Principle and State Policies

7/24/2019 Principle and State Policies

1/5

Limbona vs. Mangelin (170 SCRA 786)Posted onJune 30, 2013bywinnieclaire

S

tandard

.R. No. 80391, 28 February 1989

Facts: Petitioner was appointed member of the Sanguniang Pampook, Regional Autonomous Government and was later elected Speaker of the Regional Legislative Assembly. Congressman Datu invited

petitioner in his capacity as Speaker of the Assembly for consulations and dialogues on the recent and present political developments and other issues affecting Regions IX and XII hopefully resulting to chart the

autonomous governments of the two regions as envisioned and may prod the President to constitute immediately the Regional Consultative Commission as mandated by the Commission.

Consistent with the said invitation, Petitioner addressed all Assemblymen that there shall be no session in November as our presence in the house committee hearing of Congress take (sic) precedence over any

pending business in batasang pampook .

In defiance of Petitioners advice, After declaring the presence of a quorum, the Speaker Pro-Tempore was authorized to preside in the session. On Motion to declare the seat of the Speaker vacant, all

Assemblymen in attendance voted in the affirmative.

Issue: Is the expulsion valid? Are the so-called autonomous governments of Mindanao, as they are now constituted, subject to the jurisdiction of the national courts? In other words, what is the extent of self-

government given to the two autonomous governments of Region IX and XII?

Held: Firstly, We therefore order reinstatement, with the caution that should the past acts of the petitioner indeed warrant his removal, the Assembly is enjoined, should it still be so minded, to commence proper

proceedings therefor in line with the most elementary requirements of due process. And while it is within the discretion of the members of the Sanggunian to punish their erring colleagues, their acts are

nonetheless subject to the moderating band of this Court in the event that such discretion is exercised with grave abuse.

the Decree PD 168 established internal autonomy in the two regions [w]ithin the framework of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines and its Constitution, with

legislative and executive machinery to exercise the powers and responsibilities specified therein

Now, autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power. There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to

political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to make local governments more responsive and accountable, and ensure their fullest development

as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress.At the same time, it relieves the central government of the burden of

managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns. The President exercises general supervision over them, but only to ensure that local affairs are administered according to law. He has

no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own.

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the favor of local governments units declare to be autonomous . In that case, the autonomous government

is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power amounts to self-immolation,

since in that event, the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency.

An autonomous government that enjoys autonomy of the latter category [CONST. (1987), art. X, sec. 15.] is subject alone to the decree of the organic act creating it and accepted principles on the effects and

limits of autonomy. On the other hand, an autonomous government of the former class is, as we noted, under the supervision of the national government acting through the President (and the Department of

Local Government). If the Sangguniang Pampook (of Region XII), then, is autonomous in the latter sense, its acts are, debatably beyond the domain of this Court in perhaps the same way that the internal acts,

say, of the Congress of the Philippines are beyond our jurisdiction. But if it is autonomous in the former category only, it comes unarguably under our jurisdiction. An examination of the very Presidential Decree

creating the autonomous governments of Mindanao persuades us that they were never meant to exercise autonomy in the second sense, that is, in which the central government commits an act of self-immolation.

Presidential Decree No. 1618, in the first place, mandates that [t]he President shall have the power of general supervision and control over Autonomous Regions. In the second place, the Sangguniang

Pampook, their legislative arm, is made to discharge chiefly administrative services

Hence, we assume jurisdiction.

Oposa vs. Factoran Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 13!FACTS:

The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the Branch !"a#ati$ "etro "anila%$ of the

&eional Trial Court$ (ational capital )udicial &eion aainst defendant !respondent% Secretary of the *epartment of +n,ironment and (atural &easources !*+(&%. -laintiffs alleed that they

are entitled to the full benefit$ use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's ,irin tropical forests. They further asse,erate that they represent their eneration as well

as enerations yet unborn and asserted that continued deforestation ha,e caused a distortion and disturbance of the ecoloical balance and ha,e resulted in a host of en,ironmental traedies.

-laintiffs prayed that judement be rendered orderin the respondent$ his aents$ representati,es and other persons actin in his behalf to cancel all existin Timber icense Areement !TA%in the country and to cease and desist from recei,in$ acceptin$ processin$ renewin or appro,in new TAs.

