Sovereignty of the People and Republicanism PDF

**1. Sovereignty of the People and Republicanism** a\. National Territory -- Article I b\. Direct and Indirect Democracy c\. Representation and Republicanism d\. Accountability to the people e\. The Rule of Law - Article II, §1 (sovereignty resides in the people); Article V **PROVINCE OF NORTH...

**1. Sovereignty of the People and Republicanism** a\. National Territory -- Article I b\. Direct and Indirect Democracy c\. Representation and Republicanism d\. Accountability to the people e\. The Rule of Law - Article II, §1 (sovereignty resides in the people); Article V **PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GRP PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN** - petition for **mandamus and prohibition** - consolidated cases assailing the constitutionality of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF - MOA-AD as a "treaty" A. **PROCEDURAL CONCEPTS** Here we were first introduced to the idea of a **"justiciable controversy"** that is ripe for judicial review - in the present petition, there is no justiciable controversy - there is no legally demandable rights and obligations - the preliminary character of the MOA-AD has made it that there is no concrete basis for the Court to pass upon or that violate the petitioners' and intervenors' rights - but we also understand that concrete acts under MOA-AD is not necessary to render the controversy ripe - why? Because **violation of the Constitution is enough** to awaken judicial duty - When an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. - that the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness **locus standi**, or legal standing - When the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a **citizen** and has an interest in the execution of the laws. - In the case of **a legislator or member of Congress**, an act of the Executive that injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury that can be questioned by legislators. - A member of the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office. - As regards a **local government unit (LGU)**, it can seek relief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of its own, and of the other LGUs. - **Intervenors**, meanwhile, may be given legal standing upon showing of facts that satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention, such as - a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or - in the success of either of the parties. - In any case, the Court has discretion to relax the **procedural technicality on locus standi** when the constitutional issues raised are **of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance** deserving the attention of the Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. **mootness** - when a case is considered moot and academic, the Court can still take cognizance of the case if - \(a) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; - \(b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved; - \(c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and - \(d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review - once a suit is filed and the doer voluntarily ceases the challenged conduct, it does not automatically deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case and does not render the case moot especially when the plaintiff seeks damages or prays for injunctive relief against the **possible recurrence of the violation** - In this case, respondents insist that the present petitions have been rendered moot with the satisfaction of all the reliefs prayed for by petitioners and the subsequent pronouncement of the Executive Secretary that \"\[n\]o matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides\[,\] the government will not sign the MOA\". B. SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPTS Right to information on matters of public concern and right of access to public documents essential to an open democracy to **stimulate democratic participation from the people as the sovereign** - Section 7, Article III on the Bill of Rights: constitutional right to information on matters of public concern - The right of access to public documents, as enshrined in both the 1973 Constitution and the 1987 Constitution, has been recognized as a **self-executory constitutional right** - meaningful democratic decision-making and participation - an unfettered and uninhibited exchange of ideas among a well-informed public so a government remains responsive to the changes desired by the people - The policy of public disclosure establishes a concrete ethical principle for the conduct of public affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the people\'s right to know as the centerpiece - It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the people\'s will - also includes feedback mechanisms - The imperative of a public consultation, as a species of the right to information, is evident in the \"marching orders\" to respondents - The mechanics for the duty to disclose information and to conduct public consultation regarding the peace agenda and process is manifestly provided by E.O. No. 3 - Included as a component of the comprehensive peace process is consensus-building and empowerment for peace - **ours is an open society, with all the acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available always to public cognizance. This has to be so if the country is to remain democratic, with sovereignty residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them**. IPs' right to decision-making affecting their ancestral domains - In the present case, the indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs), whose interests are represented herein by petitioner Lopez and are adversely affected by the MOA-AD, the ICCs/IPs have, **under the IPRA, the right to participate fully at all levels of decision-making** in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies - The MOA-AD, an instrument recognizing ancestral domain, failed to justify its non-compliance with the clear-cut mechanisms ordained in said Act, which ordains the FPIC of the IPs - In proceeding to make a sweeping declaration on ancestral domain, without complying with the IPRA, which is cited as one of the TOR of the MOA-AD, respondents clearly transcended the boundaries of their authority Do the contents of the MOA-AD violate the Constitution and the laws? - **International law concept of association** - violates the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of the Philippines as outlined by the Constitution - in this associative relationship, the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is on its way to becoming a State with the all the elements of the State currently in possession: - people (or a defined population), government, territory, and sovereignty (or the ability to conduct relations with other states) - \[a\]n association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international status as a state. Free associations represent a middle ground between integration and independence - In international practice, the \"associated state\" arrangement has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence. - Back to the MOA-AD, it contains many provisions which are consistent with the international legal concept of association, specifically the following: the BJE\'s capacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign countries, the commitment of the Central Government to ensure the BJE\'s participation in meetings and events in the ASEAN and the specialized UN agencies, and the continuing responsibility of the Central Government over external defense. - The concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution - No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having an \"associative\" relationship with the national government - It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state. - The Constitution, however, does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence - Article X: "autonomous regions... within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines." - BJE far more powerful entity than the autonomous regions recognized in the Constitution - BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Convention, 154 namely - a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. - Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily sever any portion of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it --- which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association --- runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic. - Art. 10, S18 of the Constitution: "only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region" - Under paragraph 2 (c) on TERRITORY in relation to 2 (d) and 2 (e), the present geographic area of the ARMM and, in addition, the municipalities of Lanao del Norte which voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite --- Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal --- are automatically part of the BJE without need of another plebiscite - The MOA-AD, moreover, would not comply with Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution - 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....\" Under our constitutional system, it is only the President who has that power. - Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution must also be amended if the scheme envisioned in the MOA-AD is to be effected. That constitutional provision states: \"The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.\" (Underscoring supplied) An associative arrangement does not uphold national unity. While there may be a semblance of unity because of the associative ties between the BJE and the national government, the act of placing a portion of Philippine territory in a status which, in international practice, has generally been a preparation for independence, is certainly not conducive to national unity. - inconsistent with prevailing statutory law, among which are R.A. No. 9054 156 or the Organic Act of the ARMM, and the IPRA. - Article X, Section 3 of the Organic Act of the ARMM is a bar to the adoption of the definition of \"Bangsamoro people\" used in the MOA-AD - This use of the term Bangsamoro sharply contrasts with that found in the Article X, Section 3 of the Organic Act, which, rather than lumping together the identities of the Bangsamoro and other indigenous peoples living in Mindanao, clearly distinguishes between Bangsamoro people and Tribal peoples - Respecting the IPRA, it lays down the prevailing procedure for the delineation and recognition of ancestral domains. The MOA-AD\'s manner of delineating the ancestral domain of the Bangsamoro people is a clear departure from that procedure. By paragraph 1 of TERRITORY, the Parties simply agree that, subject to the delimitations in the agreed Schedules, \"\[t\]he Bangsamoro homeland and historic territory refer to the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, and the aerial domain, the atmospheric space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region\". Chapter VIII of the IPRA, on the other hand, lays down a detailed procedure - Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the Philippines \"adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land\". - International law has long recognized the right to self-determination of \"peoples\", understood not merely as the entire population of a State but also a portion thereof. In considering the question of whether the people of Quebec had a right to unilaterally secede from Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court in REFERENCE RE SECESSION OF QUEBEC 160 had occasion to acknowledge that \"the right of a people to self-determination is now so widely recognized in international conventions that the principle has acquired a status beyond \'convention\' and is considered a general principle of international law\" - The people\'s right to self-determination should not, however, be understood as extending to a unilateral right of secession. - Scope of the Right to Self-determination 126. The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to selfdetermination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination --- a people\'s pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. A right to external self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises in only the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances... - 127\. The international law principle of self-determination has evolved within a framework of respect for the territorial integrity of existing states - Even if the UN DRIP were considered as part of the law of the land pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it would not suffice to uphold the validity of the MOA-AD so as to render its compliance with other laws unnecessary. - It is, therefore, clear that the MOA-AD contains numerous provisions that cannot be reconciled with the Constitution and the laws as presently worded. - Respondents proffer, however, that the signing of the MOA-AD alone would not have entailed any violation of law or grave abuse of discretion on their part, precisely because it stipulates that the provisions thereof inconsistent with the laws shall not take effect until these laws are amended. - They cite paragraph 7 of the MOA-AD strand on GOVERNANCE quoted earlier (Comprehensive Compact) - Uses term legal framework that is broad enough to include the Constitution - Territorial integrity - their mere act of incorporating in the MOA-AD the provisions thereof regarding the associative relationship between the BJE and the Central Government, have already violated the Memorandum of Instructions From The President dated March 1, 2001, which states that the \"negotiations shall be conducted in accordance with... the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines\". (Emphasis supplied) Establishing an associative relationship between the BJE and the Central Government is, for the reasons already discussed, a preparation for independence, or worse, an implicit acknowledgment of an independent status already prevailing. - inconsistent with the limits of the President's authority to propose constitutional amendments - While it has been recognized that the President has the authority to conduct peace processes being the representative of the people in such negotiations, any change proposed by the President must go through the people and the Congress first - EO No. 3: - Sec 5(c): Government Peace Negotiating Panels to be appointed by the President to conduct peace negotiations with rebel groups and report to the President. - Paths to Peace: Includes social, economic, and political reforms, which may need administrative actions, new laws, or constitutional amendments (Sec. 4(a)). - Thus, the MOA-AD must have authorized them to "think outside the box" so to speak regarding what available accommodation they can think up - But the President cannot delegate a power she herself does not possess - Authority to Negotiate: The President's authority for peace negotiations is implicit in her roles as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. - As Chief Executive, the President has the general responsibility to promote public peace, and as Commander-in-Chief, she has the more specific duty to prevent and suppress rebellion and lawless violence. - But peace is rarely attained by just military solutions: Effective peace often requires constitutional restructuring. - Historical Basis: Autonomous region provisions in the Constitution were intended to fulfill the 1976 Tripoli Agreement with the MNLF. - Unique Position: The President can address grievances in peace talks to potentially end hostilities. BUT SUCH ACTIONS MUST BE IN THE AMBIT OF THE PRESIDENT'S POWERS. - While the President does not possess constituent powers --- as those powers may be exercised only by Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people through initiative and referendum --- she may submit proposals for constitutional change to Congress in a manner that does not involve the arrogation of constituent powers. - the President may also submit her recommendations to the people, not as a formal proposal to be voted on in a plebiscite - These recommendations, however, may amount to nothing more than the President\'s suggestions to the people, for any further involvement in the process of initiative by the Chief Executive may vitiate its character as a genuine \"people\'s initiative\". - Proposing Legislation and Amendments: - The President\'s authority to propose new laws is well-accepted. - Constitutional Amendments: The President can suggest amendments but cannot guarantee their enactment or plebiscite approval. - MOA-AD Governance and Constitutional Consistency: - Paragraph 7 stipulates that MOA-AD provisions needing legal changes would only take effect with a Comprehensive Compact and requisite legal framework adjustments. - Mandated Amendments: The GRP is required to make constitutional changes under MOA-AD, though this conflicts with the President's limited amendment proposal powers. - Unconstitutional Provision: The requirement to adjust the Constitution and laws to match MOA-AD's \"consensus points\" exceeds the President's authority and must be deemed unconstitutional. Comparison between the "suspensive clause" of the MOA-AD and the similar provision in the 1996 final peace agreement between the MNLF and the GRP: - **Administrative Structures and Legal Amendments**: - **1996 Final Peace Agreement**: Called for establishing new administrative structures via Executive Order and creating a new autonomous regional government by amending or repealing RA No. 6734. - **MOA-AD**: Essentially guarantees that \"necessary changes to the legal framework\" would be enacted to meet its terms, including constitutional amendments, which differs from the more advisory language in the 1996 agreement. - **Difference in Legislative Commitment**: - **1996 Agreement's Phase II**: The GRP promised to recommend legislative changes to Congress, leaving the ultimate decision up to Congress without guaranteeing specific amendments. - **MOA-AD**: Implies a stronger commitment, suggesting the Executive would ensure constitutional amendments as a matter of compliance, which raises concerns about overstepping Executive authority. - **International Legal Binding Concerns**: - **MOA-AD and Unilateral Declaration**: - A concern was raised that MOA-AD might function as a binding commitment under international law if it implied an obligation to amend the Constitution. This could imply unilateral intent to be bound, similar to instances like the **Lomé Accord of Sierra Leone**. - According to the **Nuclear Tests Case**, for a state declaration to be binding, it must be addressed clearly to the international community, with an intent to be bound, and any failure to uphold it would harm international trust. - **MOA-AD Context**: The commitments in MOA-AD were not directed at the international community but only at the MILF, indicating no intent to bind the Philippines under international law. - **Grave Abuse of Discretion**: - While MOA-AD is not a binding document under international law, respondents almost guaranteed constitutional amendments, which constitutes grave abuse of discretion. - **Reason for Grave Abuse**: The executive panel's implicit assurance of constitutional amendments overstepped authority, infringing upon the constituent powers of Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the Filipino people through initiative. - **Usurpation of Power**: Guaranteeing such amendments suggested an undue influence on the constitutional amendment process, undermining the democratic framework. - *"The MOA-AD not being a document that can bind the Philippines under international law notwithstanding, respondents\' almost consummated act of guaranteeing amendments to the legal framework is, by itself, sufficient to constitute grave abuse of discretion. The grave abuse lies not in the fact that they considered, as a solution to the Moro Problem, the creation of a state within a state, but in their brazen willingness to guarantee that Congress and the sovereign Filipino people would give their imprimatur to their solution. Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves through the process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference with that process."* Ruling - respondents\' **motion to dismiss is DENIED**. The main and intervening petitions are GIVEN DUE COURSE and hereby GRANTED. The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared **CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION**. **MAGALLONA VS. ERMITA** - writs of certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of RA No 9522 adjusting the country\'s archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories - RA 3046: Established the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic state, aligning with the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (UNCLOS I), which recognized states\' sovereign rights over their \"territorial sea\" but left its exact breadth unspecified. - Amendment by RA 5446: Corrected typographical errors in RA 3046 and reserved the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo. - **RA 9522: amended RA 3046 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)**, which the Philippines ratified in 1984. - Key Updates: Shortened one baseline, adjusted some basepoints, and classified the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as \"regimes of islands,\" allowing these territories to generate their own maritime zones. - Petitioners' arguments: - Reduction of Maritime Territory: - Petitioners argue that RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory and sovereign reach, contradicting Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which incorporates territorial boundaries from the Treaty of Paris and other historical treaties. They assert RA 9522 "dismembers" national territory by disregarding these treaties. - Supreme Court: UNCLOS III, which RA 9522 follows, doesn't affect territorial acquisition or loss. It only regulates sea-use rights, establishing maritime zones like territorial waters (12 nautical miles), the contiguous zone (24 nautical miles), and the exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles). - Impact on Sovereignty and Security: - Petitioners claim RA 9522 compromises national security by allowing foreign vessels and aircraft access to waters within the baselines, violating the Philippines\' nuclear-free policy and harming marine resources. - KIG and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands: - Petitioners argue that classifying the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as a \"regime of islands\" diminishes maritime territory and harms subsistence fishing, as RA 9522 does not enclose the KIG within Philippine baselines. - Supreme Court: RA 9522 retains the Philippines\' claim over KIG and Scarborough Shoal. Enclosing them within baselines would violate UNCLOS III provisions by departing from the archipelago's general configuration. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago noted that these are "contested islands," which the Philippines may claim without needing to enclose within baselines. - Respondents' counterclaims: - Case or Controversy: Respondents question if the petition meets the requirement for judicial review, challenging petitioners\' standing (locus standi). - Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition: Respondents also question the appropriateness of using these writs to challenge RA 9522\'s constitutionality. A. PROCEDURAL CONCEPTS - **citizenship standing** - owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing \"a more direct and specific interest\" to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing - **writs of certiorari and prohibition as remedies to test constitutionality** - When this Court exercises its constitutional power of judicial review, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes, and indeed, of acts of other branches of government. B. SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPTS - Philippine Sovereignty over Archipelagic Waters: Whether termed as \"internal waters\" in the Philippine Constitution or \"archipelagic waters\" under UNCLOS III, the Philippines holds sovereignty over waters landward of its baselines, including the airspace above and submarine areas below. - Limits on Sovereignty for Navigation: While the Philippines has sovereignty, international and municipal law impose necessary restrictions on this sovereignty to ensure free, unimpeded international navigation in line with the principle of freedom of navigation. - Right of Innocent Passage: - In the absence of local legislation, UNCLOS III grants rights of innocent passage through territorial or archipelagic waters. This right is part of customary international law and is automatically incorporated into Philippine law. - Sovereignty cannot be invoked to deny this right, as it is universally recognized; doing so could prompt retaliatory actions from other nations. - Concession by Archipelagic States: Archipelagic states, including the Philippines, agreed to grant passage rights through their waters under UNCLOS III in exchange for recognition of all waters within their baselines as subject to their sovereignty, irrespective of distance from the coast or water depth. - **Need for UNCLOS III Compliant Baselines**: Without a baselines law that aligns with UNCLOS III, the Philippines would lack internationally recognized baselines for measuring its maritime zones and continental shelf. This creates two major risks: - It invites foreign powers to enter and exploit resources in Philippine waters and submarine areas. - It weakens the Philippines\' position in international disputes over its maritime territories. - **Importance of RA 9522**: Enacting RA 9522 establishes UNCLOS III-compliant baselines, allowing the Philippines to have internationally accepted limits on its maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is thus essential for protecting the Philippines\' maritime zones, aligning with both the Constitution and national interests. Ruling - **PETITION DISMISSED**. **ARIGO VS. SWIFT** - petition for the issuance of a **writ of kalikasan** with prayer for issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order under Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases against US military ship USS Guardian - Object in contest? The Tubbataha Reefs - a National Marine Park by virtue of Proclamation No. 306 - heart of the Coral Triangle - inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site - one of the Philippines\' oldest ecosystems - Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067, otherwise known as the \"Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009\" - Under the \"no-take\" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many human activities are prohibited and penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP - US Embassy in the Philippines requested for diplomatic clearance for the US Navy vessel USS Guardian - In transit to Subic Bay, while passing through the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs - petitioners, on their behalf and in representation of their respective sectors/organizations and others, including minors and generations yet born, thus filed a petition against the US Respondents (mainly US Naval Officers) and Philippine Respondents (which included the President, Commander in Chief of the AFP, DFA Sec., DND, DENR, Philippine Navy, and the Philippine Coast Guards) - They also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding incident - Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional - Only the Philippine Respondents filed a comment - petitioners also filed a motion for early resolution and motion to proceed ex parte against the US respondents A. SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPTS - **state immunity from suit** - the Court possesses no territorial jurisdiction over the US Naval officials because of the state immunity from suit - In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. **All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.** A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, \"unduly vex the peace of nations.\" - it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties - Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself - the privilege being discussed doesn't exempt a person or entity from following the laws of the country in which they are located (the "territorial sovereign") or from being held legally responsible if those laws are broken. Instead, the privilege protects them from the country's legal system (territorial jurisdiction) enforcing those laws on them directly. - A foreign public official can only by sued in their individual capacity and beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction - non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear \"international responsibility\" - the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan - Court defers foreign relations to the Executive Branch - on the matter of compensation and rehabilitation: measures must be addressed by the President through diplomatic channels - Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the context of common security interests under the VFA. - It is settled that **\"\[t\]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative --- \"the political\" --- departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.\"** - Court cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition to order a review of the VFA and to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof because the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government. - The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions B. PROCEDURAL CONCEPTS - mootness - this petition has become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from this Court - But insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef structure and marine habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs - locus standi - In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the \"public right\" of citizens to \"a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.\" - **the right to a balanced and healthful ecology** need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. - not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, **they can do so in representation of their own and future generations** - The provision on citizen suits in the Rules \"collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.\" - Court cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition to order a review of the VFA and to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof because the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government. - The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions - The present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its provisions. Ruling - the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby DENIED. **SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES** - **Writ of Kalikasan** - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose **constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces**. - **Writ of Continuing Mandamus** - **When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right** and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. - The court shall grant the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus **requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied** and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. **The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution of the judgment**, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment.