Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Bayan v. Executive Secretary Zamora (G.R. No 135870)

Bayan v. Executive Secretary Zamora  | G.R. No 135870 | October 10, 2000 | Buena | Topic: Article VII, Sec 21 |

Petitioners

  • BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan), 
  • a JUNK VFA MOVEMENT, 
  • BISHOP TOMAS MILLAMENA (Iglesia Filipina Independiente),
  • BISHOP ELMER BOLOCAN (United Church of Christ of the Phil.), 
  • DR. REYNALDO LEGASCA, MD, 
  • KILUSANG MAMBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, 
  • KILUSANG MAYO UNO, 
  • GABRIELA, 
  • PROLABOR, and the 
  • PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER

Respondents

  • EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, 
  • FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY DOMINGO SIAZON, 
  • DEFENSE SECRETARY ORLANDO MERCADO, 
  • BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, 
  • SENATE PRESIDENT MARCELO FERNAN, 
  • SENATOR FRANKLIN DRILON, 
  • SENATOR BLAS OPLE, 
  • SENATOR RODOLFO BIAZON, and 
  • SENATOR FRANCISCO TATAD

RECIT READY SUMMARY:

  • In line with the Mutual Defense Treaty, the Philippines and the US entered into the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a treaty by the Philippine government and was ratified by then-President Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 of the total membership of the Philippine Senate.
  • Among the issues that were raised was whether the VFA is governed by the provisions of Section 21, Article VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution, the SC said that distinguishing which section applies is immaterial since both need the concurrence of Senate. There was also no grave abuse of discretion because the President, as head of State, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country
FACTS:
  • October 1998, through Zamora, President Estrada ratified the VFA.  Zamora then transmitted to the Senate, the Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President, and the VFA, for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Art. VII. 
  • The Senate referred the VFA to its Committee on Foreign Relations and its Committee on National Defense and Security for joint public hearings to come up with their recommendation.
  •  In May 1999, by 2/3 vote of the Senate, the VFA was approved.
  •  Come June, the VFA officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes between respondent Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Hubbard.
  •  Given that the agreement deals with military troops, petitioners assert that Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable and not Section 21, Article VII.
  • Sec. 25 is a special provision that applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines. Under this provision, the concurrence of the Senate is one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines.
ISSUES:
1. Is the VFA governed by provisions of Article VII Sec. 21 (respondents) or Article XVIII Sec. 25 (petitioners)? Both.
2. W/N there was grave abuse of discretion when the President ratified the VFA? NO.

HELD:
  • The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Section 21, Article VII, and that majority of the Senate concurred is immaterial. Whether or not the VFA is under Section 21, Article VII or Section 25, Article XVIII, what is fundamental is that the concurrence of the Senate is mandatory to comply with the strict constitutional requirements.
  •  No grave abuse of discretion because the President is the sole organ and authority in the PH’s external affairs. 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. The negotiation of the VFA and the subsequent ratification of the agreement are exclusive acts which pertain solely to the President, in the lawful exercise of his vast executive and diplomatic powers granted him no less than by the fundamental law itself.
  • The acts or judgment calls of the President involving the VFA, specifically the acts of ratification and entering into a treaty and those necessary or incidental to the exercise of such principal acts - squarely fall within the sphere of his constitutional powers.
DISMISSED.





In

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more