State and its elements Flashcards
Alfredo De Leon was elected Barangay Captain in the elections on May 17, 1982. On February 9, 1987, petitioner received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986, but signed by OIC Governor Esguerra on February 8, 1987, designating Florentino Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores Taytay, Rizal. Petitioners pray that the memorandum is null and void in accordance with Section 3 of Barangay Election Act of 1982. Petitioner further that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, respondent OIC governor no longer has authority to designate successors and replace them. Is the dismissal order of De Leon et. Al. by respondent OIC Governor valid?
The constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, the Provisional Constitution has been superseded. As such, respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2 Article III of said Constitution. The Memoranda was declared to be of no legal force and the writ of prohibition enjoining respondents from proceeding with the take-over was granted.
Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner and took his oath of office as member of the National Assembly of the Commonwealth Government. On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election of those who have not been subject of an election protest prior to the adoption of the said resolution.
On December 8, 1935, however, private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest against the petitioner before the Electoral Commission of the National Assembly. The following day, December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted its own resolution providing that it will not consider any election protest that was not submitted on or before December 9, 1935.
The Electoral Commission acted within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua against the election of the petitioner Angara, and that the earlier resolution of the National Assembly cannot in any manner toll the time for filing election protests against members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral Commission might prescribe.
The plaintiffs are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for defendant, requested said stenographers for copies, of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page.
Upon inspecting the books of this corporation, the Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the amounts paid. The respondents argue that National Coconut Corporation may be considered as included in the term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” for the purposes of the exemption of the legal fees provided for in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
No, NACOCO does not acquire that status for the simple reason that it does not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. To resolve the issue in this case requires a little digression on the nature and functions of our government as instituted in our Constitution. The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation.
Private respondents alleged their employment relationship, the overtime services in excess of the regular eight hours a day rendered by them, and the failure to pay them overtime compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration denied the allegations and raising the special defenses of lack of a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. The respondent Court issued an order sustaining the claims of private respondents for overtime services and directing petitioner to pay the same, minus what it had already paid. There was a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the respondent Court. Petitioner Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration contends that it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent Court as it is exercising governmental functions and that it is exempt from the operation of Commonwealth Act No. 444.
Under RA 2265 the Petitioner discharges governmental and not proprietary functions. The Supreme Court ruled that a reference to the enactments creating Petitioner Corporation
suffices to demonstrate the merit of petitioner’s plea that it performs governmental and not proprietary
functions.
Respondent Judge refused to take cognizance of and continue the proceedings in petitioner’s civil case on the ground that the proclamation issued on October 23, 1944, by General Douglas MacArthur had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of the court of the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation, and that, furthermore, the lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority.
(a) Is the McArthur Proclamation invalidating “all laws, regulations and processes” of the
Occupation government applicable also to judicial decisions?
(b) WON the present court has legal jurisdiction
(a) NO. According to the well-known principles of international law all judgements and judicial proceedings , which are not of a political complexion, of the
de facto governments during the Japanese military occupation were good and valid before and remained so after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereignty, it should be presumed that it was not, and could not have been, the intention of General McArthur.
(b) YES. Enabling laws or acts providing that proceedings pending in one court be continued by or transferred to another court, are not required by mere change of government sovereignty.
Spain paid $400,000 into the treasury of the Philippine Islands for the relief of those damaged by an earthquake.
2. Upon the petition of Monte de Piedad, an institution under the control of the church, the Philippine Government directed its treasurer to give $80,000 of the relief fund in Four (4)4 installments. As a result, various petitions were filed, including the heirs of those entitled to the allotments. All prayed for the State to bring suit against Monte de Piedad, and for it to pay with interest.
3. The Defendant appealed since all its funds have been exhausted already on various jewelry loans.
Whether the government is the proper authority to the cause of action
The Philippine government, as a trustee towards the funds could maintain the action since there has been no change of sovereignty. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae of the people. These principles are based upon public policy.
Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of Olangapo City. She demolished the house and built another one in its place without securing a building permit from the City Mayor of Olangapo City. The City Court of Olangapo found her guilty of violating a municipal ordinance that requires permit from the municipal mayor for construction of building as well as any modification, repairs or demolition thereof.
On appeal with the Court of Appeals, Gozo put in issue the validity of such ordinance by invoking due process. She likewise questioned the applicability of the ordinance to her in view of the location of her dwelling within the naval base leased to the American Armed Forces; she contended that the municipal government could not exercise therein-administrative jurisdiction.
(a) Whether municipal ordinance is valid?
(b) Whether the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the area where Gozo‘s house was located?
(a) YES, the municipal ordinance is valid. The authority to require building permits is predicated upon the general welfare clause. Its scope is wide, well nigh all embracing, covering every aspect of public health, public morals, public safety, and the well-being and good order of the community.
(b) YES, the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the said area. By the agreement, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. This consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy or expediency. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.
Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
Whether or not Anastacio Laurel can be prosecuted for the crime of treason?
Yes, Anastacio Laurel can be prosecuted for the crime of treason.
Laurel’s contentions are without merit because (1) the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier; and (2) the change of form of government does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason because it is an offense to the same government and same sovereign people.
During the Japanese insurrection in the Philippines, military men were assigned at designated camps or military bases all over the country. When the Japanese forces reached Mindoro, Ruffy and his band were forced to retreat to the mountains. A guerilla outfit was then organized, called as the “Bolo Area”. However, a certain Capt. Esteban Beloncio relieved petitioners of their positions and duties in the “Bolo Area”, after Lieut. Col. Enrique Jurado effected a change of command. The latter, however, was slain allegedly by petitioners, and it was this murder which gave rise to petitioners’ trial, the legality of which is now being contested.
Were the petitioners subject to the military law at the time of war and Japanese occupation?
YES, petitioner was subject to military law at the time the alleged offense was committed. The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory. It is not intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms.
Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522:- it reduces the territory of the Philippines in violation to the Constitution and it opens the country to maritime passage of vessels and aircrafts of other states to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty, national security and of the Constitution as well. They added that the classification of Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the lives of the fishermen
RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines but is merely a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s maritime zone and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. SC emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a territory as provided under the laws of nations. UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral treaty that is a result of a long-time negotiation to establish a uniform sea-use rights over maritime zones
Justo Lukban, mayor of Manila, ordered the district of ill-repute women closed. One hundred and seventy women were deported to Davao without their knowledge and consent. The women were received as laborers in a banana plantation. Some of the women were able to escape and return to Manila. The attorney for the relatives and friends of a considerable number of the deportees presented an application for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court
The respondents had no authority to deport the women. No official, no matter how high, is above the law. The courts are the forum which function to safeguard liberty and to punish official transgressors. The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus are to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
Petitioner questioned the payment of an income tax assessed on him by public respondent on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of the US Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base. Petitioner contends that the base is outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond the jurisdictional power to tax.
ISSUE: Whether or not a sale made on a foreign military base is excluded from tax.
No. The said foreign military bases is not a foreign soil or territory for purposes of income tax legislation. Philippine jurisdictional rights including the power to tax are preserved.
On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement of the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP - MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Invoking the right to information on matters of public concern, the petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and official copies of the MA-AD and to prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD and the holding of public consultation thereon. They also pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional. The Court issued a TRO enjoining the GRP from signing the same.
1. Whether or not the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for adjudication;
2. Whether or not there is a violation of the people’s right to information on matters of public concern (Art 3 Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (Art 2, Sec 28) including public consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991)
3. Whether or not the signing of the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would be binding itself
- Yes, the petitions are ripe for adjudication. The failure of the respondents to consult the local government units or communities affected constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate under EO No. 3. Moreover, the respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution.
- Yes. The Court finds that there is a grave violation of the Constitution involved in the matters of public concern (Sec 7 Art III) under a state policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (Art 2, Sec 28) including public consultation under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991).
- No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an “associative” relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government. It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state.
Is the government of cory aquino de facto or de jure
The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino
