USA v. Reyes

TOPIC: Doctrine of Immunity from Suit

FACTS:

Respondent Montoya is an American citizen working as the ID checker at the US Navy Exchange at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group (NEX JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. Petitioner Bradford, also an American citizen, was the activity exchange manager at the said JUSMAG Headquarters. 

The Respondent filed a complaint concerning the alleged discriminatory acts committed by the petitioner in excess of her authority as the store manager of the NEX JUSMAG. 

The Petitioner, together with the US Government, filed a Motion to Dismiss as the case was a suit against the USA, a foreign sovereign immune from suit without its consent. The respondent argued that the complained act was conducted at the parking lot, outside the JUSMAG Store and that Petitioner does not possess diplomatic immunity. 

ISSUE:

WON the Petitioner possesses diplomatic immunity.

RULING:

I.

No.   

Under the doctrine of immunity from suit, a state may not be sued without its consent. The immunity applies against officials of states for acts performed by them in the discharge of their duties. However, unauthorized acts of government officials or where public officials are being sued in their private and personal capacity are not suit against the state. 

In this case, Petitioner Bradford was sued in her private or personal capacity for acts allegedly done beyond the scope and even beyond her place of official functions. Petitioner’s illegal search on the Respondent’s person and belongings was conducted outside the JUSMAG premises. 

Therefore, Petitioner, who was sued for the unauthorized act outside of the scope of her authority and was sued in her personal capacity cannot enjoy of the immunity from suit. 

-------------------------------- 

DISCUSSION:

General Rule: A state may not be sued without its consent. It is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. 

Exception: [1] Unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State and [2] where public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. Thus, they are not a suit against the state. 

The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.

Basis: Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution and the generally accepted principles of international law. 

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from criminal, civil, and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

TOPICS:  legal standing, jusiticiable and political question, referendum and plebiscite

FACTS:

Petitioners Sanidad sought to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16, 1976 per PD 1031 and to declare without effect PD 991, PD 1033.

Presidential Decree No. 991 - calls for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies to resolve the issues of Martial law, the Interim Assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period for its existence, and the length of period for the exercise by the President.

Presidential Decree No. 1033 - it provides the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum plebiscite: 1) Do you want martial law to be continued? 2) WON you want ML to be continued, do you approve the ff. amendments of the Consti? a) in lieu of the interim National Assembly, there shall be an interim Batasang Pambasna composed of the President and representatives and those chosen members of the Cabinet. 

Moreover, petitioners contend that there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. 

ISSUE:

I) WON the petitioners have the legal standing to challenge the PDs

II) WON the issue involves a political question

RULING:

I.

Yes, the petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers. They have an interest over the lawful expenditure of the funds appropriated in the PDs. In this case, PD 1031 appropriates 8M, while PD 991 appropriates 5M.  

II.

No, the issue is a justiciable question. 

Under the 1973 Constitution, all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. 

In this case, the validity of PD 1031, 991, and 1033 are assailed as invalid. Thus, the issue of the validity of the decrees is plainly justiciable. More so that the judiciary is the interpreter of the Constitution whether the procedure is followed in amending the Constitution or the authority assumed by the President to propose amendments was valid or not. 

Therefore, the question was justiciable which can be passed upon the court.

--------------- 

DISCUSSION:

There are two periods in the constitutional life of the nation:

1) Period of Normalcy

2) Period of Transition

In the period of normalcy, the amending process may be initiated by the proposal of the (1) regular National Assembly upon a a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or (2) by a Constitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the National Assembly.

The calling of a Constitutional Convention may be submitted to the electorate in an election voted upon by a majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly. 

In the period of transition, amendments may be proposed by a majority vote of all the Members of the interim National Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime Minister.

The President's decision to defer the convening of the interim National Assembly soon found support from the people themselves. 

In the plebiscite of January 10-15, 1973, at which the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was submitted, the people voted against the convening of the interim National Assembly. In the referendum of July 24, 1973, the Citizens Assemblies ("bagangays") reiterated their sovereign will to withhold the convening of the interim National Assembly.

A "referendum" is merely consultative in character. It is simply a means of assessing public reaction to the given issues submitted to the people for their consideration, the calling of which is derived from or within the totality of the executive power of the President. It is participated in by all citizens from the age of fifteen, regardless of whether or not they are illiterates, feeble-minded, or ex-convicts. 

A "plebiscite," on the other hand, involves the constituent act of those "citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are eighteen years of age or over, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election."

Political questions are associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular fact. 

