CASE KIG as “regime of islands” will result

CASE DIGEST

Article 1

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Article 3

Article 4

Election

Impeachment Cases of the President

Disciplanary Sanction on the members of Senate and House of Representatives

SUBMITTED BY:

Banie Pasayon

SUBMITTED TO :
Prof. Victoria Ligan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE 1
NATIONAL TERRITORY

MAGALONA v.  ERMITA

G.R. No. 187167,  August 16, 2011

CARRPIO,
J. :

FACTS

R.A 9522  Was an act established by the
Philippines on  27th of
February, 1984. The said act was executed by the congress on March 2009 for the
purpose of complying with the rules of UNCLOS III or United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea.

Professor Merlin Magallona, together with other petitioners questioned the
efficacy of the said act (RA 9522).  They
argue that  the  national territory of the country
(Philippines) Decreased because of this law. 
It further argues that :

1.  RA 9522 Violates the Article 1 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution as
As it reduces the territorial waters of the Philippines and also its
sovereign power.

2.  RA 9522 Injures the supreme authority
of the Philippines. Because the said law opens the country’s maritime waters to
all marine vessels and aircrafts. Such act might  affect the country’s  national security and maritime resources.  It also contravenes the nuclear-free policy of
the Philippines.

3. RA 9522′ Treatment of KIG as “regime of islands” will result to the loss of
large portion of our marine territory and will affect the livelihood of our
fishermen.

Because of this, the petitioners files for the writs of certiorari. It aims to
criticize whether the RA 9522 Is constitutional or not.

ISSUE

Whether  the RA 9522 or also known as
the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law 
is Unconstitutional or  not.

RULING  

NO.  The Decision of the court is
that the said law (RA 9522) is constitutional. The court stated that UNDER The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea or UNCLOS III, RA 9522 is a
required tool to Demarcate the Maritime zones and continental Shelf of the
Philippines.  It is also an important
step in protecting the territorial waters of the Philippines.

The court also added that the conversion of our maritime zones will not risk
the Philippines as affirmed in the  UNCLOS
III (Article 49), and archipelagic country has supreme authority  that extends to the waters enclosed  by the archipelagic baselines. It is further
stated that regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the
exercise of authority of the state, both its territorial waters and airpace.

The further explained that  RA 9522 are
just an instrument so that the UNCLOS III can explain the delimitations in an
accurate manner and it only serves as a notice to the others states. The court
also explained that baseline laws will not produce any effect like increasing
or decreasing of territories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOVERNMENT  v. MONTE DE PIEDAD

G.R. No.  L-9959, December  13, 1916

TRENT, 
J.:

FACTS

1. On 3rd of June, 1865, an earthquake struck the Philippines.  Because of this, spain paid around $ 400,000
to the treasury of the Philippines. The said money will be going to use as a
relief fund for those who became victim of the said earthquake.

2. Because of the petition of the Monte
de Piedad, a non-for-profit institution,  the government of the Philippines ordered its
treasury to give $80,000 of the relief fund given by the spain to the Monte de
Piedad. But the said money will given through installment.  $20,000 will be given each installment.
Because of this petition,  many petitions
were filed including the heirs of those entitled on the said money. They also
want the Philippine government to file a suit against Monte de piedad and that
the said company should for the money they took with interest.

3.  The Monte de Piedad  appealed  since all the money that they get from the
relief fund have been spent already. Specifically on jewelry loans.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Philippine government is the right authority to take
action.

RULING

YES.  The Philippine government can take
action  on the said issue since there has
been no change in authority. Another reason is that the Philippine government
has the supreme authority over the state and considered as the legal protector
of inhabitants of the Philippines. They can take action also since they are the
ones who has the authority on the relief fund  in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE 3

Bill of Rights

ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION INC.  v. MAYOR OF MANILA

G.R. No.  L-24693,  October 20, 1967

FERNANDO, J. :

FACTS :

 City ordinance no 4760 was implemented
by the Municipal Board of Manila and was approved by then Mayor astorga on 13th
of June, 1963. The ordinance aims to regulate hotels and Motels. Those who were
classified as “1st class” were obliged to pay  6000 pesos a year for tax while those who
were classified as  “2nd class”
must pay  4500 a year. The said ordinance
also urged the managements of Hotels and Motels to get the information of the
persons who checks in to their buildings. They also urge the managements to
have wide open spaces so that the identity of their customers will not be
hidden. Because of this, Ermita-Malate questioned the effictiveness of the said
ordinance. They also argue that such ordinance is against  the due process clause.

ISSUE

The issue is that whether the city ordinance 4760 is against the due process or
not.

RULING

NO. The city ordinance no. 4760 is not against the due process clause. The  Supreme Court favors Astorga because the
ordinance they enacted is considered as valid. The ordinance is a valid
exercise of authority of Law Enforcing officials. One of the aims of the
ordinance is to decrease the rate of prostitution in manila. With regards to
the increase in tax on Hotels and Motels, the goal of the ordinance is not just
to discourage the managements of  these
establishments from doing illegal things, but also to increase the revenue of
the lgu concerned.

 

 

 

MMDA v. BEL – AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION , INC.

G.R. No. 135962,  March 27, 2000

PUNO, J. :

FACTS

1. MMDA is a government agency  that
was tasked with supervitory authority within Metro manila. On the other hand,
Bel – Air Village Association, INC. also known sa BAVA  is a non-profit
corporation in Makati , manila. The members of the said corporation are
homeowners  of a private residence in the
same city known as Bel – Air Village. The On the day of 22nd of
December 1995, the MMDA sent a Notice to Bel – Air through its chairman. The
MMDA requests for opening of the Neptune street, a street owned by the BAVA
inside the Bel – Air Village for public use starting on 2nd of
January, 1996.  BAVA estimated that in
order for the Neptune street to be used as a public road, The perimeter wall
that is separating the subdivision and the kalayaan Avenue would be demolish.

2. Because of this, BAVA issued a civil case against MMDA for injunction . The said
corporation hopes for the Issuance of 
Temporary Restraining Order (Which was allowed by the RTC) and
Prohibiting  the said demolition of the perimeter
wall that divides neptune street and kalayaan road.

3. After due hearing , the RTC denied the issuance of preliminary injunction
that was requested by  BAVA.

ISSUE

Whether  the MMDA has the
authority to open the said Private road to the public or not .

RULING

NO.  Even though the MMDA claims that
they have the authority to open the Neptune street for public use since MMDA is
an agent of the state that  given the  authority of police power, and even  though the purpose of their act to demolish
the perimeter wall of the Bel – Air village is for the benefit of the general
welfare  of metro manila, they still do
not have the authority to issue an order like this. Because according to CA,
the City council of Makati has the right to do such thing of giving a notice to
demolish the perimeter wall of the said subdivision for public use and it must
be done through ordinance.

 

 

ARTICLE 4

CITIZENSHIP

ANGAT  v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 132244,  September  14, 
1999

VITUG, J. :

FACTS :

1.  Gerardo Angat, a natural born
citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, make a request  to reclaim his Filipino citizenship in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Marikina.

2.  Marikina RTC approved his request and
angat was allowed by the said court to take his Oath of Allegiance  in
Marikina  on the 3rd of
October, 1996 and then declared as a Filipino Citizen the next day.

3. The Office of Solicitor General file both manifestation and motion in March
1997, the OSG asserts that  because of
lack of jurisdiction, the RTC should have dismissed the said petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction in deciding over
repatriation case or not.

HELD

   NO.  Because the Regional Trial Court has no
official power to make judgements when it comes to repatriation.  SC stated that instead of Regional Trial
Court, such request of regaining citizenship must be filed with the Special
Committee on Naturalization.
  There is also a mistake to the
petitioner as well.  When Angat took is
oat of allegiance, he invoked RA 965 and RA 2630. These acts only applied to
those Filipinos who lost their citizenship because they’ve become part of the
armed forces of an allied country. The court further stated that in the case of
Angat who just wants to reacquire his citizenship as a Filipino, he doesn’t need
to file a petition. He just needs to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines and register the said oath to civil registry.

 

 

 

MERCADO v. MANZANO

G.R. No. 135083,  May 26, 1999

VITUG, J. :

FACTS :

1.  A petition to disqualify the actor
Edu Manzano has been filed for the reason that he holds 2 citizenships
(Filipino and American Citizenship ; The reason he got American citizenship is
that he was born in the United States, on Flipino mother and Filipino Father).

2. The COMELEC approved this petition and Edu Manzano was disqualified from
holding any public position for the reason of manzano having  2 citizenships

ISSUE

Whether  having a 2
citizenship is a reason for disqualification from running in election and
holding a public position in the government or not.

 

HELD

NO.  Dual Citizenship is not a ground
for termination in running for a public position in the government. Because, It
is different from Dual Allegiance.  Persons who  has a mere dual citizenship and not dual allegiance
must not be disqualified from running in elections.

 

ELECTION

SOLLER  v. 
COMELEC

G.R. No. 139853,  September 
5,  2000

QUISUMBING, J. :

FACTS:

1.  Soller, and Saulong were both
candidates for the position of mayor in the City of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in
the 11th of May, 1998 elections.

2. After the election. Soller was proclaimed the winner and elected as the
mayor of municipality of bansud. Saulong on the other hand files a petition in
the COMELEC to invalidate the proclamation of soller as the mayor of the said
municipality.

3.  The COMELEC denied
the petition filed by saulong  while
soller’s motion to dismiss that was filed in the Regional Trial Court was
denied as well. A motion for reconsideration has been filed by soller but it
was denie by the RTC also.

4. Soller then filed a petition for certiorari to the comelec for the reason of
RTC’s grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing Saulong’s  protest. But the COMELEC en banc dismissed
Soller’s case.

5. Soller questions the decision that the COMELEC en banc made.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC has the power to make a decision regarding on the case.

RULING

NO. The COMELEC has no authority to listen and give decisions on election
cases such as the proclamation issue between Soller and Saulong. Any decision
that was made by the commission en banc with regards to election cases is
considered as invalid. The Supreme Court stated that resolving  issues like election protest, or even the
petition for certiorari that soller has filed must be done by the COMELEC and
not the COMELEC en banc