Arnault v Nazareno Petition for habeas corpus to relieve petitioner Jean Arnault from confinement in the New Bilibid
prison. Denied Facts: In the latter part of October, 1949, the Philippine Government, through the Rural Progress Administration, bought two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong for the sums of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively. P1,000,000 was paid for the first sum and P 500,000 to the second sum both to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American, thru his two attorneyin-fact in the Philippines, as represented by Jean L. Arnault, for both estates respectively. However, Ernest H. Burt was not the original owner of the estate. He bought the first from San Juan de Dios hospital and the second from the Philippine trust company. In both instances, Burt was not able to pay the necessary amount of money to complete his payments. As such, his contract with said owners were cancelled. On September 4, 1947, the Philippine Trust Company sold, conveyed, and delivered the Tambobong Estate to the Rural Progress Administration by an abolute deed of sale in consideration of the sum of P750,000. The Philippine Government then, through the Secretary of Justice as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Rural Progress Administration and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Bank, from which the money was borrowed, accomplished the purchase of the two estates in the latter part of October, 1949, as stated at the outset. On February 27, 1950, the Senate adopted its Resolution No. 8, which created a special committee to investigate the transactions surrounding the estates. The special committee created by the resolution called and examined various witnesses, among the most important of whom was Jean L. Arnault. An intriguing question which the committee sought to resolve was the apparent unnecessariness and irregularity of the Government's paying to Burt the total sum of P1,500,000 for his alleged interest of only P20,000 in the two estates, which he seemed to have forfeited anyway long before October, 1949. The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the Government. Arnault testified that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,000 were delivered to him on the afternoon of October 29, 1949; that on the same date he opened a new account in the name of Ernest H. Burt with the Philippine National Bank in which he deposited the two checks aggregating P1,500,000; and that on the same occasion he drew on said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with the Philippine National Bank, and another for P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed. It was the desire of the committee to determine the ultimate recipient of this sum of P440,000 that gave rise to the present case. As Arnault resisted to name the recipient of the money,
the senate then approved a resolution that cited him for contempt. It is this resolution which brought him to jail and is being contested in this petition. Issue: 1. WON the Senate has the power to punish Arnault for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000. 2. WON the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950. 3. WON the privilege against self incrimination protects the petitioner from being questioned. HELD: 1. YES. Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a Member; and every question which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. The materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. The reason is, that the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such information elicited from a single question. 2. NO Senate is a continuing body and which does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case. Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds, i.e. abuse their power and keep the witness in prison for life. If proper limitations are disregarded, Court isalways open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed. 3. NO Court is satisfied that those answers of the witness to the important question, which is the name of that person to whom witness gave the P440,000, were obviously false. His insistent claim before the bar of the Senate that if he should reveal the name he would incriminate himself, necessarily implied that
) the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt services. VETO VALID. It is not an inappropriate provision. The said provisions are germane to & have direct relation w/ debt service. Court found no basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal the name of that person might incriminate him. Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions ± allows Chief of Staff to augment pension funds through the use of savings. Issues of constitutionality were raised before the Supreme Court. Provision for Western Visayas State Univ. NO. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation.000 to a person to him unknown.R. 6758). the Sec of Dept of Budget and Management and the National Treasurer and questions: 1.000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter's verbal instruction.) veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the AFP and DPWH. Senators Tanada and Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents. ± AFP modernization. system of religion. 1994. and Nat¶l Highway Authority. of a separate law. Special Provision on Road Maintenance ± Congress specified 30% ratio fo works for maintenance of roads be contracted according to guidelines set forth by DPWH. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. prohibition and mandamus against the Exec. only the Pres.he knew the name. DPWH. Issue:
Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions is constitutional and valid? Held: Special Provision on Debt Ceiling ± Congress provided for a debt-ceiling. 1597 & RA No. the General Appropriations Bill of 1994) entitled ³An Act Appropriating Funds for the Operation of the Government of the Philippines from January 1 to December 1. and for other Purposes´ was approved by the President and vetoed some of the provisions. action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval must be subj. Any prov. Political Law Facts: Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGU¶s ± use of special fund for the compensation of the said CAFGU¶s. assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable. it is not alien to the subj. petitioner vs.) the conditions imposed by the President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGU¶s. Pres. 235 SCRA 506 Philippine Constitution Association. merely acted in pursuance to existing law. requires his prior approval. Other SCU¶s enjoying the privilege do so by existing law. Properly vetoed. etc. Vetoed.) Constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 and 2. respondent Facts: RA 7663 (former House bill No. may exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. 16 members of the Senate sought the issuance of writs of certiorari. Pres. "Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify and is punishable as contempt." Since according to the witness himself the transaction was legal. Petitioner contends that such act is a violation of the Constitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church. of road maintenance & cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip. 13 MAR 1937] Saturday. Enriquez.) Art 16 on the Countrywide Development Fund and b. Secretary. Art 7 of the Constitution. Special Provision on Revolving Funds for SCU¶s ± said provision allows for the use of income & creation of revolving fund for SCU¶s. prior approval of Congress required before release of modernization funds. Vetoed by the Pres. and that he gave the P440. VETO VALID. PhilConsA prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void a. G. and 2. They are appropriate provisions & cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the entire item/appropriation. VETO VOID. February 07. 45459. & Leyte State Colleges vetoed by Pres. A provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend existing laws. Vetoed by the Pres. blocking an admin. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation for debt service.) The veto of the President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994. This provision is a result of the
. 10900. VETO VOID. AGLIPAY VS. Moreover. RUIZ [64 PHIL 201. Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category claiming that it violates Sec. VETO VALID. 25. VETO VALID. Petitioners contest the constitutionality of: 1. It is also an amendment to existing law (PD No. According to the Consttution. it is unbelievable that he gave P440. It is the so-called legislative veto.
