RENE A.V. SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, GR No.

212426,
2016-07-26

Ponente: C.J. Sereno

RULING:

1) The Supreme Court held that the case is a proper subject for judicial review.

Although the petitioners failed to comply with all the essential requisites for
exercising the power of judicial review, the Court exercised sound discretion and took
cognizance of the suit in consideration of the transcendental importance of the issues
presented.

2) The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is valid and constitutional.

EDCA is an executive agreement and does not need the Senate’s concurrence.
Further, it remains consistent existing laws and treaties it purports to implement.

ISSUE: 1) Whether or not the case is a proper subject of judicial review

2) Whether or not Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the

Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America (U.S.) is constitutional

FACTS:

Petitioners pray that the Honorable Court RECONSIDER, REVERSE, AND SET - ASIDE its
Decision dated January 12, 2016, and issue a new Decision GRANTING the instant
consolidated petitions by declaring the (EDCA) UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID and
to permanently enjoin its implementation.

Before the Court can analyze the constitutionality or validity of an official act of a coequal
branch of government, petitioners must first show that they have satisfied all the essential
requisites for judicial review. The petitioners failed to comply with the requirement of
legal standing but the issue’s transcendental significance to the people invoked the Court to
exercise its power of judicial review.

Upon the conduct of the certiorari, the petitioners stressed that the law is explicit in
prohibiting the presence of foreign military forces in the country, except under a treaty
concurred in by the Senate. However, the President may enter into an executive agreement
on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not the instrument that allows the
presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities ; or (b) it merely aims to implement
an existing law or treaty.

The EDCA did not go beyond this framework. The entry of US troops has long been
authorized under a valid and subsisting treaty, which is the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) and Mutual Defense Treaty. EDCA fully conforms to the obligations imposed by both
treaties and does not violate any existing laws.
THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 205728, 21 January
2015, EN BANC (Leonen, J.)

RULING:
1) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the present case.
The Supreme Court can only review final orders, decisions, rulings, or judgments of the
COMELEC En Banc issued in the exercise of its adjudicatory powers. The Court, however,
has ruled in the past that this procedural requirement may be glossed over to prevent
miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the principle of social justice or when the
need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy
available.
In the case at bar, there is a clear threat to the paramount right of freedom of speech and
freedom of expression. The repercussions of the assailed issuances on this basic right
constitute an exceptionally compelling reason to justify the direct resort to this court.
2) The Political Question Doctrine cannot be invoked at present case. The issues
presented are not purely political and are justiciable.
The concept of a political question never precludes judicial review when the act of a
constitutional organ infringes upon a fundamental individual or collective right. Even
assuming arguendo that the COMELEC did have the discretion to choose the manner of
regulation of the tarpaulin in question, it cannot do so by abridging the fundamental
right to expression. When the issue involved concerns the validity of discretionary powers
or whether said powers are within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, the court can
exercise the power of judicial review.
ISSUE:
1) WHETHER OR NOT THENOTICE/ORDER BY ELECTION OFFICER MAJARUCON AND THE
THE COMELEC LAW DEPARTMENT ORDER ARE CONSIDERED JUDGMENTS/FINAL
ORDERS/RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMELEC WHICH WOULD WARRANT A REVIEW OF
FROM THE SUPREME COURT

2) Whether or not the size limitation and its reasonableness of the tarpaulin is a political
question, hence not within the scope of the Supreme Court’s power of review.

FACTS
The diocese of Bacolod posted 2 tarpaulins within a private compound housing the San Sebastian
Cathedral of Bacolod. The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law” referring to
the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The second tarpaulin is the
subject of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” and lists
electoral candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a check mark, or “(Pro-RH) Team
Patay” with an “X” mark.
The Election Officer of Bacolod ordered the removal of the 2nd tarpaulin. Claiming it to be an
election propaganda, the COMELEC issued an order prompting for the removal of the tarpaulin
for being oversized. The Diocese assailed the said order of the COMELEC for being violative of
their constitutional right to freedom of expression and that it is a violation of the separation of the
state and the church. The Diocese likewise assails that the tarpaulins are beyond the regulatory
powers of the COMELEC regarding election materials since they are neither candidates nor
belonging to any political party.
Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise of free speech,
petitioners initiated this case through petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Respondents insist that petitioners
should have first brought the matter to the COMELEC En Banc or any of its divisions.