronald Allan Kelley Poe G.R. No. 157013 July 10, 2003
(a.k.a. ‘Fernando Poe, Jr.’), and Victorino X. Fornier," ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, petitioner,
and the other, docketed G. R. No. 161634, entitled vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. ALBERTO
"Zoilo Antonio G. Velez, vs. Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, ROMULO, in his official capacity as Executive
a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.," both challenging the Secretary, and HON. EMILIA T. BONCODIN, Secretary
jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that, under of the Department of Budget and Management,
Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 respondents.
Constitution, only the Supreme Court had original and
exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on the Facts:
case. The case "Macalintal v. Commission on Elections"
Issues: involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
1. Jurisdiction to review the COMELEC’s decision on Filed by Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal against the
FPJ’s disqualification case. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Executive
2. Determination of FPJ’s eligibility as a natural-born Secretary Alberto Romulo, and Secretary of the
Filipino citizen in the context of his Department of Budget and Management Emilia T.
paternal ancestry and circumstances of birth. Boncodin.
3. Interpretation of laws and the constitution regarding The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of
citizenship, with emphasis on the certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9189, the
legitimacy of birth affecting citizenship transmission. Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
The law provides a system for overseas absentee voting
Court’s Decision: by qualified Filipino citizens abroad.
The Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction over the Macalintal argued that some provisions violated the
case, citing its authority to review 1987 Constitution, particularly concerning the
independence of the COMELEC and the residency Court’s duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine
requirement for voters. whether or not the other branches of government have
The Supreme Court decided the case on July 10, 2003, kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution
with Justice Austria-Martinez as the ponente. and the laws and that they have not abused the
discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of
prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of these petitions.6
the Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration that certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Indeed, in this case, the Court may set aside procedural
Absentee Voting Act of 2003)1 suffer from rules as the constitutional right of suffrage of a
constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and considerable number of Filipinos is involved.
material legal interest in the subject matter of this case
in seeing to it that public funds are properly and The question of propriety of the instant petition which
lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner filed the may appear to be visited by the vice of prematurity as
instant petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer. there are no ongoing proceedings in any tribunal, board
or before a government official exercising judicial,
The Court upholds the right of petitioner to file the quasi-judicial or ministerial functions as required by
present petition. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, dims in light of the
importance of the constitutional issues raised by the
R.A. No. 9189, entitled, "An Act Providing for A System petitioner. In Tañada vs. Angara,7 the Court held:
of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the
Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on
for Other Purposes," appropriates funds under Section the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the
29 thereof which provides that a supplemental budget petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy.
on the General Appropriations Act of the year of its Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously
enactment into law shall provide for the necessary alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes
amount to carry out its provisions. Taxpayers, such as not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to
herein petitioner, have the right to restrain officials settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial
from wasting public funds through the enforcement of rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to
an unconstitutional statute.2 The Court has held that assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is
they may assail the validity of a law appropriating public upheld." Once a "controversy as to the application or
funds3 because expenditure of public funds by an interpretation of constitutional provision is raised
officer of the State for the purpose of executing an before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a
unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional
funds.4 mandate to decide."

The challenged provision of law involves a public right In another case of paramount impact to the Filipino
that affects a great number of citizens. The Court has people, it has been expressed that it is illogical to await
adopted the policy of taking jurisdiction over cases the adverse consequences of the law in order to
whenever the petitioner has seriously and convincingly consider the controversy actual and ripe for judicial
presented an issue of transcendental significance to the resolution.8 In yet another case, the Court said that:
Filipino people. This has been explicitly pronounced in
Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng . . . despite the inhibitions pressing upon the Court
Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Tan,5 where the Court held: when confronted with constitutional issues, it will not
hesitate to declare a law or act invalid when it is
Objections to taxpayers’ suit for lack of sufficient convinced that this must be done. In arriving at this
personality standing, or interest are, however, in the conclusion, its only criterion will be the Constitution and
main procedural matters. Considering the importance God as its conscience gives it in the light to probe its
to the public of the cases at bar, and in keeping with the meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and
political considerations are irrelevancies that cannot (2) Whether or not Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 is
influence its decisions. Blandishment is as ineffectual as unconstitutional insofar as it involves the canvass of
intimidation, for all the awesome power of the Congress votes and proclamation of winning candidates for
and Executive, the Court will not hesitate "to make the president and vice-president;
hammer fall heavily," where the acts of these (3) Whether or not the creation of the Joint
departments, or of any official, betray the people’s will Congressional Oversight Committee violates Section 1,
as expressed in the Constitution . . .9 Article IX-A of the Constitution mandating the
independence of constitutional commissions.
The need to consider the constitutional issues raised
before the Court is further buttressed by the fact that it Ruling:
is now more than fifteen years since the ratification of Section 5(d): The Supreme Court upheld the
the 1987 Constitution requiring Congress to provide a constitutionality of Section 5(d) of Republic Act No.
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos 9189.
abroad. Thus, strong reasons of public policy demand Section 18.5: The Court declared Section 18.5 of the law
that the Court resolves the instant petition10 and unconstitutional insofar as it empowers the COMELEC
determine whether Congress has acted within the limits to proclaim the winning candidates for President and
of the Constitution or if it had gravely abused the Vice-President, as this power is vested in Congress.
discretion entrusted to it.11 Sections 19 and 25: The Court declared Sections 19 and
25 of the law unconstitutional..
The petitioner raises three principal questions:
A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 allowing the CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, GR
registration of voters who are immigrants or permanent No. 83896, 1991-02-22
residents in other countries by their mere act of CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Petitioner, v. THE EXECUTIVE
executing an affidavit expressing their intention to SECRETARY, Respondent.
return to the Philippines, violate the residency Facts:
requirement in Section 1 of Article V of the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order
Constitution? No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on
July 25, 1987.
B. Does Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the
COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for "SECTION 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary
national offices and party list representatives including functions of his position, a member of the Cabinet,
the President and the Vice-President violate the undersecretary or assistant secretary or other
constitutional mandate under Section 4, Article VII of appointive officials of the Executive Department may, in
the Constitution that the winning candidates for addition to his primary position, hold not more... than
President and the Vice-President shall be proclaimed as two positions in the government and government
winners by Congress? corporations and receive the corresponding
compensation therefor; Provided, that this limitation
C. May Congress, through the Joint Congressional shall not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees, or to
Oversight Committee created in Section 25 of Rep. Act boards, councils or bodies of which the President is the
No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, amend, Chairman.
and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations
that the Commission on Elections shall promulgate "SECTION 2. If a member of the cabinet, undersecretary
without violating the independence of the COMELEC or assistant secretary or other appointive official of the
under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution? Executive Department holds more positions than what
is allowed in Section 1 hereof, they (sic) must relinquish
ISSUES: the excess position in favor of the subordinate... official
(1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 who is next in rank, but in no case shall any official hold
violates Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution; more than two positions other than his primary
position.
"SECTION 3. In order to fully protect the interest of the Petitioners further argue that the exception to the
government in government-owned or controlled prohibition in Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B on the Civil
corporations, at least one-third (1/3) of the members of Service Commission applies to officers and employees
the boards of such corporation should either be a of the Civil Service in general and that said exceptions
secretary, or undersecretary, or assistant... secretary." do not apply and cannot be extended to Section 13,...
Article VII which applies specifically to the President,
Petitioners maintain that this Executive Order which, in Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet and their
effect, allows members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants.