Pres. as amended. tonnage and wharfage dues. 137 on February 27.O. and ordered released from the National Treasury to the Ministry of Energy. Article VI of the Constitution.: (2) The Congress may. .' not as a 'trust account' or a 'trust fund. The OPSF was designed to reimburse oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustments and from increases in the world market prices of crude oil. and not channeled to another government objective. or vice versa. inasmuch as the delegation relates to the exercise of the power of taxation. No. designated as the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). instead of showing a Catholic chalice as originally planned. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. 1956. created pursuant to § 8. if any.´ the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance. as amended. 31 MAR 1993] Saturday.D. January 31. The phrase in Act No. 99886. Political Law Facts: On October 10. 4052 ³advantageous to the government´ does not authorize violation of the Constitution. being the seat of that congress. The postage stamps. Although such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman Catholic Church. as a weapon to further their ends and aims. the Office of Energy Affairs). 1984.D. 1987. 137 dated 27 February 1987.D. The petition avers that the creation of the trust fund violates 29(3).
being left for determination by the Ministry of Finance. Article VI of the Constitution. Pres. any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the Government. She promulgated Executive Order No." Issues: (1) Whether or Not the invalidity of the "TRUST ACCOUNT" in the books of account of the Ministry of Energy (now. the amount of the underrecovery
Held: The OPSF is a "Trust Account" which was established "for the purpose of minimizing the frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustment and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products. the law must not only specify how to tax. ORBOS [220 SCRA 703. Marcos issued P. this Trust Account
. No. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. although the use thereof is limited to the special purpose/objective for which it was created.principle of the separation of church and state. with the words ³Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress. such amounts belong to the State. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned. 1956.D. And in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality.D. must be treated as a 'SPECIAL FUND. the revenue generated therefrom shall 'be treated as a special fund' to be used only for the purpose indicated. limitations and restrictions must be quantitative. The petitioner argues that "the monies collected pursuant to . They were not sold for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. Held: What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration." Petitioner further points out that since "a 'special fund' consists of monies collected through the taxing power of a State. expanding the grounds for reimbursement to oil companies for possible cost underrecovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products." He also contends that the "delegation of legislative authority" to the ERB violates 28 (2). authorize the President to fix. the balance. reading as follows: (3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purposes only. "said creation of a trust fund being contrary to Section 29 (3). of P. its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. Subsequently.´ The focus of the stamps was not the Eucharistic Congress but the city of Manila. 137. the OPSF was reclassified into a "trust liability account. as amended by Executive Order No. The issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. P. It is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. Article VI of the Constitution. by law. (2) Whether or Not the unconstitutionality of 8. tariff rates. No.R. G. "the limits.
OSMEÑA VS. for "being an undue and invalid delegation of legislative power to the Energy Regulatory Board. providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government." in virtue of E. 1956. that is.' and that "if a special tax is collected for a specific purpose. amended P. import and export quotas. 1024. 1956." Under P. viz. Aquino. paragraph 1 (c) of P. Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to Act No. contains a map of the Philippines and the location of Manila. within specified limits. paragraph 1. as amended by Executive Order No. 1956 creating a Special Account in the General Fund. NO. who (shall) be taxed (and) what the tax is for. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is recognized.D. 4052. and. 1956. This was to ³to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists. but also impose a specific limit on how much to tax. for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church. Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation of the freedom to religion.
. 137. Hence. The interplay and constant fluctuation of the various factors involved in the determination of the price of oil and petroleum
products.O. but as already discussed. What petitioner would wish is the fixing of some definite. It is segregated from the general fund. With regard to the alleged undue delegation of legislative power. or "a specific limit on how much to tax. § 8(c) of P. and while it is placed in what the law refers to as a "trust liability account. quantitative restriction. the practice is not without precedent. this is not the case." Indeed. What is here involved is not so much the power of taxation as police power. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy. b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations. taking account of the circumstances under which it is to be exercised." The Court is cited to this requirement by the petitioner on the premise that what is involved here is the power of taxation. the standard as it is expressed suffices to guide the delegate in the exercise of the delegated power. it cannot be overlooked that the overriding consideration is to enable the delegate to act with expediency in carrying out the objectives of the law which are embraced by the police power of the State. they are exacted in the exercise of the police power of the State.may be funded from any of the following sources: a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree arising from exchange rate adjustment. Although the provision authorizing the ERB to impose additional amounts could be construed to refer to the power of taxation. it seems clear that while the funds collected may be referred to as taxes." the fund nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and review of the COA. d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference foreign exchange rate as fixed by the Board of Energy. the Court finds that the provision conferring the authority upon the ERB to impose additional amounts on petroleum products provides a sufficient standard by which the authority must be exercised. do not conveniently permit the setting of fixed or rigid parameters in the law as proposed by the petitioner. In addition to the general policy of the law to protect the local consumer by stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump rates. as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy. To do so would render the ERB unable to respond effectively so as to mitigate or avoid the undesirable consequences of such fluidity. c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the Fund through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment of persons or companies engaged in the business of importing. Moreover. that the OPSF is a special fund is plain from the special treatment given it by E. manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products. As such.D. The Court is satisfied that these measures comply with the constitutional description of a "special fund. and the frequently shifting need to either augment or exhaust the Fund. 1956 expressly authorizes the ERB to impose additional amounts to augment the resources of the Fund.