*efendant$ on the other hand$ filed a motion to dismiss on the round that the complaint had no cause of action aainst him and that it raises a political /uestion.

The &TC )ude sustained the motion to dismiss$ further rulin that rantin of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the Constitution.

-laintiffs !petitioners% thus filed the instant special ci,il action for certiorari and as#ed the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the round that the respondent &TC )ude

ra,ely abused his discretion in dismissin the action.

0SS1+S:

!2% 3hether or not the plaintiffs ha,e a cause of action.

!4% 3hether or not the complaint raises a political issue.

!5% 3hether or not the oriinal prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment of contracts.
https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/limbona-vs-mangelin-170-scra-786/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/limbona-vs-mangelin-170-scra-786/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/limbona-vs-mangelin-170-scra-786/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/author/winnieclaire/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/author/winnieclaire/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/limbona-vs-mangelin-170-scra-786/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/author/winnieclaire/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/limbona-vs-mangelin-170-scra-786/https://winnieclaire.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/limbona-vs-mangelin-170-scra-786/


2/5

&10(6:

First 0ssue: Cause of Action.

&espondents a,er that the petitioners failed to allee in their complaint a specific leal riht ,iolated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is pro,ided by law. The Court did not aree

with this. The complaint focuses on one fundamental leal riht 77 the riht to a balanced and healthful ecoloy which is incorporated in Section 2 Article 00 of the Constitution. The said riht

carries with it the duty to refrain from impairin the en,ironment and implies$ amon many other thins$ the judicious manaement and conser,ation of the country's forests. Section 8 of +.9.

24 expressly mandates the *+(& to be the primary o,ernment aency responsible for the o,ernin and super,isin the exploration$ utili;ation$ de,elopment and conser,ation of the

country's natural resources. The policy declaration of +.9. 24 is also substantially re7stated in Title ?. Both +.9. 24 and Administrati,e Code of

2>? ha,e set the objecti,es which will ser,e as the bases for policy formation$ and ha,e defined the powers and functions of the *+(&. Thus$ riht of the petitioners !and all those they

represent% to a balanced and healthful ecoloy is as clear as *+(&'s duty to protect and ad,ance the said riht.

A denial or ,iolation of that riht by the other who has the correlati,e duty or obliation to respect or protect or respect the same i,es rise to a cause of action. -etitioners maintain that the

rantin of the TA$ which they claim was done with ra,e abuse of discretion$ ,iolated their riht to a balance and healthful ecoloy. @ence$ the full protection thereof re/uires that no further

TAs should be renewed or ranted.

After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint$ the Court finds it to be ade/uate enouh to show$ prima facie$ the claimed ,iolation of their rihts.

Second 0ssue: -olitical 0ssue.

Second pararaph$ Section 2 of Article =000 of the constitution pro,ides for the expanded jurisdiction ,ested upon the Supreme Court. 0t allows the Court to rule upon e,en on the wisdom of the

decision of the +xecuti,e and eislature and to declare their acts as in,alid for lac# or excess of jurisdiction because it is tainted with ra,e abuse of discretion.

Third 0ssue: =iolation of the non7impairment clause.

The Court held that the Timber icense Areement is an instrument by which the state reulates the utili;ation and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. 0t is

not a contract within the pur,iew of the due process clause thus$ the non7impairment clause cannot be in,o#ed. 0t can be ,alidly withdraw whene,er dictated by public interest or public welfare

as in this case. The rantin of license does not create irre,ocable rihts$ neither is it property or property rihts.

"oreo,er$ the constitutional uaranty of non7impairment of obliations of contract is limit by the exercise by the police power of the State$ in the interest of public health$ safety$ moral and

eneral welfare. 0n short$ the non7impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State.

The instant petition$ bein impressed with merit$ is hereby 6&A(T+* and the &TC decision is S+T AS0*+.

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform

175 SCRA 343 Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Equal Protection ali! Classification

E"inent #o"ain $ust Co"%ensation

These are four consolidated cases /uestionin the constitutionality of the Comprehensi,e Ararian &eform Act !&.A. (o. ? and related laws i.e.$ Ararian and

&eform Code or &.A. (o. 5>88%.

Brief &ac'groun!: Article 88 was enacted in 25. -.*. (o. 4? was

promulated in 2?4 to pro,ide for the compulsory ac/uisition of pri,ate lands for distribution amon tenant7farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for

landowners. 0n 2>?$ -resident Cora;on A/uino issued +.9. (o. 44>$ declarin full land ownership in fa,or of the beneficiaries of -* 4? and pro,idin for the


3/5

,aluation of still un,alued lands co,ered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. 0n 2>?$ -.-. (o. 252$ institutin a comprehensi,e ararian reform

proram !CA&-% was enacted later$ +.9. (o. 44$ pro,idin the mechanics for its !--252s% implementation$ was also enacted. Afterwhich is the enactment of

&.A. (o. ?$ Comprehensi,e Ararian &eform aw in 2>>. This law$ while considerably chanin the earlier mentioned enactments$ ne,ertheless i,es them

suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its pro,isions.

DTwo of the consolidated cases are discussed belowE

()R) *o) 7+74,- .Association of S"all Lan!owners /s Secretar0

The Association of Small andowners in the -hilippines$ 0nc. souht exception from the land distribution scheme pro,ided for in &.A. ?. The Association is

comprised of landowners of ricelands and cornlands whose landholdins do not exceed ? hectares. They in,o#e that since their landholdins are less than ?

hectares$ they should not be forced to distribute their land to their tenants under &.A. ? for they themsel,es ha,e shown willinness to till their own land. 0n

short$ they want to be exempted from ararian reform proram because they claim to belon to a different class.

()R) *o) 72777- .anaa0 /s $uico

(icolas "anaay /uestioned the ,alidity of the ararian reform laws !-* 4?$ +9 44>$ and 44% on the round that these laws already ,aluated their lands for the

ararian reform proram and that the specific amount must be determined by the *epartment of Ararian &eform !*A&%. "anaay a,erred that this ,iolated the

principle in eminent domain which pro,ides that only courts can determine just compensation. This$ for "anaay$ also ,iolated due process for under the

constitution$ no property shall be ta#en for public use without just compensation.

"anaay also /uestioned the pro,ision which states that landowners may be paid for their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash. "anaay a,erred that just

compensation has always been in the form of money and not in bonds.

ISSUE:

2. 3hether or not there was a ,iolation of the e/ual protection clause.

4. 3hether or not there is a ,iolation of due process.

5. 3hether or not just compensation$ under the ararian reform proram$ must be in terms of cash.

HELD:

2. (o. The Association had not shown any proof that they belon to a different class exempt from the ararian reform proram. 1nder the law$ classificationhas

been defined as the roupin of persons or thins similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. To be ,alid$ itmust conform to the followin re/uirements:

!2% it must be based on substantial distinctions

!4% it must be ermane to the purposes of the law

!5% it must not be limited to existin conditions only and

!8% it must apply e/ually to all the members of the class.

+/ual protection simply means that all persons or thins similarly situated must be treated ali#e both as to the rihts conferred and the liabilities imposed. The

Association ha,e not shown that they belon to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The arument that not only landowners but also owners of

other properties must be made to share the burden of implementin land reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of

owners that is clearly ,isible except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. 0n any e,ent$ the Conress is allowed a wide leeway inpro,idin for a ,alid classification. 0ts decision is accorded reconition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to the

detriment of the Bill of &ihts. 0n the contrary$ it appears that Conress is riht in classifyin small landowners as part of the ararian reform proram.

4. (o. 0t is true that the determination of just compensation is a power loded in the courts. @owe,er$ there is no law which prohibits administrati,e bodies li#e the

*A& from determinin just compensation. 0n fact$ just compensation can be that amount areed upon by the landowner and the o,ernment e,en without

judicial inter,ention so lon as both parties aree. The *A& can determine just compensation throuh appraisers and if the landowner arees$ then judicial

inter,ention is not needed. 3hat is contemplated by law howe,er is that$ the just compensation determined by an administrati,e body is merely preliminary. 0f the

landowner does not aree with the findin of just compensation by an administrati,e body$ then it can o to court and the determination of the latter shall be the

final determination. This is e,en so pro,ided by &A ?:


4/5

Section 1 .f- An0 %art0 who !isagrees with the !ecision "a0 &ring the "atter to the court of %ro%er uris!iction for final !eter"ination of ust co"%ensation)

5. (o. "oney as DsoleE payment for just compensation is merely a concept in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The ararian reform proram is a

re,olutionary exercise of eminent domain. The proram will re/uire billions of pesos in funds if all compensation ha,e to be made in cash if e,erythin is in cash$

then the o,ernment will not ha,e sufficient money hence$ bonds$ and other securities$ i.e.$ shares of stoc#s$ may be used for just compensation.

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian

Doctrine

GR. No. 133!" Dec. #" $%%%

&AC'()

Petitioners Isagani Cru* and Cesar Euro+a ,led a suit -or +roi/ition and mandamus

as citi*ens and ta0+aers" assailing te constitutionalit o- certain +rovisions o-

Re+u/lic Act No. !321" oterwise nown as te Indigenous Peo+le4s Rigts Act o-

1552 6IPRA7 and its im+lementing rules and regulations 6IRR7. 'e +etitioners assail

certain +rovisions o- te IPRA and its IRR on te ground tat tese amount to an

unlaw-ul de+rivation o- te (tate4s ownersi+ over lands o- te +u/lic domain as

well as minerals and oter natural resources terein" in violation o- te regalian

doctrine em/odied in section $" Article 8II o- te Constitution.

I((9E)

Do te +rovisions o- IPRA contravene te Constitution:

ELD)

No" te +rovisions o- IPRA do not contravene te Constitution. E0amining te IPRA"

tere is noting in te law tat grants to te ICCs


5/5

Additionall" ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not +art o- te lands o- te

+u/lic domain. 'e are +rivate lands and /elong to te ICCs?@ vs /?%, (G.R. No. 133"40, Nove*er 11, "003!

F%C$

)is petition asAe' t)e Court to legiti*i6e a govern*ent contract t)at conveye' to a private entity 14&.8# )ectares o reclai*e' pulic lan's along Ro-as Boulevar' in etro

anila at t)e negotiate' price o /1,"00 per s;uare *eter. =oever, pulis)e' reports place t)e *arAet price o lan' near t)at area at t)at ti*e at a )ig) o /0,000 per s;uare

*eter. )e 'ierence in price is a staggering /1#0.12 illion, e;uivalent to t)e u'get o t)e entire Ju'iciary or seventeen years an' *ore t)an t)ree ti*es t)e arcos iss

'eposits t)at t)is Court oreite' in avor o t)e govern*ent.

/ulic ?states %ut)ority (/?%!, un'er t)e J>%, oligate' itsel to convey title an' possession over t)e /roperty, consisting o appro-i*ately One illion Five =un're' eventy

?ig)t )ousan' Four =un're' Forty One (1,4&8,##1! ;uare eters or a total consi'eration o One Billion ?ig)t =un're' Ninety Four illion One =un're' enty Nine

)ousan' o =un're' (/1,8#,1","00.00! /esos, or a price o One )ousan' o =un're' (/1,"00.00! /esos per s;uare *eter.

5?$

E)et)er or not stipulations in t)e %*en'e' J>% or t)e transer to %%R5 o lan's, reclai*e' or to e reclai*e' on portions o anila Bay, violate t)e Constitution9

R% are still su*erge' lan's even to t)is very 'ay, an'

t)ereore inalienale an' outsi'e t)e co**erce o *an. O t)e &40 )ectares su:ect o t)e %*en'e' J>%, 4".14 )ectares or &8H o t)e total area are still su*erge',

per*anently un'er t)e aters o anila Bay. n'er t)e %*en'e' J>%, t)e /?% conveye' to %*ari t)e su*erge' lan's even eore t)eir actual recla*ation, alt)oug) t)e

'ocu*entation o t)e 'ee' o transer an' issuance o t)e certiicates o title oul' e *a'e only ater actual recla*ation. )is Resolution 'oes not pre:u'ice any innocent t)ir'

party purc)aser o t)e reclai*e' lan's covere' y t)e %*en'e' J>%. Neit)er t)e /?% nor %*ari )as sol' any portion o t)e reclai*e' lan's to t)ir' parties. itle to t)e

reclai*e' lan's re*ains it) t)e /?%. %s )el' in t)e July "00" Decision, t)e %*en'e' J>% Iviolates glaringly ections " an' 3, %rticle 55 o t)e 18& Constitution.I

Documents

Principle and State Policies