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other
government offices or positions in addition to their Issues: does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of
primary positions, albeit subject to the limitation the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet members, their
therein... imposed, runs counter to Section 13, Article deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad
VII of the 1987 Constitution exceptions made for appointive officials in general
under Section 7, par.
"Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members
of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, (2), Article IX-B which, for easy reference is quoted
unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any anew, thus: "Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
other office or employment during their tenure. primary functions of his position, no appointive official
shall hold any other office or employment the
Section 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7,... par. (2), Government or any subdivision, agency or
Article IX-B, rendered on July 23, 1987 Opinion No. 73, instrumentality... thereof, including government-owned
series of 1987,[5] declaring that Cabinet members, their or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries.
deputies (undersecretaries) and assistant secretaries Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 is
may hold other public office, including membership in constitutional.
the boards of government... corporations: (a) when
directly provided for in the Constitution as in the case of Ruling: No. It is unconstitutional. Petition granted.
the Secretary of Justice who is made an ex-officio Executive Order No. 284 was declared null and void.
member of the Judicial and Bar Council under Section 8,
paragraph 1, Article VIII; or (b) if allowed by law; or (c) if G.R. No. 159085 February 3, 2004
allowed by... the primary functions of their respective SANLAKAS, represented by REP. J.V. Bautista, and
positions; and that on the basis of this Opinion, the PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, represented by REP.
President of the Philippines, on July 25, 1987, or two (2) RENATO MAGTUBO petitioners, vs
days before Congress convened on July 27, 1987, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SECRETARY ANGELO REYES,
promulgated Executive Order No. 284. GENERAL NARCISO ABAYA, DIR. GEN. HERMOGENES
EBDANE, respondents.
In sum, the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 Facts:
is being challenged by petitioners on the principal In the early hours of July 27, 2003, around 300 junior
submission that it adds exceptions to Section 13, Article officers and enlisted men from the Armed Forces of the
VII other than those provided in the Constitution. Philippines seized control of Oakwood Premiere
According to petitioners, by virtue of the phrase apartments in Makati City. They protested against the
"unless otherwise provided in this Constitution," the widespread corruption within the AFP and demanded
only exceptions against holding any other office or the resignation of several high-ranking officials,
employment in Government are those provided in the including the President and the Secretary of Defense.
Constitution, namely: (1) The Vice-President may be Later that day, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3, issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4,
par. (2),... Article VII thereof; and (2) the Secretary of declaring a state of rebellion and ordering the AFP and
Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Philippine National Police (PNP) to suppress the
Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII. rebellion
The incident ended peacefully by the evening as the
soldiers negotiated and returned to their barracks. GENERAL ORDER NO. 4
However, the President did not lift the state of rebellion
until August 1, 2003, via Proclamation No. 435. DIRECTING THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE TO SUPPRESS
PROCLAMATION NO. 427 REBELLION
DECLARING A STATE OF REBELLION WHEREAS, certain elements of the Armed Forces of the
WHEREAS, certain elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, armed with high-powered firearms and
Philippines, armed with high-powered firearms and explosives, acting upon the instigation and command
explosives, acting upon the instigation and command and direction of known and unknown leaders, have
and direction of known and unknown leaders, have seized a building in Makati City, put bombs in the area,
seized a building in Makati City, put bombs in the area, publicly declared withdrawal of support for, and took
publicly declared withdrawal of support for, and took arms against the duly constituted Government, and
arms against the duly constituted Government, and continue to rise publicly and show open hostility, for the
continue to rise publicly and show open hostility, for the purpose of removing allegiance to the Government
purpose of removing allegiance to the Government certain bodies of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
certain bodies of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, and depriving the
and the Philippine National Police, and depriving the President of the Republic of the Philippines, wholly or
President of the Republic of the Philippines, wholly or partially, of her powers and prerogatives which
partially, of her powers and prerogatives which constitute the crime of rebellion punishable under
constitute the crime of rebellion punishable under Article 134 et seq. of the Revised Penal Code, as
Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; amended;

WHEREAS, these misguided elements of the Armed WHEREAS, these misguided elements of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines are being supported, abetted Forces of the Philippines are being supported, abetted
and aided by known and unknown leaders, conspirators and aided by known and unknown leaders, conspirators
and plotters in the government service and outside the and plotters in the government service and outside the
government; government;
WHEREAS, under Section 18, Article VII of the present
WHEREAS, under Section 18, Article VII of the present Constitution, whenever it becomes necessary, the
Constitution, whenever it becomes necessary, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed
President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, may call out such Armed
Forces of the Philippines, may call out such Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion;
Forces to suppress the rebellion;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, by
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as
virtue of the powers vested in me by law, hereby President of the Republic of the Philippines and
confirm the existence of an actual and on-going Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the
rebellion, compelling me to declare a state of rebellion. Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation No. 427 dated
July 27, 2003, do hereby call upon the Armed Forces of
In view of the foregoing, I am issuing General Order No. the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to
4 in accordance with Section 18, Article VII of the suppress and quell the rebellion.
Constitution, calling out the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Philippine National Police to I hereby direct the Chief of the Armed Forces of the
immediately carry out the necessary actions and Philippines and the Chief of the Philippine National
measures to suppress and quell the rebellion with due Police and the officers and men of the Armed Forces of
regard to constitutional rights. the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to
immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate
General Order No. 4 is similarly worded:
actions and measures to suppress and quell the of the Social Justice Society (SJS), "Filipino citizens,
rebellion with due regard to constitutional rights. taxpayers, law professors and bar reviewers."5 Like
Sanlakas and PM, they claim that Section 18, Article VII
By the evening of July 27, 2003, the Oakwood of the Constitution does not authorize the declaration
occupation had ended. After hours-long negotiations, of a state of rebellion.6 They contend that the
the soldiers agreed to return to barracks. The President, declaration is a "constitutional anomaly" that "confuses,
however, did not immediately lift the declaration of a confounds and misleads" because "[o]verzealous public
state of rebellion and did so only on August 1, 2003, officers, acting pursuant to such proclamation or
through Proclamation No. 435: general order, are liable to violate the constitutional
right of private citizens."7 Petitioners also submit that
DECLARING THAT THE STATE OF REBELLION HAS the proclamation is a circumvention of the report
CEASED TO EXIST requirement under the same Section 18, Article VII,
commanding the President to submit a report to
WHEREAS, by virtue of Proclamation No. 427 dated July Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of
27, 2003, a state of rebellion was declared; martial law.8 Finally, they contend that the presidential
issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of
WHEREAS, by virtue of General Order No. 4 dated July emergency powers as Congress has not delegated any
27, 2003, which was issued on the basis of Proclamation such power to the President.9
No. 427 dated July 27, 2003, and pursuant to Article VII,
Section 18 of the Constitution, the Armed Forces of the In G.R. No. 159185 (Rep. Suplico et al. v. President
Philippines and the Philippine National Police were Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo),
directed to suppress and quell the rebellion; petitioners brought suit as citizens and as Members of
the House of Representatives whose rights, powers and
WHEREAS, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the functions were allegedly affected by the declaration of a
Philippine National Police have effectively suppressed state of rebellion.10 Petitioners do not challenge the
and quelled the rebellion. power of the President to call out the Armed Forces.11
They argue, however, that the declaration of a state of
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, rebellion is a "superfluity," and is actually an exercise of
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers emergency powers.12 Such exercise, it is contended,
vested in me by law, hereby declare that the state of amounts to a usurpation of the power of Congress
rebellion has ceased to exist. granted by Section 23 (2), Article VI of the
Constitution.13
In the interim, several petitions were filed before this
Court challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 427 In G.R. No. 159196 (Pimentel v. Romulo, et al.),
and General Order No. 4. petitioner Senator assails the subject presidential
issuances as "an unwarranted, illegal and abusive
In G.R. No. 159085 (Sanlakas and PM v. Executive exercise of a martial law power that has no basis under
Secretary, et al.),2 party-list organizations Sanlakas and the Constitution."14 In the main, petitioner fears that
Partido ng Manggagawa (PM), contend that Section 18, the declaration of a state of rebellion "opens the door
Article VII of the Constitution does not require the to the unconstitutional implementation of warrantless
declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the armed arrests" for the crime of rebellion.15
forces.3 They further submit that, because of the
cessation of the Oakwood occupation, there exists no Required to comment, the Solicitor General argues that
sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the the petitions have been rendered moot by the lifting of
President of a state of rebellion for an indefinite the declaration.16 In addition, the Solicitor General
period.4 questions the standing of the petitioners to bring
suit.17
Petitioners in G.R. No. 159103 (SJS Officers/Members v.
