For those who are going to take the Bar exams this coming November 7, 14, 21, and 28, and for all the Law students, as well as all Filipinos in general, it is important that awareness of and familiarity with the landmark Supreme Court decisions should always be top of mind. These decisions are jewels in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence and represent the legal paradigms of the highest court of the land, as well as the legal topography of Philippine legal and jurisprudential system.
First is the case of Falcis III versus Civil Registrar, GR 217910, promulgated by the Supreme Court on September 3, 2019. My former Law student in UST, Jesus Falcis III filed a case asking the Supreme Court to nullify the provisions of the Family Code that limits marriage only between man and woman. In other words, he wanted a judicial imprimatur on same-sex marriage. In a largely Catholic country, the biggest in Asia and the Pacific, such a transcendental issue is earth-shaking. It attacks the core of the Christian dogma that marriage is only between two opposite sexes. It is however unfortunate that the highest court of the land dismissed the petition based on technical issues. The court said that my student did not have legal standing because he is not directly affected and that there is no actual legal controversy, as there was no pending case involving a same-sex marriage. The court, however, told the petitioner that under the Philippine Constitution, there is no obstacle to adopt that. But it is up to Congress to enact the enabling law.
Next is Republic versus Sereno, GR 237428, promulgated on May 11, 2018, whereby the chief justice was removed not by impeachment as was done to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, but by a writ of quo warranto. This was unprecedented. The majority opinion was written by Justice Noel Tijam, a Duterte appointee, and was concurred by justices Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires, Reyes, and Gesmundo. The dissenters were justices Carpio, Bernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa. Justices Velasco Jr. and Del Castillo issued separate opinions both concurring and dissenting. The case of Lagman versus Senate President Pimentel et al (GR 235935), etc. promulgated on December 5, 2017, upholding the validity of the presidential proclamation extending martial law in Mindanao until December 31, 2018. Justices Tijam, Velasco, De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Bernabe, Martires, Reyes, and Gesmundo upheld its validity. The dissenters were Chief Justice Sereno, and justices Carpio, Jardeleza, Leonen, and Caguioa.
The case of Knights of Rizal versus DM Consunji involved the building that was considered by many as a “photo bomber”, destroying the ambiance behind the Rizal monument in Luneta Park was filed to stop the said construction. It was dismissed by the Supreme Court on April 25, 2017 by a vote of nine to six for lack of jurisdiction, lack of legal standing of the petitioners, and for lack of legal injury. Another case was the controversial issue of allowing the burial of Marcos’ remains in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. In GR 225973, etc., or Satur Ocampo versus Admiral Enriquez, et al, the majority of the Supreme Court, by a vote of eight to five allowed the burial. Justice Peralta, from Ilocos Norte, penned the decision concurred by justices Brion, Velasco, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, De Castro, Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe. Dissenters were Sereno, Carpio, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa.
For lack of space, we shall take up the other landmark cases in our next columns. These are political issues that became justiciable and must be mastered by those who want to be admitted to the Philippine Bar.