Macasiano vs National Housing Authority Davide Jr.

July 1, 1993
Motion:
Original petition to declare Sec 28 (Eviction and Demolition) and 44 (Moratorium on
Eviction and Demolition) of RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992),
passed May 4.
Facts:
Petitioner, as consultant to DPWH. Said sections serve as drawback to his tasks and
dutieshe is unable to continue the demolition of illegal structures.
Issue:
WON Sec. 28 and 44 of RA 7279 unconstitutional
Ratio:
Requirements of judicial inquiry into the constitutionality of a law:
a) actual case or controversy
b) constitutional question to be raised by proper party
c) constitutional question to be raised as earliest opportunity
d) resolution of consti question must be necessary to decision of case
First two are absent. No controversy, and no one preventing him from performing his
duties.
Judicial power is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse
litigants.
Requirements for declaratory relief
a) actual case or controversy
b) between persons whose interest are adverse
c) party seeking relief has legal interest
Declaratory relief also not viable. Moreover, no original jurisdiction.
Petitioner not a proper party (only technical advice and operations/costs, not actual
demolishing)
Held:
Dismissed due to lack of merit

DECS vs. San Diego Cruz Dec 21, 1989
Motion:
Review RTC Valenzuela decision
Facts:
R is UE, BS Zoology graduate. Took NMAT three times and failed all three. Applied
again, rejected by P due to rule.
Invoking constitutional right to academic freedom and quality education in a
mandamus, both parties agreed to take next NMAT pending outcome.
Amended petition assailed constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12 Series of 1972, with
additional grounds of due process and equal protection. RTC granted petition: deprived
right to pursue medical education due to arbitrary exercise of police power.
Issue:
WON said order is unconstitutional
Held:
No. Order is not unconstitutional. Petition granted, judgment reversed.
Ratio:
NMAT is a measure intended to limit admission to med schools those who proved their
competence and preparation for medical education. Rationale: improvement of the
professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools, by upgrading
quality of those admitted. Need to maintain standards of medical schools.
On police power: sufficient exercise of police power if
a) interest of public in general require interference of the state
b) means employed are reasonable
AKA Lawful subject and lawful method
Subject: lives and health of patients
Method: insulates medical profession from those unqualified to be doctors
On equal protection: substantial distinction between passers and flunkers.
On right to education: one must not simply invoke right to quality education, must show
that he is entitled to it


Garcia vs. Faculty Admission Committee, LST Fernando Nov 28, 1975
Motion: Mandamus
Facts:
LST seminary
Epicharis T. Garcia, lay person MA Theology student. Took classes in LST summer 75
(for credit, no degree). Barred from re-admission for 75-76 1
st
semester
frequent questions and difficulties were not always pertinent and had the effect of
slowing down the progress of the class. . . faculty that is more compatible w/ your
orientation
Issue:
WON P has right to compel R to admit her to the said educational institution
Held:
No. Petition dismissed
Ratio:
Mandamus is not the proper remedy
-R has no clear duty to admit the P, LST being seminary for the priesthood (privilege
rather than a right)
Academic freedom of institutions of higher learning
-usually identified with right of faculty member to pursue studies without fear of
retribution to affected establishments, interpret and communicate without fear of
interference or penalization.
-also right of institutions of learning to decide its aims and objectives and how best to
attain them, free from outside coercion, save for overwhelming public interest
(1) admission of students, 2) curricula 3) appointment and tenure of staff 4)
expenditure allocation)