Hon. Executive Secretary, et al.) are officers/members
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the tantamount to an exercise of Congress' emergency
issuance of Proclamation No. 435, declaring that the powers, thus impairing the lawmakers' legislative
state of rebellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the powers. Petitioners also maintain that the declaration is
case moot. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot a subterfuge to avoid congressional scrutiny into the
cases, judicial power being limited to the determination President's exercise of martial law powers.
of "actual controversies."18 Nevertheless, courts will
decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is "capable of Petitioners Sanlakas and PM, and SJS Officers/Members,
repetition yet evading review."19 The case at bar is one have no legal standing or locus standi to bring suit.
such case. "Legal standing" or locus standi has been defined as a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that
Once before, the President on May 1, 2001 declared a the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
state of rebellion and called upon the AFP and the PNP result of the governmental act that is being
to suppress the rebellion through Proclamation No. 38 challenged…. The gist of the question of standing is
and General Order No. 1. On that occasion, "'an angry whether a party alleges "such personal stake in the
and violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues
weapons' assaulted and attempted to break into upon which the court depends for illumination of
Malacañang."20 Petitions were filed before this Court difficult constitutional questions."23
assailing the validity of the President's declaration. Five
days after such declaration, however, the President Petitioners Sanlakas and PM assert that:
lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions in Lacson
v. Perez and accompanying cases21 precluded this 2. As a basic principle of the organizations and as an
Court from addressing the constitutionality of the important plank in their programs, petitioners are
declaration. committed to assert, defend, protect, uphold, and
promote the rights, interests, and welfare of the
To prevent similar questions from reemerging, we seize people, especially the poor and marginalized classes
this opportunity to finally lay to rest the validity of the and sectors of Philippine society. Petitioners are
declaration of a state of rebellion in the exercise of the committed to defend and assert human rights, including
President's calling out power, the mootness of the political and civil rights, of the citizens.
petitions notwithstanding.
3. Members of the petitioner organizations resort to
Only petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel, as mass actions and mobilizations in the exercise of their
Members of Congress, have standing to challenge the Constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and their
subject issuances. In Philippine Constitution Association freedom of speech and of expression under Section 4,
v. Enriquez,22 this Court recognized that: Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as a vehicle to
publicly ventilate their grievances and legitimate
To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is demands and to mobilize public opinion to support the
the power of each member thereof, since his office same.24 [Emphasis in the original.]
confers a right to participate in the exercise of the
powers of that institution. Petitioner party-list organizations claim no better right
than the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, whose
An act of the Executive which injures the institution of standing this Court rejected in Lacson v. Perez:
Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless
substantial injury, which can be questioned by a … petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself
member of Congress. In such a case, any member of which would justify the resort to the Court. Petitioner is
Congress can have a resort to the courts. a juridical person not subject to arrest. Thus, it cannot
claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest. Nor is it
Petitioner Members of Congress claim that the alleged that its leaders, members, and supporters are
declaration of a state of rebellion by the President is being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention
for the crime of rebellion. Every action must be brought That petitioner SJS officers/members are taxpayers and
in the name of the party whose legal rights has been citizens does not necessarily endow them with standing.
invaded or infringed, or whose legal right is under A taxpayer may bring suit where the act complained of
imminent threat of invasion or infringement. directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds
derived from taxation.28 No such illegal disbursement is
At best, the instant petition may be considered as an alleged.
action for declaratory relief, petitioner claiming that
it[']s right to freedom of expression and freedom of On the other hand, a citizen will be allowed to raise a
assembly is affected by the declaration of a "state of constitutional question only when he can show that he
rebellion" and that said proclamation is invalid for being has personally suffered some actual or threatened
contrary to the Constitution. injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the
government; the injury is fairly traceable to the
However, to consider the petition as one for declaratory challenged action; and the injury is likely to be
relief affords little comfort to petitioner, this Court not redressed by a favorable action.29 Again, no such injury
having jurisdiction in the first instance over such a is alleged in this case.
petition. Section 5 [1], Article VIII of the Constitution
limits the original jurisdiction of the court to cases Even granting these petitioners have standing on the
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and ground that the issues they raise are of transcendental
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, importance, the petitions must fail.
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.25 It is true that for the purpose of exercising the calling
out power the Constitution does not require the
Even assuming that petitioners are "people's President to make a declaration of a state of rebellion.
organizations," this status would not vest them with the Section 18, Article VII provides:
requisite personality to question the validity of the
presidential issuances, as this Court made clear in Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
Kilosbayan v. Morato:26 of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces
The Constitution provides that "the State shall respect to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
the role of independent people's organizations to rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
enable the people to pursue and protect, within the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
democratic framework, their legitimate and collective exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ
interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
means," that their right to "effective and reasonable thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours
participation at all levels of social, political, and from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
economic decision-making shall not be abridged." (Art. of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit
XIII, §§15-16) a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority
These provisions have not changed the traditional rule of all its Members in regular or special session, may
that only real parties in interest or those with standing, revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
as the case may be, may invoke the judicial power. The revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon
jurisdiction of this Court, even in cases involving the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the
constitutional questions, is limited by the "case and same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension
controversy" requirement of Art. VIII, §5. This for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
requirement lies at the very heart of the judicial invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
function. It is what differentiates decisionmaking in the requires it.
courts from decisionmaking in the political departments
of the government and bars the bringing of suits by just The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
any party.27 hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
call. states: "The executive power shall be vested in the
President…." As if by exposition, Section 17 of the same
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate Article provides: "He shall ensure that the laws be
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the faithfully executed." The provisions trace their history
factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the to the Constitution of the United States.
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its The specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution granting
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. the U.S. President executive and commander-in-chief
powers have remained in their original simple form
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation since the Philadelphia Constitution of 1776, Article II of
of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the which states in part:
civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of the jurisdiction on military courts and Section 1. 1. The Executive Power shall be vested in a
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to President of the United States of America . . . .
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ. Section 2. 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States. . . .
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply
only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or Section 3. … he shall take care that the laws be faithfully
offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. executed…. [Article II – Executive Power]

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any Recalling in historical vignettes the use by the U.S.
person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially President of the above-quoted provisions, as juxtaposed
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be against the corresponding action of the U.S. Supreme
released. [Emphasis supplied.] Court, is instructive. Clad with the prerogatives of the
office and endowed with sovereign powers, which are
The above provision grants the President, as drawn chiefly from the Executive Power and
Commander-in-Chief, a "sequence" of "graduated Commander-in-Chief provisions, as well as the
power[s]."30 From the most to the least benign, these presidential oath of office, the President serves as Chief
are: the calling out power, the power to suspend the of State or Chief of Government, Commander-in-Chief,
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to Chief of Foreign Relations and Chief of Public
declare martial law. In the exercise of the latter two Opinion.33
powers, the Constitution requires the concurrence of
two conditions, namely, an actual invasion or rebellion, First to find definitive new piers for the authority of the
and that public safety requires the exercise of such Chief of State, as the protector of the people, was
power.31 However, as we observed in Integrated Bar of President Andrew Jackson. Coming to office by virtue of
the Philippines v. Zamora,32 "[t]hese conditions are not a political revolution, Jackson, as President not only
required in the exercise of the calling out power. The kept faith with the people by driving the patricians from
only criterion is that 'whenever it becomes necessary,' power. Old Hickory, as he was fondly called, was the
the President may call the armed forces 'to prevent or first President to champion the indissolubility of the
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.'" Union by defeating South Carolina's nullification
effort.34
Nevertheless, it is equally true that Section 18, Article
VII does not expressly prohibit the President from The Federal Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 that Congress
declaring a state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution enacted did not pacify the hotspurs from South
vests the President not only with Commander-in-Chief Carolina. Its State Legislature ordered an election for a
powers but, first and foremost, with Executive powers. convention, whose members quickly passed an
Ordinance of Nullification. The Ordinance declared the
Tariff Acts unconstitutional, prohibited South Carolina joined them as "the war power" which authorized him
citizens from obeying them after a certain date in 1833, to do many things beyond the competence of
and threatened secession if the Federal Government Congress.39
sought to oppose the tariff laws. The Legislature then
implemented the Ordinance with bristling punitive laws Lincoln embraced the Jackson concept of the
aimed at any who sought to pay or collect customs President's independent power and duty under his oath
duties.35 directly to represent and protect the people. In his
Message of July 4, 1861, Lincoln declared that "the
Jackson bided his time. His task of enforcement would Executive found the duty of employing the war power in
not be easy. Technically, the President might send defense of the government forced upon him. He could
troops into a State only if the Governor called for help not but perform the duty or surrender the existence of
to suppress an insurrection, which would not occur in the Government . . . ." This concept began as a
the instance. The President could also send troops to transition device, to be validated by Congress when it
see to it that the laws enacted by Congress were assembled. In less than two-years, it grew into an
faithfully executed. But these laws were aimed at independent power under which he felt authorized to
individual citizens, and provided no enforcement suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, issue
machinery against violation by a State. Jackson the Emancipation Proclamation, and restore reoccupied
prepared to ask Congress for a force bill.36 States.40

In a letter to a friend, the President gave the essence of Lincoln's Proclamation of April 15, 1861, called for
his position. He wrote: ". . . when a faction in a State 75,000 troops. Their first service, according to the
attempts to nullify a constitutional law of Congress, or proclamation, would be to recapture forts, places and
to destroy the Union, the balance of the people property, taking care "to avoid any devastation, any
composing this Union have a perfect right to coerce destruction of or interference with property, or any
them to obedience." Then in a Proclamation he issued disturbance of peaceful citizens."41
on December 10, 1832, he called upon South
Carolinians to realize that there could be no peaceable Early in 1863, the U.S. Supreme Court approved
interference with the execution of the laws, and dared President Lincoln's report to use the war powers
them, "disunion by armed force is treason. Are you without the benefit of Congress. The decision was
ready to incur its guilt?"37 handed in the celebrated Prize Cases42 which involved
suits attacking the President's right to legally institute a
The Proclamation frightened nullifiers, non-nullifiers blockade. Although his Proclamation was subsequently
and tight-rope walkers. Soon, State Legislatures began validated by Congress, the claimants contended that
to adopt resolutions of agreement, and the President under international law, a blockade could be instituted
announced that the national voice from Maine on the only as a measure of war under the sovereign power of
north to Louisiana on the south had declared the State. Since under the Constitution only Congress is
nullification and accession "confined to contempt and exclusively empowered to declare war, it is only that
infamy."38 body that could impose a blockade and all prizes seized
before the legislative declaration were illegal. By a 5 to
No other President entered office faced with problems 4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld Lincoln's right to act
so formidable, and enfeebled by personal and political as he had.43
handicaps so daunting, as Abraham Lincoln.
In the course of time, the U.S. President's power to call
Lincoln believed the President's power broad and that out armed forces and suspend the privilege of the writ
of Congress explicit and restricted, and sought some of habeas corpus without prior legislative approval, in
source of executive power not failed by misuse or case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion came to be
wrecked by sabotage. He seized upon the President's recognized and accepted. The United States introduced
designation by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, the expanded presidential powers in the Philippines
coupled it to the executive power provision — and through the Philippine Bill of 1902.44 The use of the
power was put to judicial test and this Court held that strike, but he had made detailed plans to use his power
the case raised a political question and said that it is as Commander-in-Chief to wrest the mines from the
beyond its province to inquire into the exercise of the stubborn operators, so that coal production would
power.45 Later, the grant of the power was begin again.51
incorporated in the 1935 Constitution.46
Eventually, the power of the State to intervene in and
Elected in 1884, Grover Cleveland took his ascent to the even take over the operation of vital utilities in the
presidency to mean that it made him the trustee of all public interest was accepted. In the Philippines, this led
the people. Guided by the maxim that "Public office is a to the incorporation of Section 6,52 Article XIII of the
public trust," which he practiced during his incumbency, 1935 Constitution, which was later carried over with
Cleveland sent federal troops to Illinois to quell striking modifications in Section 7,53 Article XIV of the 1973
railway workers who defied a court injunction. The Constitution, and thereafter in Section 18,54 Article XII
injunction banned all picketing and distribution of of the 1987 Constitution.
handbills. For leading the strikes and violating the
injunction, Debs, who was the union president, was The lesson to be learned from the U.S. constitutional
convicted of contempt of court. Brought to the history is that the Commander-in-Chief powers are
Supreme Court, the principal issue was by what broad enough as it is and become more so when taken
authority of the Constitution or statute had the together with the provision on executive power and the
President to send troops without the request of the presidential oath of office. Thus, the plenitude of the
Governor of the State.47 powers of the presidency equips the occupant with the
means to address exigencies or threats which
In In Re: Eugene Debs, et al,48 the Supreme Court undermine the very existence of government or the
upheld the contempt conviction. It ruled that it is not integrity of the State.
the government's province to mix in merely individual
present controversies. Still, so it went on, "whenever In The Philippine Presidency A Study of Executive
wrongs complained of are such as affect the public at Power, the late Mme. Justice Irene R. Cortes, proposed
large, and are in respect of matters which by the that the Philippine President was vested with residual
Constitution are entrusted to the care of the Nation and power and that this is even greater than that of the U.S.
concerning which the Nation owes the duty to all President. She attributed this distinction to the "unitary
citizens of securing to them their common rights, then and highly centralized" nature of the Philippine
the mere fact that the Government has no pecuniary government. She noted that, "There is no counterpart
interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it of the several states of the American union which have
from the Courts, or prevent it from taking measures reserved powers under the United States constitution."
therein to fully discharge those constitutional duties."49 Elaborating on the constitutional basis for her
Thus, Cleveland's course had the Court's attest. argument, she wrote:

Taking off from President Cleveland, President …. The [1935] Philippine [C]onstitution establishes the
Theodore Roosevelt launched what political scientists three departments of the government in this manner:
dub the "stewardship theory." Calling himself "the "The legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of
steward of the people," he felt that the executive power the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
"was limited only by the specific restrictions and House of Representatives." "The executive power shall
prohibitions appearing in the Constitution, or impleaded be vested in a President of the Philippines." The judicial
by Congress under its constitutional powers."50 powers shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such inferior courts as may be provided by law." These
The most far-reaching extension of presidential power provisions not only establish a separation of powers by
"T.R." ever undertook to employ was his plan to occupy actual division but also confer plenary legislative,
and operate Pennsylvania's coal mines under his executive, and judicial powers. For as the Supreme
authority as Commander-in-Chief. In the issue, he found Court of the Philippines pointed out in Ocampo v.
means other than force to end the 1902 hard-coal Cabangis, "a grant of legislative power means a grant of
all the legislative power; and a grant of the judicial executive and, at the same time, draws strength from
power means a grant of all the judicial power which her Commander-in-Chief powers. Indeed, as the
may be exercised under the government." If this is true Solicitor General accurately points out, statutory
of the legislative power which is exercised by two authority for such a declaration may be found in Section
chambers with a combined membership [at that time] 4, Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power), Book III (Office of the
of more than 120 and of the judicial power which is President) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987,
vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally if not more which states:
appropriately apply to the executive power which is
vested in one official – the president. He personifies the SEC. 4. Proclamations. – Acts of the President fixing a
executive branch. There is a unity in the executive date or declaring a status or condition of public moment
branch absent from the two other branches of or interest, upon the existence of which the operation
government. The president is not the chief of many of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall
executives. He is the executive. His direction of the be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the
executive branch can be more immediate and direct force of an executive order. [Emphasis supplied.]
than the United States president because he is given by The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, in calling out
express provision of the constitution control over all the armed forces, a declaration of a state of rebellion is
executive departments, bureaus and offices.55 an utter superfluity.58 At most, it only gives notice to
the nation that such a state exists and that the armed
The esteemed Justice conducted her study against the forces may be called to prevent or suppress it.59
backdrop of the 1935 Constitution, the framers of Perhaps the declaration may wreak emotional effects
which, early on, arrived at a general opinion in favor of upon the perceived enemies of the State, even on the
a strong Executive in the Philippines."56 Since then, entire nation. But this Court's mandate is to probe only
reeling from the aftermath of martial law, our most into the legal consequences of the declaration. This
recent Charter has restricted the President's powers as Court finds that such a declaration is devoid of any legal
Commander-in-Chief. The same, however, cannot be significance. For all legal intents, the declaration is
said of the President's powers as Chief Executive. deemed not written.
In her ponencia in Marcos v. Manglapus, Justice Cortes Should there be any "confusion" generated by the
put her thesis into jurisprudence. There, the Court, by a issuance of Proclamation No. 427 and General Order
slim 8-7 margin, upheld the President's power to forbid No. 4, we clarify that, as the dissenters in Lacson
the return of her exiled predecessor. The rationale for correctly pointed out, the mere declaration of a state of
the majority's ruling rested on the President's… rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionally
unstated residual powers which are implied from the protected rights.60 Indeed, if a state of martial law does
grant of executive power and which are necessary for not suspend the operation of the Constitution or
her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of
The powers of the President are not limited to what are habeas corpus,61 then it is with more reason that a
expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive simple declaration of a state of rebellion could not bring
Department and in scattered provisions of the about these conditions.62 At any rate, the presidential
Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding the avowed issuances themselves call for the suppression of the
intent of the members of the Constitutional rebellion "with due regard to constitutional rights."
Commission of 1986 to limit the powers of the
President as a reaction to the abuses under the regime For the same reasons, apprehensions that the military
of Mr. Marcos, for the result was a limitation of specific and police authorities may resort to warrantless arrests
powers of the President, particularly those relating to are likewise unfounded. In Lacson vs. Perez, supra,
the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of majority of the Court held that "[i]n quelling or
the general grant of executive power.57 [Underscoring suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may only
supplied. Italics in the original.] resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of
rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Thus, the President's authority to declare a state of Rules of Court,63 if the circumstances so warrant. The
rebellion springs in the main from her powers as chief warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not
based on the declaration of a 'state of rebellion.'"64 In and 18, Article VII, as opposed to the delegated
other words, a person may be subjected to a legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2),
warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion whether or Article VI.
not the President has declared a state of rebellion, so WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.
long as the requisites for a valid warrantless arrest are
present. Multiple petitions were filed challenging the
It is not disputed that the President has full constitutionality of Proclamation No. 427 and General
discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to Order No. 4:
determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. 1. G.R. No. 159085: Sanlakas and Partido ng
While the Court may examine whether the power was Manggagawa, argued that the Constitution does not
exercised within constitutional limits or in a manner require nor authorize a declaration of a state of
constituting grave abuse of discretion, none of the rebellion to call out the armed forces.
petitioners here have, by way of proof, supported their 2. G.R. No. 159103: Social Justice Society
assertion that the President acted without factual officers/members contended that the proclamation was
basis.65 a constitutional anomaly and raised concerns of
The argument that the declaration of a state of potential violations of constitutional rights.
rebellion amounts to a declaration of martial law and, 3. G.R. No. 159185: Representatives challenged the
therefore, is a circumvention of the report requirement, President’s declaration as an exercise of emergency
is a leap of logic. There is no indication that military powers without Congress’s authorization.
tribunals have replaced civil courts in the "theater of 4. G.R. No. 159196: Senator Pimentel asserted that the
war" or that military authorities have taken over the proclamation could lead to unconstitutional warrantless
functions of civil government. There is no allegation of arrests and was an unwarranted exercise of martial law
curtailment of civil or political rights. There is no powers by the President.
indication that the President has exercised judicial and Issues:
legislative powers. In short, there is no illustration that 1. **Standing**: Whether the petitioners have the legal
the President has attempted to exercise or has standing to question the constitutionality of the
exercised martial law powers. presidential issuances.
2. **Call-out Powers and Declaration**: Whether the
Nor by any stretch of the imagination can the President has the authority to declare a state of
declaration constitute an indirect exercise of emergency rebellion under her calling out power.
powers, which exercise depends upon a grant of 3. **Effect of Declaration**: Whether the proclamation
Congress pursuant to Section 23 (2), Article VI of the of a state of rebellion had legal significance and
Constitution: whether it authorized warrantless arrests and other
Sec. 23. (1) …. extraordinary measures.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the 4. **Circumvention of Emergency Powers**: Whether
Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a the declaration was an indirect exercise of emergency
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may powers that should be vested only by Congress.
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner Court’s Decision:
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers 1. **Standing**: Only petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and
shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. Sen. Pimentel, as members of Congress, were found to
The petitions do not cite a specific instance where the have standing to challenge the presidential issuances.
President has attempted to or has exercised powers Petitions by Sanlakas, PM, and SJS were dismissed for
beyond her powers as Chief Executive or as lack of standing as they did not demonstrate sufficient
Commander-in-Chief. The President, in declaring a state injury or a personal stake in the controversy
of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, was 2. **Call-out Powers and Declaration**: The Court
merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and recognized the President’s authority to call out the
Commander-in-Chief powers. These are purely armed forces but questioned the necessity of declaring
executive powers, vested on the President by Sections 1 a state of rebellion. However, it acknowledged that the
Constitution does not strictly prohibit such a trial. As to his civil liability consisting in the return of the
declaration, concluding it is a mere superfluity with no two amounts aforestated, the same was condoned by
additional legal effect. the complaints. Not withstanding his conviction, Teofilo
3. **Effect of Declaration**: The Court emphasized that C. Santos continued to be a registered elector in the
a state of rebellion declaration does not diminish municipality of Malabon, Rizal, and was, for the period
constitutionally protected rights. The issuance itself did comprised between 1934 and 1937, seated as the
not provide any basis for warrantless arrests municipality of Malabon, Rizal, and was, for the period
inconsistent with constitutional and procedural comprised between 1934 and 1937, seated as the
requirements. municipal president of that municipality. On August 22,
4. **Circumvention of Emergency Powers**: The Court 1938, Commonwealth Act No. 357, otherwise known as
ruled that the proclamation did not constitute an the Election Code, was approved by the national
exercise of emergency powers that should be Assembly, section 94, paragraph (b) of which
authorized by Congress. The President’s declarations disqualifies the respondent from voting for having been
were deemed purely executive actions, justified under "declared by final judgment guilty of any crime against
her existing powers as Chief Executive and Commander- the property." In view of this provision, the respondent
in-Chief. forth with applied to his Excellency, the President for an
absolute pardon, his petition bearing date of August 15,
Doctrine: 1939. Upon the favorable recommendation of the
**Presidential Call-Out Power**: The President’s call- Secretary of Justice, the Chief Executive, on December
out power under Section 18, Article VII of the 24, 1939, granted the said petition, restoring the
Constitution does not necessitate a declaration of a respondent to his "full civil and political rights, except
state of rebellion, though such a declaration is not that with respect to the right to hold public office or
expressly prohibited. employment, he will be eligible for appointment only to
**Limitations on Authority**: A declaration of a state of positions which are clerical or manual in nature and
rebellion does not augment the President’s powers involving no money or property responsibility."
beyond those already granted constitutionally, and it On November 16, 1940, the herein petitioner, Miguel
cannot be used to circumvent the requirement of Cristobal, filed a petition for the exclusion of the name
legislative authorization for emergency powers. of Teofilo C. Santos from the list of voters in precinct
**Constitutional Rights Preservation**: Even in states No. 11 of Malabon, Rizal, on the ground that the latter
of rebellion, constitutional rights, including protections is disqualified under paragraph (b) of section 94 of
against warrantless arrests, remain in force and cannot Commonwealth Act No. 357. After hearing, the court
be overridden without due process. below rendered it decision on November 28, 1940, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
G.R. No. L-47941 December 7, 1940
MIGUEL CRISTOBAL, petitioner, Without going further into a discussion of all the other
vs. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL., respondents minor points and questions raised by the petitioner, the
court declares that the pardon extended in favor of the
Facts: On March 15, 1930, the Court of First Instance of respondent on December 24, 1939, has had the effect
Rizal found Teofilo C. Santos, respondent herein, guilty of excluding the respondent from the disqualification
of the crime of estafa and sentenced him to six months created by section 94, subsection (b) of the New
of arresto mayor and the accesories provided by law, to Election Code. The petition for exclusion of the
return to the offended parties, Toribio Alarcon and respondent Teofilo C. Santos should be, as it hereby is,
Emilio Raymundo the amounts P375 and P125, denied. Let there be no costs.
respectively, with subsidiary imprisonment in the case
of insolvency, and to pay the costs. On appeal, this Petitioner Cristobal has filed the present petition for
court, on December 20, 1930, confirmed the judgment certiorari in which he impugns the decision of the court
of conviction. Accordingly, he was confined in the below on the several grounds stated in the petition.
provincial jail of Pasig, Rizal, from March 14, 1932 to
August 18, 1932 and paid the corresponding costs of
It is the contention of the petitioner that the pardon conviction. In the present case, while the pardon
granted by His Excellency, the President of the extended to respondent Santos is conditional in the
Philippines, to the respondent, Teofilo C. Santos, did not sense that "he will be eligible for appointment only to
restore the said respondents to the full enjoyment of positions which are clerical or manual in nature
his political rights, because (a) the pardoning power of involving no money or property responsibility," it is
the Chief Executive does not apply to legislative absolute insofar as it "restores the respondent to full
prohibitions; (b) the pardoning power here would civil and political rights." (Pardon, Exhibit 1, extended
amount to an unlawful exercise by the Chief Executive December 24, 1939.) While there are cases in the
of a legislative function, and (c) the respondent having United States which hold that the pardoning power
served his sentence and all the accesory penalties does not restore the privilege of voting, this is because,
imposed by law, there was nothing to pardon. All these as stated by the learned judge below, in the United
propositions involve an inquiry into the primary States the right of suffrage is a matter exclusively in the
question of the nature and extent of the pardoning hands of the State and not in the hands of the Federal
power vested in the Chief Executive of the Nation by Government (Decision, page 9). Even then, there are
the Constitution. cases to the contrary (Jones vs. Board of Registrars, 56
Miss. 766; Hildreth vs. Health, 1 Ill. App. 82). Upon the
Paragraph 6 of section 11 of Article VII of our other hand, the suggestion that the disqualification
Constitution, provides: imposed in paragraph (b) of section 94 of
(6) The President shall have the power to grant Commonwealth Act No. 357, does not fall within the
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and to remit purview of the pardoning power of the Chief Executive,
fines and forfeitures, after conviction, for all offenses, would lead to the impairment of the pardoning power
except in cases of impeachment, upon such conditions of the Chief Executive, not contemplated in the
and with such restrictions and limitations as may be Constitution, and would be no way of restoring the
deem proper to impose. He shall have the power to political privilege in a case of this nature except through
grant amnesty with the concurrence of the National legislative action.
Assembly. The petition for certiorari is denied, with costs against
It should be observed that there are two limitations the petitioner. So ordered.
upon the exercise of this constitutional prerogative by
the Chief Executive, namely: (a) that the power be Issue: Whether the presidential power of pardon
exercised after convictions; and (b) that such power applies to legislative prohibitions
does not extend to cases of impeachment. Subject to
the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the HELD: It should be observed that there are two
pardoning power does not extend to cases of limitations upon the exercise of this constitutional
impeachment. Subject to the limitations imposed by the prerogative by the Chief Executive, namely: (a) that the
Constitution, the pardoning power cannot be restricted power be exercised after conviction; and (b) that such
or controlled by legislative action. It must remain where power does not extend cases of impeachment. Subject
the sovereign authority has placed it and must be to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the
exercised by the highest authority to whom it is pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by
entrusted. An absolute pardon not only blots out the legislative action. It must remain where the sovereign
crime committed, but removes all disabilities resulting authority has placed it and must be exercised by the
from the convictions. In the present case, the disability highest authority to whom it is entrusted. An absolute
is the result of conviction without which there would no pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but
basis for disqualification from voting. Imprisonment is removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction. In
not the only punishment which the law imposes upon the present case, the disability is the result of conviction
those who violate its command. There are accessory without which there would be no basis for
and resultant disabilities, and the pardoning power disqualification from voting. Imprisonment is not the
likewise extends to such disabilities. When granted after only punishment which the law imposes upon those
the term of imprisonment has expired, absolute pardon who violate its command. There are accessory and
removes all that is left of the consequences of resultant disabilities, and the pardoning power likewise
extends to such disabilities. When granted after the reaction to the tragic events that occurred on
term of imprisonment has expired, absolute pardon September 11, 2001. On that day, three (3) commercial
removes all that is left of the consequences of aircrafts were hijacked, flown and smashed into the
conviction. In the present case, while the pardon twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City
extended to respondent Santos is conditional in the and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. by
sense that “he will be eligible for appointment only to terrorists with alleged links to the al-Qaeda ("the
positions which a e clerical or manual in nature Base"), a Muslim extremist organization headed by the
involving no money or property responsibility,” it is infamous Osama bin Laden. Of no comparable historical
absolute insofar as it “”restores the respondent to full parallels, these acts caused billions of dollars worth of
civil and political rights. Upon other hand, the destruction of property and incalculable loss of
suggestion that the disqualification imposed in par (b) hundreds of lives.
of sec 94 of CA 357, does not fall within the purview of On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and
the pardoning power of the president, would lead to Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and
the impairment of the pardoning power of the prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint
president, not contemplated in the Constitution, and exercise.2 They were joined subsequently by SANLAKAS
would lead furthermore to the result that there would and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, both party-Iist
be no way of restoring the political privilege in a case of organizations, who filed a petition-in-intervention on
this nature except through legislative action. February 11, 2002.
Lim and Ersando filed suit in their capacities as citizens,
ARTHUR D. LIM and PAULINO R. ERSANDO, lawyers and taxpayers. SANLAKAS and PARTIDO, on the
petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY as other hand, aver that certain members of their
alter ego of HER EXCELLENCEY GLORIA MACAPAGAL- organization are residents of Zamboanga and Sulu, and
ARROYO, and HONORABLE ANGELO REYES in his hence will be directly affected by the operations being
capacity as Secretary of National Defense, conducted in Mindanao. They likewise pray for a
respondents. relaxation on the rules relative to locus standi citing the
unprecedented importance of the issue involved.
Facts: Beginning January of this year 2002, personnel On February 71 2002 the Senate conducted a hearing
from the armed forces of the United States of America on the "Balikatan" exercise wherein Vice-President
started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., who is concurrently Secretary
with the Philippine military, in "Balikatan 02-1." These of Foreign. Affairs, presented the Draft Terms of
so-called "Balikatan" exercises are the largest combined Reference (TOR).3 Five days later, he approved the TOR,
training operations involving Filipino and American which we quote hereunder:
troops. In theory, they are a simulation of joint military
maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty,1 a I. POLICY LEVEL
bilateral defense agreement entered into by the 1. The Exercise shall be consistent with the Philippine
Philippines and the United States in 1951. Constitution and all its activities shall be in consonance
with the laws of the land and the provisions of the RP-
Prior to the year 2002, the last "Balikatan" was held in US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
1995. This was due to the paucity of any formal 2. The conduct of this training Exercise is in accordance
agreement relative to the treatment of United States with pertinent United Nations resolutions against global
personnel visiting the Philippines. In the meantime, the terrorism as understood by the respective parties.
respective governments of the two countries agreed to 3. No permanent US basing and support facilities shall
hold joint exercises on a reduced scale. The lack of be established. Temporary structures such as those for
consensus was eventually cured when the two nations troop billeting, classroom instruction and messing may
concluded the Visiting Forces Agreement (V FA) in 1999. be set up for use by RP and US Forces during the
Exercise.
The entry of American troops into Philippine soil is
proximately rooted in the international anti-terrorism 4. The Exercise shall be implemented jointly by RP and
campaign declared by President George W. Bush in US Exercise Co-Directors under the authority of the
Chief of Staff, AFP. In no instance will US Forces operate a. RP and US participants shall be given a country and
independently during field training exercises (FTX). AFP area briefing at the start of the Exercise. This briefing
and US Unit Commanders will retain command over shall acquaint US Forces on the culture and sensitivities
their respective forces under the overall authority of of the Filipinos and the provisions of the VF A. The
the Exercise Co-Directors. RP and US participants shall briefing shall also promote the full cooperation on the
comply with operational instructions of the AFP during part of the RP and US participants for the successful
the FTX. conduct of the Exercise.
5. The exercise shall be conducted and completed b. RP and US participating forces may share, in
within a period of not more than six months, with the accordance with their respective laws and regulations,
projected participation of 660 US personnel and 3,800 in the use of their resources, equipment and other
RP Forces. The Chief of Staff, AFP shall direct the assets. They will use their respective logistics channels.
Exercise Co-Directors to wind up and terminate the c. Medical evaluation shall be jointly planned and
Exercise and other activities within the six month executed utilizing RP and US assets and resources.
Exercise period. d. Legal liaison officers from each respective party shall
6. The Exercise is a mutual counter-terrorism advising, be appointed by the Exercise Directors.
assisting and training Exercise relative to Philippine
efforts against the ASG, and will be conducted on the 3. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Island of Basilan. Further advising, assisting and training a. Combined RP-US Information Bureaus shall be
exercises shall be conducted in Malagutay and the established at the Exercise Directorate in Zamboanga
Zamboanga area. Related activities in Cebu will be for City and at GHQ, AFP in Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City.
support of the Exercise. b. Local media relations will be the concern of the AFP
7. Only 160 US Forces organized in 12-man Special and all public affairs guidelines shall be jointly
Forces Teams shall be deployed with AFP field, developed by RP and US Forces.
commanders. The US teams shall remain at the c. Socio-Economic Assistance Projects shall be planned
Battalion Headquarters and, when approved, Company and executed jointly by RP and US Forces in accordance
Tactical headquarters where they can observe and with their respective laws and regulations, and in
assess the performance of the AFP Forces. consultation with community and local government
8. US exercise participants shall not engage in combat, officials.
without prejudice to their right of self-defense.
9. These terms of Reference are for purposes of this Contemporaneously, Assistant Secretary for American
Exercise only and do not create additional legal Affairs Minerva Jean A. Falcon and United States Charge
obligations between the US Government and the d' Affaires Robert Fitts signed the Agreed Minutes of the
Republic of the Philippines. discussion between the Vice-President and Assistant
Secretary Kelly.4
II. EXERCISE LEVEL
1. TRAINING Petitioners Lim and Ersando present the following
a. The Exercise shall involve the conduct of mutual arguments:
military assisting, advising and training of RP and US I
Forces with the primary objective of enhancing the THE PHILIPPINES AND THE UNITED STATES SIGNED THE
operational capabilities of both forces to combat MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY (MDT) in 1951 TO PROVIDE
terrorism. MUTUAL MILITARY ASSIST ANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
b. At no time shall US Forces operate independently THE 'CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSE-S' OF EACH COUNTRY
within RP territory. ONLY IN THE CASE OF AN ARMED ATTACK BY AN
c. Flight plans of all aircraft involved in the exercise will EXTERNAL AGGRESSOR, MEANING A THIRD COUNTRY
comply with the local air traffic regulations. AGAINST ONE OF THEM.
BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINA TION CAN IT BE SAID
2. ADMINISTRATION & LOGISTICS THAT THE ABU SAYYAF BANDITS IN BASILAN
CONSTITUTE AN EXTERNAL ARMED FORCE THAT HAS
SUBJECT THE PHILIPPINES TO AN ARMED EXTERNAL
ATTACK TO WARRANT U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the
UNDER THE MDT OF 1951. Rome Statute3 establishing the International Criminal
Court (ICC) with "the power to exercise its jurisdiction
II over persons for the most serious crimes of
NEITHER DOES THE VFA OF 1999 AUTHORIZE AMERICAN international concern x x x and shall be complementary
SOLDIERS TO ENGAGE IN COMBAT OPERATIONS IN to the national criminal jurisdictions."4 The serious
PHILIPPINE TERRITORY, NOT EVEN TO FIRE BACK "IF crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under
FIRED UPON". international law, such as genocide, crimes against
Substantially the same points are advanced by humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.5
petitioners SANLAKAS and PARTIDO. On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge
d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute
Issues: whether "Balikatan 02-1" is covered by the which, by its terms, is "subject to ratification,
Visiting Forces Agreement acceptance or approval" by the signatory states.6 As of
the filing of the instant petition, only 92 out of the 139
HELD: NO. Petition and the petition-in-intervention are signatory countries appear to have completed the
hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a ratification, approval and concurrence process. The
new petition sufficient in form and substance in the Philippines is not among the 92.
proper Regional Trial Court - Supreme Court is not a
trier of facts RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement
On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J.
Doctrine of Importance to the Public Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note No. 0470 to the
Considering however the importance to the public of Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the
the case at bar, and in keeping with the Court's duty, terms of the non-surrender bilateral agreement
under the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether or (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA and the RP.
not the other branches of the government have kept Via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-037 dated May 13,
themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the 2003 (E/N BFO-028-03, hereinafter), the RP,
laws that they have not abused the discretion given to represented by then DFA Secretary Ople, agreed with
them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of and accepted the US proposals embodied under the US
procedure and has taken cognizance of this petition. Embassy Note adverted to and put in effect the
Agreement with the US government. In esse, the
G.R. No. 159618 February 1, 2011 Agreement aims to protect what it refers to and defines
BAYAN MUNA, as represented by Rep. SATUR as "persons" of the RP and US from frivolous and
OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN, and Rep. LIZA L. harassment suits that might be brought against them in
MAZA, Petitioner, international tribunals.8 It is reflective of the increasing
vs. ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Executive pace of the strategic security and defense partnership
Secretary, and BLAS F. OPLE, in his capacity as between the two countries. As of May 2, 2003, similar
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Respondents. bilateral agreements have been effected by and
between the US and 33 other countries.9
Facts
Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list The Agreement pertinently provides as follows:
group established to represent the marginalized sectors 1. For purposes of this Agreement, "persons" are
of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now deceased, was current or former Government officials, employees
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the period (including contractors), or military personnel or
material to this case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was nationals of one Party.
impleaded in his capacity as then Executive Secretary.2
2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court other shall not, absent the express consent of the first
Party,
(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any For their part, respondents question petitioner’s
international tribunal for any purpose, unless such standing to maintain a suit and counter that the
tribunal has been established by the UN Security Agreement, being in the nature of an executive
Council, or agreement, does not require Senate concurrence for its
(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any efficacy. And for reasons detailed in their comment,
other entity or third country, or expelled to a third respondents assert the constitutionality of the
country, for the purpose of surrender to or transfer to Agreement.
any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been
established by the UN Security Council. The Issues
I. WHETHER THE [RP] PRESIDENT AND THE [DFA]
3. When the [US] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise SECRETARY x x x GRAVELY ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION
transfers a person of the Philippines to a third country, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION FOR
the [US] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of CONCLUDING THE RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT
that person by the third country to any international BY MEANS OF [E/N] BFO-028-03 DATED 13 MAY 2003,
tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by WHEN THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY
the UN Security Council, absent the express consent of SIGNED THE ROME STATUTE OF THE [ICC] ALTHOUGH
the Government of the Republic of the Philippines THIS IS PENDING RATIFICATION BY THE PHILIPPINE
[GRP]. SENATE.

4. When the [GRP] extradites, surrenders, or otherwise A. Whether by entering into the x x x Agreement
transfers a person of the [USA] to a third country, the Respondents gravely abused their discretion when they
[GRP] will not agree to the surrender or transfer of that capriciously abandoned, waived and relinquished our
person by the third country to any international only legitimate recourse through the Rome Statute of
tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established by the [ICC] to prosecute and try "persons" as defined in
the UN Security Council, absent the express consent of the x x x Agreement, x x x or literally any conduit of
the Government of the [US]. American interests, who have committed crimes of
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the
5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one year crime of aggression, thereby abdicating Philippine
after the date on which one party notifies the other of Sovereignty.
its intent to terminate the Agreement. The provisions of
this Agreement shall continue to apply with respect to B. Whether after the signing and pending ratification of
any act occurring, or any allegation arising, before the the Rome Statute of the [ICC] the [RP] President and the
effective date of termination. [DFA] Secretary x x x are obliged by the principle of
good faith to refrain from doing all acts which would
In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo substantially impair the value of the undertaking as
L. Benipayo on the status of the non-surrender signed.
agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his letter
of October 28, 2003 that the exchange of diplomatic C. Whether the x x x Agreement constitutes an act
notes constituted a legally binding agreement under which defeats the object and purpose of the Rome
international law; and that, under US law, the said Statute of the International Criminal Court and
agreement did not require the advice and consent of contravenes the obligation of good faith inherent in the
the US Senate.10 signature of the President affixed on the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court, and if so whether
In this proceeding, petitioner imputes grave abuse of the x x x Agreement is void and unenforceable on this
discretion to respondents in concluding and ratifying ground.
the Agreement and prays that it be struck down as
unconstitutional, or at least declared as without force D. Whether the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement is void
and effect. and unenforceable for grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in connection
with its execution.

II. WHETHER THE RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT

IS VOID AB INITIO FOR CONTRACTING OBLIGATIONS
THAT ARE EITHER IMMORAL OR OTHERWISE AT
VARIANCE WITH UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

III. WHETHER THE x x x AGREEMENT IS VALID, BINDING

AND EFFECTIVE WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE BY AT
LEAST TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE x x x.11

The foregoing issues may be summarized into two: first,

whether or not the Agreement was contracted validly,
which resolves itself into the question of whether or not
respondents gravely abused their discretion in
concluding it; and second, whether or not the
Agreement, which has not been submitted to the
Senate for concurrence, contravenes and undermines
the Rome Statute and other treaties. But because
respondents expectedly raised it, we shall first tackle
the issue of petitioner’s legal standing.

The Court’s Ruling

This petition is bereft of merit.
The Philippines under our constitution is able to follow
the doctrine of incorporation in which the Philippines
can adopt generally accepted principles of international
law/jurisprudence as part of its own. the notes done by
the DFA and the US Ambassador falls within this
category. Furthermore, the senate isn't always needed
in making agreements on the basis of Article 2 of the
Vienna Convention law of treaties in which agreements
and treaties are both treated almost the same with the
exception of whether it is done through legislative
concurrence or not.With this agreement it doesn't
necessarily mean that we do not abide by the laws of
ICC but rather it allows the state to exercise its own
jurisdictions over its own citizens. More so, the Rome
Statute is complementary to national criminal
jurisdictions and expressly recognizes the primary
jurisdiction of state members and only comes
into play when the state is unable or unwilling
to prosecute. The right of the Executive department to
enter into binding agreements without necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed
by long usage.