Occena v. COMELEC

TOPICS: 1973 Constitution is the Fundamental Law, The 1973 Constitution vested the Interim Batasang Pambansa with the power to propose amendments upon a special call by the PM by a vote of the majority of its members, Doctrine of Proper Submission, 

FACTS:

Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, as taxpayers, challenged the validity of the 3 Batasang Pambansa Resolutions as follows:

1) Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment allowing a natural-born citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a foreign country to own a limited area of land for residential purposes was approved by the vote of 122 to 5;

2) Resolution No. 2 dealing with the Presidency, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the National Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and

3) Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the Article on the Commission on Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1 abstention

The petitioners questioned the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose the amendments being so extensive in character that they go beyond the limits of the authority conferred on them. The petitioners also a question on whether the people were properly informed on the amendments. 

ISSUE:

I. WON the power of the Interim BP to propose amendment was constitutional.

II. WON the proposed amendments overhaul the Constitution that it tantamount to a revision.

III. WON the change in the Constitution followed the requisite standard for a proper submission.

RULING:

I.

Yes, the 1973 Constitution in its Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National Assembly with the power to propose amendments upon special call by the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its members to be ratified in accordance with the Article on Amendments. 

II.

No, the issue on whether the Constitutional Convention will only propose amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirely new Constitution is of no moment because the same will be submitted to the people for ratification. Moreover, amendment includes revision. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no debate about the validity of the new Constitution.

III.

Yes, any amendment to, or revision of, the Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision.

In this case, the three resolutions were approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as a constituent assembly on February 5 and 27, 1981. In the Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, the date of the plebiscite is set for April 7, 1981. It is thus within the 90-day period provided by the Constitution.

Moreover, the people were adequately informed and it cannot be denied that the proposed amendments have "been intensively and extensively discussed at the Interim Batasang Pambansa, as well as through the mass media”. Hence, it cannot, therefore, be said that the people are unaware of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments.

----------------- 

DISCUSSION:

MAJORITY VOTE NEEDED TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS: The Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can propose amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote is needed. It would be an indefensible proposition to assert that the three-fourth votes required when it sits as a legislative body applies as well when it has been convened as the agency through which amendments could be proposed. That is not a requirement as far as constitutional convention is concerned. It is not a requirement either when, as in this case, the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

Bayan v. Zamora

TOPICS: Power of the President to enter into a treaty/international agreement, Concurring power of the Senate, VFA, pacta sunt servanda,

FACTS: 

On October 5, 1998, President Estrada ratified the Visiting Forces Agreement. The following day, Pres. Estrada officially transmitted to the Senate the instrument of ratification, the letter of the Pres., and the VFA for their concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. 

On May 27, 1999, the Senate, by a vote of 2/3, concurred the ratification of the Pres. On June 1, 1999, the VFA was officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes between Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard. The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which the US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines. 

The petitioners assailed the Constitutionality of the VFA on the basis of transcendental importance, that Section 25 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is applicable and not Section 21 of Article of VII,  

ISSUE: 

I) WON the petitioner have legal standing as citizens, taxpayers, or legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA.

II) WON VFA is governed by the provisions of Section 21, Article VII or Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution

III) WON the conditions under Section 25 are complied 

RULING

I.

No, the petitioner have no legal standing as citizens, taxpayers, or legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA.

A party bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law has to show that he has sustained or is in immediate, or imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. In this case, the petitioner failed to substantiate that they have sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of the operation of the VFA. 

Moreover, a taxpayer’s suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. In this case,  the petitioners failed to allege that public funds are being misspent or illegally expended. 

As legislators, legal standing may be maintained if there is a clear showing of any direct injury to their person or to the institution to which they belong. In this case, the legislators failed to show direct injury. Moreover, the IBP lacks legal capacity in the absence of a board resolution from its Board of Governors authorizing the National President to commence the action.

II.

Both Section 21, Article VII and Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution are applicable and are not contradicting provisions.

Under the rules on statutory construction, where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which, in its most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language which are not within the provision of the particular enactment.

In this case, the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate which is provided under the general requirement of Article 21 is only one of the requisites under specific mandates in Section 25. Hence, Section 25 must be construed in related to the provisions of Section 21. 

III

Yes, the conditions under Section 25, Article XVIII are complied.

Section 25 of Article XVIII, disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

On the first condition: The Visiting Forces Agreement is the treaty. A treaty is an international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and whatever its particular designation. The other terms used for a treaty or international agreement are: act, protocol, agreement, compromis d' arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of notes, pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi.

On the second condition: The treaty was duly concurred in by the Senate. The fact that there were actually twenty-three (23) incumbent Senators at the time the voting was made, will not alter in any significant way the circumstance that more than two-thirds of the members of the Senate concurred with the proposed VFA, even if the two-thirds vote requirement is based on this figure of actual members (23). The provision in the latter article requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary since Congress has not required it.

On the third condition: The VFA was recognized as a treaty by the United States of America. Being recognized as a treaty means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. It inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement, without Senate approval, because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. 

------------ 

DISCUSSIONS:

The 1987 Constitution provides two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. 

Section 21, Article VII provides that, “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."

Section 25, Article XVIII provides that, "After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except [1] under a treaty duly [2] concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and [3] recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State."

Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government, as the case may be, through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed. A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty. The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when: (a) the treaty provides for such ratification, (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States agreed that ratification should be required, (c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification, or (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative, or was expressed during the negotiation.

Effect of Ratification: The treaty becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement. Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. 

Only the President has the Power to Enter into Treaties and International Agreements: As regards, the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the Constitution vests the same in the President, subject only to the concurrence of at least two-thirds vote of all the members of the Senate.

Treaty Concurring Power of the Senate: The role of the Senate in relation to treaties is essentially legislative in character; the Senate, as an independent body possessed of its own erudite mind, has the prerogative to either accept or reject the proposed agreement. Whatever action it takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act.

Laurel v. Misa

TOPICS: Permanent allegiance; Subsistence of sovereignty and not transferred to the occupant; Military Occupant cannot suspend treason; Rights of the Government to Prosecute Treason committed during the Japanese Occupation

FACTS: 

Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus based on his 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 for the reasons that:

1) the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens was suspended; 2) there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic. 

ISSUE: 

I) WON the crime on treason was suspended during the Japanese Occupation

II) WON the change in the sovereignty from the Commonwealth to Republic affects the prosecution of the crime of treason.

RULING

I.

No, inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort, because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their absolute allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation. 

The sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier. Hence, the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation. 

The preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but only passive attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort, the occupant has no power, to repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason.

Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus was denied. Treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people.

II.

No, the change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people.

Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that the government established by the Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine Independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines.

--------

DISCUSSIONS:

Nature of Allegiance: The citizen or subject owes absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign. 

Effect of Enemy Occupation: The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to 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.

Effect on Sovereignty of the Legitimate Government during Enemy Occupation: The sovereignty of the legitimate government subsists in a territory occupied by the military forces during a war, although the former is in fact prevented from exercising the supremacy.

Temporary Allegiance of the Inhabitants of the Territory Occupied to the Military Government: The relation of the inhabitants of the territory occupied toward the military government may be considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives and does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own government or sovereign.

Treason in a Territory under the Military Occupation: Citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country in the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort. The inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to the legitimate government during the enemy occupation.

Military Occupants has the Power to Change Laws or Make New Ones: Although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in force, unless absolutely prevented by the circumstances, those laws that enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life of the country, he has, nevertheless, all the powers of a de facto government and may, at his pleasure, either change the existing laws or make new ones when the exigencies of the military service demand such action, that is, when it is necessary for the occupier to do so for the control of the country and the protection of his army, subject to the restrictions or limitations imposed by the 1) Hague Regulations, 2) the usages established by civilized nations, 3) the laws of humanity and the 4) requirements of public conscience.

Military Occupant Cannot Repeal or Suspend the Operation of Law of Treason: Since the preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but only passive attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort, the occupant has no power, as a corollary of the preceding consideration, to repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason. The operation of treason is essential for the preservation of the allegiance owed by the inhabitants to their legitimate government.  

Effect of Suspended Allegiance: It would lead to disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or states, and would be repugnant to the laws of humanity and requirements of public conscience, for it would allow invaders to legally recruit or enlist the Quisling inhabitants of the occupied territory to fight against their own government without the latter incurring the risk of being prosecuted for treason, and even compel those who are not to aid them in their military operation against the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue and conquer the whole nation, and thus deprive them all of their own independence or sovereignty —such theory would sanction the action of invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign country to be a party in the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own freedom and independence and repressing the exercise by them of their own sovereignty; in other words, to commit a political suicide.

Sovereignty Resides in the People of the Philippines

The Question of Sovereignty is a Political Question: The question of sovereignty is "a purely political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officer, citizens and subjects of the country.”

Right of the Philippine Republic to Prosecute Treason committed during the Japanese Occupation: Just as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people, for Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that: "The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine Independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines."