Lawyerly

GR No. 212426

2016-01-12

SERENO, C.J.

The legal standing of an institution of the Legislature or of any of its Members has already been recognized by this Court in a number of cases.[131] What is in question here is the alleged impairment of the constitutional duties and powers granted to, or the impermissible intrusion upon the domain of, the Legislature or an institution thereof.[132] In the case of suits initiated by the legislators themselves, this Court has recognized their standing to question the validity of any official action that they claim infringes the prerogatives, powers, and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office.[133] As aptly explained by Justice Perfecto in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito:[134]

GR No. 212426

2016-01-12

SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA

SERENO, C.J.

The role of the President in foreign affairs is qualified by the Constitution in that the Chief Executive must give paramount importance to the sovereignty of the nation, the integrity of its territory, its interest, and the right of the sovereign Filipino people to self-determination.[18] In specific provisions, the President's power is also limited, or at least shared, as in Section 2 of Article II on the conduct of war; Sections 20 and 21 of Article VII on foreign loans, treaties, and international agreements; Sections 4(2) and 5(2)(a) of Article VIII on the judicial review of executive acts; Sections 4 and 25 of Article XVIII on treaties and international agreements entered into prior to the Constitution and on the presence of foreign military troops, bases, or facilities.

GR No. 212426

2016-01-12

SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA

SERENO, C.J.

The OSG maintains[107] that there is no actual case or controversy that exists, since the Senators have not been deprived of the opportunity to invoke the privileges of the institution they are representing. It contends that the nonparticipation of the Senators in the present petitions only confirms that even they believe that EDCA is a binding executive agreement that does not require their concurrence.

GR No. 212686

2015-09-28

SERGIO R. OSMENA III v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We have held that legislators have the standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators.[25] In this case, there was no allegation of usurpation of legislative function as petitioner is suing in his capacity as Chairperson of the Committee created pursuant to Section 62 of R.A. No. 9136. Such position by itself is not sufficient to vest petitioner with standing to institute the present suit. Notably, the enumerated functions of the Committee under the aforesaid provision are basically "in aid of legislation."

GR No. 192088

2012-10-09

INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Transfer the Angat Facility, through whatever form, to another entity for the purpose of protecting the public interest.[40]

GR No. 159618

2011-02-01

BAYAN MUNA v. ALBERTO ROMULO

VELASCO JR., J.

While the issue of ratification of the Rome Statute is not determinative of the other issues raised herein, it may perhaps be pertinent to remind all and sundry that about the time this petition was interposed, such issue of ratification was laid to rest in Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary.[67] As the Court emphasized in said case, the power to ratify a treaty, the Statute in that instance, rests with the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate, whose role relative to the ratification of a treaty is limited merely to concurring in or withholding the ratification. And concomitant with this treaty-making power of the President is his or her prerogative to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate; or having secured the latter's consent to the ratification of the treaty, refuse to ratify it.[68] This prerogative, the Court hastened to add, is the President's alone and cannot be encroached upon via a writ of mandamus. Barring intervening events, then, the Philippines remains to be just a signatory to the Rome Statute. Under Art. 125[69] thereof, the final acts required to complete the treaty process and, thus, bring it into force, insofar as the Philippines is concerned, have yet to be done.

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

The PTC is a far cry from South Africa's model. The latter placed more emphasis on reconciliation than on judicial retribution, while the marching order of the PTC is the identification and punishment of perpetrators. As one writer[12] puts it: The order ruled out reconciliation. It translated the Draconian code spelled out by Aquino in his inaugural speech: "To those who talk about reconciliation, if they mean that they would like us to simply forget about the wrongs that they have committed in the past, we have this to say: There can be no reconciliation without justice. When we allow crimes to go unpunished, we give consent to their occurring over and over again."

GR No. 183871

2010-02-18

LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

VELASCO JR., J.

The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute[17] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification.[18]

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

(1) Administrative organization; (2) Creation of sources of revenues; (3) Ancestral domain and natural resources; (4) Personal, family, and property relations; (5) Regional urban and rural planning development; (6) Economic, social, and tourism development; (7) Educational policies; (8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and (9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region. (Underscoring supplied) Again on the premise that the BJE may be regarded as an autonomous region, the MOA-AD would require an amendment that would expand the above-quoted provision. The mere passage of new legislation pursuant to sub-paragraph No. 9 of said constitutional provision would not suffice, since any new law that might vest in the BJE the powers found in the MOA-AD must, itself, comply with other provisions of the Constitution. It would not do, for instance, to merely pass legislation vesting the BJE with treaty-making power in order to accommodate paragraph 4 of the strand on RESOURCES which states: "The BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries: provided, however, that such relationships and understandings do not include aggression against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines x x x." Under our constitutional system, it is only the President who has that power. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary[155] instructs:In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The territory of the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region.[38]

GR No. 170516

2008-07-16

AKBAYAN v. AQUINO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

For a petition for mandamus such as the one at bar to be given due course, it must be instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right.[7] Respondents deny that petitioners have such standing to sue. "[I]n the interest of a speedy and definitive resolution of the substantive issues raised," however, respondents consider it sufficient to cite a portion of the ruling in Pimentel v. Office of Executive Secretary[8] which emphasizes the need for a "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" on questions of standing.

GR No. 170516

2008-07-16

AKBAYAN v. AQUINO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The same doctrine was reiterated even more recently in Pimentel v. Executive Secretary[57] where the Court ruled:In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.

GR NO. 166052

2007-08-29

ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Petitioners find it impermissible for the Executive to intrude into the domain of the Legislature. They posit that an act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress.[7] They add that to the extent that the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.[8]

GR NO. 169213

2006-06-22

GANIE P. OLAMA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

To be given due course, a petition for mandamus must have been instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right. The petitioner in every case must therefore be an aggrieved party in the sense that he possesses a clear right to be enforced and a direct interest in the duty or act to be performed. The Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal question. "Legal standing" means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the government act that is being challenged.[25] Clearly, not only did the petitioners fail to establish a clear legal right to the relief they are seeking, they also failed to make a case of locus standi for themselves in this case. The principle echoed and reechoed is that legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well defined, clear and certain. Mandamus never issues in doubtful cases.[26]

	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
The legal standing of an institution of the Legislature or of any of its Members has already been recognized by this Court in a number of cases.[131] What is in question here is the alleged impairment of the constitutional duties and powers granted to, or the impermissible intrusion upon the domain of, the Legislature or an institution thereof.[132] In the case of suits initiated by the legislators themselves, this Court has recognized their standing to question the validity of any official action that they claim infringes the prerogatives, powers, and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office.[133] As aptly explained by Justice Perfecto in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito:[134]
	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
The role of the President in foreign affairs is qualified by the Constitution in that the Chief Executive must give paramount importance to the sovereignty of the nation, the integrity of its territory, its interest, and the right of the sovereign Filipino people to self-determination.[18] In specific provisions, the President's power is also limited, or at least shared, as in Section 2 of Article II on the conduct of war; Sections 20 and 21 of Article VII on foreign loans, treaties, and international agreements; Sections 4(2) and 5(2)(a) of Article VIII on the judicial review of executive acts; Sections 4 and 25 of Article XVIII on treaties and international agreements entered into prior to the Constitution and on the presence of foreign military troops, bases, or facilities.
	GR No. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
The OSG maintains[107] that there is no actual case or controversy that exists, since the Senators have not been deprived of the opportunity to invoke the privileges of the institution they are representing. It contends that the nonparticipation of the Senators in the present petitions only confirms that even they believe that EDCA is a binding executive agreement that does not require their concurrence.
	GR No. 212686 2015-09-28	SERGIO R. OSMENA III v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have held that legislators have the standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators.[25] In this case, there was no allegation of usurpation of legislative function as petitioner is suing in his capacity as Chairperson of the Committee created pursuant to Section 62 of R.A. No. 9136. Such position by itself is not sufficient to vest petitioner with standing to institute the present suit. Notably, the enumerated functions of the Committee under the aforesaid provision are basically "in aid of legislation."
	GR No. 192088 2012-10-09	INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Transfer the Angat Facility, through whatever form, to another entity for the purpose of protecting the public interest.[40]
	GR No. 159618 2011-02-01	BAYAN MUNA v. ALBERTO ROMULO VELASCO JR., J.
While the issue of ratification of the Rome Statute is not determinative of the other issues raised herein, it may perhaps be pertinent to remind all and sundry that about the time this petition was interposed, such issue of ratification was laid to rest in Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary.[67] As the Court emphasized in said case, the power to ratify a treaty, the Statute in that instance, rests with the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate, whose role relative to the ratification of a treaty is limited merely to concurring in or withholding the ratification. And concomitant with this treaty-making power of the President is his or her prerogative to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate; or having secured the latter's consent to the ratification of the treaty, refuse to ratify it.[68] This prerogative, the Court hastened to add, is the President's alone and cannot be encroached upon via a writ of mandamus. Barring intervening events, then, the Philippines remains to be just a signatory to the Rome Statute. Under Art. 125[69] thereof, the final acts required to complete the treaty process and, thus, bring it into force, insofar as the Philippines is concerned, have yet to be done.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The PTC is a far cry from South Africa's model. The latter placed more emphasis on reconciliation than on judicial retribution, while the marching order of the PTC is the identification and punishment of perpetrators. As one writer[12] puts it: The order ruled out reconciliation. It translated the Draconian code spelled out by Aquino in his inaugural speech: "To those who talk about reconciliation, if they mean that they would like us to simply forget about the wrongs that they have committed in the past, we have this to say: There can be no reconciliation without justice. When we allow crimes to go unpunished, we give consent to their occurring over and over again."
	GR No. 183871 2010-02-18	LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VELASCO JR., J.
The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute[17] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification.[18]
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
(1) Administrative organization; (2) Creation of sources of revenues; (3) Ancestral domain and natural resources; (4) Personal, family, and property relations; (5) Regional urban and rural planning development; (6) Economic, social, and tourism development; (7) Educational policies; (8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and (9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region. (Underscoring supplied) Again on the premise that the BJE may be regarded as an autonomous region, the MOA-AD would require an amendment that would expand the above-quoted provision. The mere passage of new legislation pursuant to sub-paragraph No. 9 of said constitutional provision would not suffice, since any new law that might vest in the BJE the powers found in the MOA-AD must, itself, comply with other provisions of the Constitution. It would not do, for instance, to merely pass legislation vesting the BJE with treaty-making power in order to accommodate paragraph 4 of the strand on RESOURCES which states: "The BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries: provided, however, that such relationships and understandings do not include aggression against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines x x x." Under our constitutional system, it is only the President who has that power. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary[155] instructs:In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
The territory of the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region.[38]
	GR No. 170516 2008-07-16	AKBAYAN v. AQUINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
For a petition for mandamus such as the one at bar to be given due course, it must be instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right.[7] Respondents deny that petitioners have such standing to sue. "[I]n the interest of a speedy and definitive resolution of the substantive issues raised," however, respondents consider it sufficient to cite a portion of the ruling in Pimentel v. Office of Executive Secretary[8] which emphasizes the need for a "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" on questions of standing.
	GR No. 170516 2008-07-16	AKBAYAN v. AQUINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The same doctrine was reiterated even more recently in Pimentel v. Executive Secretary[57] where the Court ruled:In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
	GR NO. 166052 2007-08-29	ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioners find it impermissible for the Executive to intrude into the domain of the Legislature. They posit that an act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress.[7] They add that to the extent that the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.[8]
	GR NO. 169213 2006-06-22	GANIE P. OLAMA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
To be given due course, a petition for mandamus must have been instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right. The petitioner in every case must therefore be an aggrieved party in the sense that he possesses a clear right to be enforced and a direct interest in the duty or act to be performed. The Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal question. "Legal standing" means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the government act that is being challenged.[25] Clearly, not only did the petitioners fail to establish a clear legal right to the relief they are seeking, they also failed to make a case of locus standi for themselves in this case. The principle echoed and reechoed is that legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well defined, clear and certain. Mandamus never issues in doubtful cases.[26]

SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL v. OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY