PAMIL V.

TELERON
G.R. No. L-34854 November 20, 1978
FACTS:

1. In 1971, Private respondent, Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was elected and duly proclaimed as mayor of
Alburquerque, Bohol. Petitioner filed a suit for quo warranto, to disqualify respondent based on Section 2175 of the
Administrative Code provision: "In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers
in active service, persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds, or contractors for public
works of the municipality."

2. The suit did not prosper, with the lower court held that the ineligibility was impliedly repealed by the Election Code of
1971. The matter was then elevated to this Tribunal by petitioner. It is his contention that there was no such implied
repeal, that it is still in full force and effect. Thus was the specific question raised.

ISSUE: Whether or not an ecclesiastic was eligible to an elective municipal position

HELD: NO. The attack on the continuing effectivity of Section 2175 having failed, it must be, as noted at the outset, given
full force and application. Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, as far as ecclesiastics are concerned, must
be accorded respect. The presumption of validity calls for its application. Under the circumstances, certiorari lies.

The challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar as it declares ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or
appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. To so exclude
them is to impose a religious test. Here being an ecclesiastic and therefore professing a religious faith suffices to
disqualify for a public office. There is thus an incompatibility between the Administrative Code provision relied upon by
petitioner and an express constitutional mandate.

RELI GERMAN VS SANTIAGO BARANGAN

135 SCRA 514 March 27, 1985
Political Law Religious Freedom vs Clear and Present Danger Doctrine

FACTS: One afternoon in October 1984, Reli German et al went to JP Laurel Sreet to pray and worship at the St. Luke
Chapel. But they were barred by General Santiago Barangan from entering the church because the same is within the
vicinity of the Malacaang. And considering that Germans group is expressively known as the August Twenty One
Movement who were wearing yellow shirts with clench fists, Barangan deemed that they were not really there to
worship but rather they are there to disrupt the ongoings within the Malacaang.

ISSUE: Whether or not the bar disallowing petitioners to worship and pray at St. Lukes is a violation of their freedom to
worship and locomotion.

HELD: No. In the case at bar, German et al were not denied or restrained of their freedom of belief or choice of their
religion, but only in the manner by which they had attempted to translate the same into action. There has been a clear
manifestation by Barangan et al that they allow German et al to practice their religious belief but not in the manner that
German et al impressed. Such manner impresses clear and present danger to the executive of the state hence the
need to curtail it even at the expense of curtailing ones freedom to worship.
 SAGUISAG V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA JR.
G.R. NO. 212444 JANUARY 12, 2016

FACTS: Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators, questioned before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA
(Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement), an agreement entered into by the executive department with the US and
ratified on June 6, 2014. Under the EDCA, the PH shall provide the US forces the access and use of portions of PH
territory, which are called Agreed Locations. Aside from the right to access and to use the Agreed Locations, the US may
undertake the following types of activities within the Agreed Locations: security cooperation exercises; joint and
combined training activities; humanitarian and disaster relief activities; and such other activities that as may be agreed
upon by the parties.

Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as medium of agreement with US violated the
constitutional requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves foreign military bases, troops and facilities whose
entry into the country should be covered by a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The Senate, through Senate Resolution
105, also expressed its position that EDCA needs congressional ratification.

Issue 1: W/N the petitions as citizens suit satisfy the requirements of legal standing in assailing the
constitutionality of EDCA
No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act, petitioners suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of
having to establish a direct and personal interest if they show that the act affects a public right. But here, aside from
general statements that the petitions involve the protection of a public right, and that their constitutional rights as
citizens would be violated, the petitioners failed to make any specific assertion of a particular public right that would be
violated by the enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to do so, the present petitions cannot be considered by the Court
as citizens suits that would justify a disregard of the aforementioned requirements.

Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers

No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is neither meant to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the
disbursement of public funds.
A taxpayers suit concerns a case in which the official act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of
public funds derived from taxation. Here, those challenging the act must specifically show that they have sufficient
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of public money, and that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of the
enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle to this case, they must establish that EDCA involves the exercise
by Congress of its taxing or spending powers. A reading of the EDCA, however, would show that there has been neither
an appropriation nor an authorization of disbursement.

Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as legislators suit

No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international agreement is an institutional prerogative granted by the
Constitution to the Senate. In a legislators suit, the injured party would be the Senate as an institution or any of its
incumbent members, as it is the Senates constitutional function that is allegedly being violated. Here, none of the
petitioners, who are former senators, have the legal standing to maintain the suit.

Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial Review over the case
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise matters of transcendental importance which justify setting aside
the rule on procedural technicalities. The challenge raised here is rooted in the very Constitution itself, particularly Art
XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which provides for a stricter mechanism required before any foreign military bases, troops or
facilities may be allowed in the country. Such is of paramount public interest that the Court is behooved to determine
whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department.