Non vs. Dames II Cortes May 20, 1990
Motion:
Certiorari to review RTC Daet
Facts:
Students of Mabini Colleges, Daet, Cam Norte. Not allowed to enroll 1988-89 after
participating in student mass actions against school. Petition a quo in RTC seeking
readmission to school, but dismissed petition, hence current petition.
Issue:
WON P has right to compel R to re-admit them to the said educational institution
Held:
Petition granted. RTC annulled. Re-admit P
Ratio:
RTC: Doctrine in Alcuaz v. PSBA: a student once admitted by school is considered
enrolled for one semester (students rights vis--vis school right to discipline)
This case focuses on right to speech and assembly vis--vis the right to school officials
to discipline them
a) Art III Sec 4 Consti: Freedom of speech, assembly. Malabanan case
Exercise of freedom to assembly cannot be bar to re-admission
b) limit: materially disrupting classwork, substantial invasion of rights of others
Guzman: disciplinary measures need observance of due process
c) Malabanan: suspension, this case: bar to re-enrollment
d) Alcuaz doctrine (from Manual of Regulations for Private Schools) should not be
construed to mean that after one semester, re-enrollment is dependent solely on
discretion of the school, but for entire period expected to complete.
e) Academic freedom not a ground to deny students rights

Oposa v. Factoran Davide Jr. July 30 1993
Motion:
Certiorari, dismiss order of Makati RTC
Facts:
RTC Petition ordering DENR to: 1) cancel existing timber license agreements 2) cease
and desist from receiving, accepting, renewing TLAs.
R filed motion to dismiss, granted 1) no cause of action 2) issue raised is a political
question
Issue:
WON R is to be compelled to 1) cancel existing TLAs and 2) cease receiving, granting,
renewing TLAs
Held:
Petition granted. RTC dismissal set aside.
Ratio:
a) LEGAL RIGHT
There exists a specific legal right: balanced and healthful ecology (Consti Art II, Sec 16)
-correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment
- Also PD 1151 (Phil Environmental Policy), PD 1152 (Phil Environment Code):
attainment of environmental quality that is conducive to life of dignity and well being,
goal
- responsibility of each generation as guardian of environment for succeeding
generations.
b) OBLIGATION
DENR powers and functions include such
EO 192: primary agency responsible for conservation, mgmt, development, and proper
use of countrys environment and natural resources.
Admin Code, Book XV. Sec 1: necessity of maintaining sound ecological balance
Ibid, Sec 2: carry out constitutional mandate
c) CAUSE OF ACTION
-act of omission of one party (obligation), affecting legal right of another
JUDICIAL POWER (Consti, Art VII, Sec 1)
-duty of courts to settle actual controversies involving rights. . . determine w/n there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
d) NOT A CONTRACT
License is a privilege to do what otherwise is unlawful, does not create irrevocable
rights. Also, consti mandates not law

MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay Velasco Jr. Dec. 18 2008

Motion:
Facts:
MMDA, DENR, MWSS, LWUA, DPWH, PPA, DILG, DOH, DepEd, DBM
Jan 29 99 R filed mandamus in Cavite RTC for cleanup, rehab and protection of
Manila Bay. RTC ordered P to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay. CA sustained RTC
Issues:
a) WON cleaning up and rehabilitation (C/R) of Manila Bay is a ministerial act of P that
can be considered mandamus.
b) WON PD 1152 Sec 17 and 20 refer to specific pollution incidents, not cleaning up in
general
Held:
P must discharge their duties, also continuing mandamus
Ratio:
a) C/R can be compelled by mandamus
Mandamus- requires execution of a ministerial duty (requires neither discretion or
judgment, proved to exist and imposed by law)
-enforcement of law, doing what law requires is a ministerial act.
Various laws/charters/enabling issuances categorically compel P agencies to C/R of
Manila Bay
b) Sec 17 and 20 include cleaning in general
Sec 17 when quality has deteriorated to a degree that adversely affects its usage,
govt agencies shall take measures to upgrade water quality to meet water standards
Sec 20 in case of failure of polluter to clean up, govt agencies shall undertake
containment, removal and clean-up ops and expenses incurred charged to those
responsible
Sec 62 (g) clean-up operations activities on polluted water to restore to pre-spill
condition
Ibid, (h) accidental spills spill of hazardous materials resulting from accidents
Continuing mandamus long-term solution