You are on page 1of 37

G.R. No.

L-5279 October 31, 1955


PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC., petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION an !"# $OARD OF TE%T$OO&S, respondents.
The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU assailed the constit!tionalit" of Act #o.
$%&' as a(ended b" Act #o. 3&%5 and Co((on)ealth Act #o. 1*&. These la)s so!ght to reg!late the
o)nership of private schools in the co!ntr". +t is provided b" these la)s that a per(it sho!ld first be
sec!red fro( the ,ecretar" of -d!cation before a person (a" be granted the right to o)n and operate a
private school. This also gives the ,ecretar" of -d!cation the discretion to ascertain standards that (!st be
follo)ed b" private schools. +t also provides that the ,ecretar" of -d!cation can and (a" ban certain
te.tboo/s fro( being !sed in schools.
PACU contends that the right of a citi0en to o)n and operate a school is g!aranteed b" the Constit!tion,
and an" la) re1!iring previo!s govern(ental approval or per(it before s!ch person co!ld e.ercise said
right, a(o!nts to censorship of previo!s restraint, a practice abhorrent to o!r s"ste( of la) and
govern(ent. PACU also avers that s!ch po)er granted to the ,ecretar" of -d!cation is an !nd!e
delegation of legislative po)er2 that there is !nd!e delegation beca!se the la) did not specif" the basis or
the standard !pon )hich the ,ecretar" (!st e.ercise said discretion2 that the po)er to ban boo/s granted
to the ,ecretar" a(o!nts to censorship.
ISSUE' 3hether or not Act #o, $%&' as a(ended is !nconstit!tional.
HELD' #o. +n the first place, there is no 4!sticiable controvers" presented. PACU did not sho) that it
s!ffered an" in4!r" fro( the e.ercise of the ,ecretar" of -d!cation of s!ch po)ers granted to hi( b" the
said la).
,econd, the ,tate has the po)er to reg!late, in fact control, the o)nership of schools. The Constit!tion
provides for state control of all ed!cational instit!tions even as it en!(erates certain f!nda(ental
ob4ectives of all ed!cation to )it, the develop(ent of (oral character, personal discipline, civic conscience
and vocational efficienc", and instr!ction in the d!ties of citi0enship. The ,tate control of private ed!cation
)as intended b" the organic la).
Third, the ,tate has the po)er to ban illegal te.tboo/s or those that are offensive to 5ilipino (orals. This is
still part of the po)er of control and reg!lation b" the ,tate over all schools.
(ARIANO, )R. VS. CO(ELEC, *+#s!#
Posted b" Pi!s 6orados on #ove(ber 1&, $&11
7.8. #o. 11*'$%2 $9$ ,C8A $13, 6arch %, 1995 (Constitutional Law Requirements in challenging the
constitutionality of the law)
5ACT,: Petitioners s!ing as ta. pa"ers, assail a provision (,ec 51 of 8A #o. %*59 (An Act Converting the
6!nicipalit" of 6a/ati +nto a ;ighl" Urbani0ed Cit" to be /no)n as the Cit" of 6a/ati on the gro!nd that
the sa(e atte(pts to alter or restart the <3=consec!tive ter(> li(it for local elective officials disregarding the
ter(s previo!sl" served b" the(, )hich collides )ith the Constit!tion (,ec *, Art ? @ ,ec %, Art A+.
+,,U-: 3hether or not challenge to the constit!tionalit" of 1!estioned la) is )ith (erit.
;-BC: #o. The re1!ire(ents before a litigant can challenge the constit!tionalit" of a la) are )ell=
delineated. The" are: (1 there (!st be an act!al case or controvers"2 ($ the 1!estion of constit!tionalit"
(!st be raised b" the proper part"2 (3 the constit!tional 1!estion (!st be raised at the earliest possible
opport!nit"2 and (9 the decision on the constit!tional 1!estion (!st be necessar" to the deter(ination of
the case itself.
FACTS'
D!anito 6ariano, a resident of 6a/ati, along )ith residents of Tag!ig s!ing as ta.pa"ers, assail ,ections $,
51 and 5$ of 8.A. #o. %*59 (<An Act Converting the 6!nicipalit" of 6a/ati into a ;ighl" Urbani0ed Cit" to
be /no)n as the Cit" of 6a/ati>. Another petition )hich contends the !nconstit!tionalit" of 8.A. #o. %*59
)as also filed b" Dohn ;. Os(ena as a senator, ta.pa"er and concerned citi0en.
ISSUES'
1. 3hether ,ection $ of 8.A. #o. %*59 delineated the land areas of the proposed cit" of 6a/ati
violating sections % and 95& of the Bocal 7overn(ent Code on specif"ing (etes and bo!nds )ith
technical descriptions
$. 3hether ,ection 51, Article ? of 8.A. #o. %*59 collides )ith ,ection *, Article ? and ,ection %,
Article A+ of the Constit!tion stressing that the" ne) cit"Es ac1!isition of a ne) corporate e.istence )ill
allo) the inc!(bent (a"or to e.tend his ter( to (ore than t)o e.ec!tive ter(s as allo)ed b" the
Constit!tion
3. 3hether the addition of another legislative district in 6a/ati is !nconstit!tional as the
reapportion(ent cannot be (ade b" a special la)
HELD,RULING'
1. ,ection $ of 8.A. #o. %*59 states that:
,ec. $. The City of Makati. F The 6!nicipalit" of 6a/ati shall be converted into a highl" !rbani0ed cit" to
be /no)n as the Cit" of 6a/ati, hereinafter referred to as the Cit", which shall comprise the present
territory of the Municipality of Makati in Metropolitan Manila Area over )hich it has 4!risdiction
bo!nded on the northeast b" Pasig 8iver and be"ond b" the Cit" of 6andal!"ong and the 6!nicipalit" of
Pasig2 on the so!theast b" the (!nicipalities of Pateros and Tag!ig2 on the so!th)est b" the Cit" of Pasa"
and the 6!nicipalit" of Tag!ig2 and, on the north)est, b" the Cit" of 6anila.
-(phasis has been provided in the provision !nder disp!te. ,aid delineation did not change even b" an
inch the land area previo!sl" covered b" 6a/ati as a (!nicipalit". +t (!st be noted that the re1!ire(ent of
(etes and bo!nds )as (eant (erel" as a tool in the establish(ent of B7Us. +t is not an end in itself.
5!rther(ore, at the ti(e of consideration or 8.A. #o. %*59, the territorial disp!te bet)een the (!nicipalities
of 6a/ati and Tag!ig over 5ort Gonifacio )as !nder co!rt litigation. O!t of beco(ing a sense of respect to
co=e1!al depart(ent of govern(ent, legislators felt that the disp!te sho!ld be left to the co!rts to decide.
1. ,ection 51 of 8.A. #o. %*59 provides that:
,ec. 51. Officials of the City of Makati. F The represent elective officials of the 6!nicipalit" of 6a/ati shall
contin!e as the officials of the Cit" of 6a/ati and shall e.ercise their po)ers and f!nctions !ntil s!ch ti(e
that a ne) election is held and the d!l" elected officials shall have alread" 1!alified and ass!(e their
offices: ro!ided, The new city will acquire a new corporate e"istence. The appointive officials and
e(plo"ees of the Cit" shall li/e)ise contin!es e.ercising their f!nctions and d!ties and the" shall be
a!to(aticall" absorbed b" the cit" govern(ent of the Cit" of 6a/ati.
,ection *, Article ? and section %, Article A+ of the Constit!tion provide the follo)ing:
,ec. *. The ter( of office of elective local officials, e.cept baranga" officials, )hich shall be deter(ined b"
la), shall be three "ears and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
Aol!ntar" ren!nciation of the office for an" length of ti(e shall not be considered as an interr!ption in the
contin!it" of his service for the f!ll ter( for )hich he )as elected.
... ... ...
,ec. %. The 6e(bers of the ;o!se of 8epresentatives shall be elected for a ter( of three "ears )hich shall
begin, !nless other)ise provided b" la), at noon on the thirtieth da" of D!ne ne.t follo)ing their election.
#o 6e(ber of the ;o!se of 8epresentatives shall serve for (ore than three consec!tive ter(s. Aol!ntar"
ren!nciation of the office for an" length of ti(e shall not be considered as an interr!ption in the contin!it" of
his service for the f!ll ter( for )hich he )as elected.
This challenge on the controvers" cannot be entertained as the pre(ise on the iss!e is on the occ!rrence
of (an" contingent events. Considering that these events (a" or (a" not happen, petitioners (erel" pose
a h"pothetical iss!e )hich has "et to ripen to an act!al case or controvers". 6oreover, onl" 6ariano
a(ong the petitioners is a resident of Tag!ig and are not the proper parties to raise this abstract iss!e.
1. ,ection 5(1, Article A+ of the Constit!tion clearl" provides that the Congress (a" be co(prised of
not (ore than t)o h!ndred fift" (e(bers, unless otherwise provided by law. As th!s )orded, the
Constit!tion did not precl!de Congress fro( increasing its (e(bership b" passing a la), other than a
general reapportion(ent of the la).
7.8. #o. 15$$95 D!l" 9, $&&$
(ONTESCLAROS, ET AL VS. CO(ELEC, ET AL
Fa-!s'
Petitioners so!ght to prevent the postpone(ent of the $&&$ ,H election to a later date since doing so (a" render
the( !n1!alified to vote or be voted for in vie) of the age li(itation set b" la) for those )ho (a" participate. The ,H
elections )as postponed since it )as dee(ed Ioperationall" ver" diffic!ltI to hold both ,H and Garanga" elections
si(!ltaneo!sl" in 6a" $&&$. Petitioners also so!ght to en4oin the lo)ering of age for (e(bership in the ,H.
+ss!e:
3hether or not there )as grave ab!se of discretion a(o!nting to lac/ or e.cess of 4!risdiction i(p!table to
respondents.
H#.'
The Co!rt held that, in the present case, there )as no act!al controvers" re1!iring the e.ercise of the po)er of
4!dicial revie).
3hile see/ing to prevent a postpone(ent of the 6a" ', $&&$ ,H elections, petitioners are nevertheless a(enable to
a resetting of the ,H elections to an" date not later than D!l" 15, $&&$. 8A #o. 91'9 has reset the ,H elections to
D!l" 15, $&&$, a date acceptable to petitioners. Under the sa(e la), Congress (erel" restored the age re1!ire(ent
in PC #o. '*9, the original charter of the ,H, )hich fi.ed the (a.i(!( age for (e(bership in the ,H to "o!ths less
than 1* "ears old. Petitioners do not have a vested right to the per(anence of the age re1!ire(ent !nder ,ection
9$9 of the Bocal 7overn(ent Code of 1991.
8A 91'9 )hich resets and prescribes the 1!alifications of candidates and voters for the ,H elections )as held to be
applicable on the D!l" 15 $&&$ election. +tEs constit!tionalit" not having been assailed in the first place.
The Co!rt r!led that petitioners had no personal and s!bstantial interest in (aintaining this s!it, that the petition
presented no act!al 4!sticiable controvers", that petitioners did not cite an" provision of la) that is alleged to be
!nconstit!tional, and that there )as no grave ab!se of discretion on the part of p!blic respondents.

GON/ALES V NARVASA 7.8. #o. 19&*35, A!g!st 19, $&&&
5acts:
On Cece(ber 9, 1999, a petition for prohibition and (anda(!s )as filed assailing the constit!tionalit"
of the creation of the Preparator" Co((ission on Constit!tional 8efor((PCC8 and of the positions of presidential
cons!ltants, advisers and assistants. +n his capacit" as citi0en and as ta.pa"er, he see/s to en4oin the Co((ission
on A!dit fro( passing in a!dit e.pendit!res for the PCC8 and the presidential
cons!ltants,advisersandassistants. Petitioner also pra"s that the -.ec!tive ,ecretar" be co(pelled thro!gh a
(anda(!s to f!rnish the petitioner )ith infor(ation re1!esting the na(es of e.ec!tive officials holding (!ltiple
positions in govern(ent, copies of their appoint(ents and a list of the recipients of l!.!r" vehicles sei0ed b" the
G!rea! of C!sto(s and t!rned over to 6alacaJang.
+ss!e:
3hether or not petitioner possesses the re1!isites of filing a s!it as a citi0en and as ta.pa"er.
8atio Cecidendi:
The Co!rt r!led that the petitioner did not have standing to bring s!it as citi0en. Petitioner did not in fact
sho) )hat partic!lari0ed interest the" have to bring the s!it. As civic leaders, the" still fall short of the re1!ire(ents
to (aintain action. Their interest in assailing the -O does not present to be of a direct and personal character.
5!rther(ore, the" do not s!stain or are in i((ediate danger of s!staining so(e direct in4!r" as a res!lt of its
enforce(ent.As ta.pa"ers, petitioners cannot attac/ the -O. There is no appropriation granted fro(Congress b!t
onl" an a!thori0ation b" the president. There being e.ercise b" Congress of its ta.ing and spending po)er, petitioner
cannot be allo)ed to 1!estion the PCC8Es creation. The petitioner has failed to sho) that he is a real part" in
interest. 3ith regards to the petitionerEs re1!est of disclos!re to p!blic infor(ation, the Co!rt !pheld that citi0ens (a"
invo/e before the co!rts the right to infor(ation. 3hen a (anda(!s proceeding involves the assertion of a p!blic
right, the re1!ire(ent of personal interest is satisfied b" the (ere fact that the petitioner is a citi0en. The ,!pre(e
Co!rt dis(issed the petition )ith the e.ception that respondent -.ec!tive ,ecretar" is ordered to f!rnish petitioner
)ith the infor(ation re1!ested
Gonzales v. Narvasa
#$R$ %o$ &'()*+ (,ugust &'- .((()
FACTS' Petitioner )rote a letter to the -.ec!tive ,ecretar" re1!esting for infor(ation )ith respect to the na(es of
e.ec!tive officials holding (!ltiple positions, copies of their appoint(ents, and a list of recipients of l!.!r" vehicles
previo!sl" sei0ed b" the G!rea! of C!sto(s and t!rned over to the Office of the President. Petitioner filed this
petition to co(pel the -.ec!tive ,ecretar" to ans)er his letter.
HELD' +t is the d!t" of the -.ec!tive ,ecretar" to ans)er the letter of the petitioner. The letter deals )ith (atters of
p!blic concern, appoint(ents to p!blic offices and !tili0ation of p!blic propert". The -.ec!tive ,ecretar" is obliged to
allo) the inspection and cop"ing of appoint(ent papers.
Al!nan et al. vs 6irasol et al. D!l" 31, 199%
7.8. #o. 1&*399
This is a petition for revie) on certiorari of the Cecision dated Dan!ar" 19, 1993 of the 8egional Trial Co!rt,
Granch 3', 6anila n!llif"ing an order of the C+B7, )hich cancelled the general elections for the ,H dated Cece(ber
9, 199$ in the Cit" of 6anila on the gro!nd that the elections previo!sl" held on 6a" $', 199& served the p!rpose of
the first ,H !nder the B7C of 1991 (8.A. %1'&.
On ,epte(ber 1*, 199$, the C+B7 iss!ed a resol!tion thro!gh then ,ecretar" 8afael 6. Al!nan +++
e.e(pting the Cit" of 6anila fro( holding its ,H election on Cece(ber 9, 199$. This )as iss!ed in relation to the
letter of Dosh!e 8. ,antiago, acting president of the HG Cit" 5ederation of 6anila. +n its resol!tion, the C+B7 stated:
KAL close e.a(ination of . . . 8A %1'& )o!ld readil" reveal the intention of the legislat!re to e.e(pt
fro( the forthco(ing ,angg!niang Habataan elections those /abataang baranga" chapters )hich
(a" have cond!cted their elections )ithin the period of Dan!ar" 1, 19** and Dan!ar" 1, 199$
!nder GP 33%. 6anifestl" the ter( of office of those elected HG officials have been correspondingl"
e.tended to coincide )ith the ter( of office of those )ho (a" be elected !nder 8A %1'&.
8espondents filed a petition for certiorari and (anda(!s in the 8TC of 6anila, )hich then iss!ed an
in4!nction ordering petitioners to desist fro( i(ple(enting the order of the C+B7.
Trial of the case ens!ed and a Cecision )as iss!ed holding that the (1 the C+B7 had no po)er to Ie.e(ptI
the Cit" of 6anila fro( holding ,H elections on Cece(ber 9, 199$ beca!se !nder Art. +?, C, M$(1 of the Constit!tion
the po)er to enforce and ad(inister Iall la)s and reg!lations relative to the cond!ct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referend!(, and recallI is vested solel" in the CO6-B-C2 ($ the CO6-B-C had alread" in effect
deter(ined that there had been no previo!s elections for HG b" calling for general elections for ,H officers in ever"
baranga" )itho!t e.ception2 and (3 the Ie.e(ptionI of the Cit" of 6anila )as violative of the e1!al protection cla!se
of the Constit!tion beca!se, according to the C+B7Ns records, in 5,&&& baranga"s HG elections )ere held bet)een
Dan!ar" 1, 19** and Dan!ar" 1, 199$ b!t onl" in the Cit" of 6anila, )here there )ere *9% baranga"s, )as there no
elections held on Cece(ber 9, 199$.
Petitioners so!ght this revie) on certiorari. The" insist that the Cit" of 6anila, having alread" cond!cted
elections for the HG on 6a" $', 199&, )as e.e(pted fro( holding elections on Cece(ber 9, 199$. +n s!pport of their
contention, the" cite M53$(d of the Bocal 7overn(ent Code of 1991, )hich provides that:
All seats reserved for the pederas"on ng (ga sangg!niang /abataan in the different sangg!niang
shall be dee(ed vacant !ntil s!ch ti(e that the sangg!niang /abataan chair(en shall have been
elected and the respective pederas"on presidents have been selected: Provided, That, elections
for the /abataang baranga" cond!cted !nder Gatas Pa(bansa Glg. 33% at an" ti(e bet)een
Dan!ar" 1, 19** and Dan!ar" 1, 199$ shall be considered as the first elections provided for in this
Code. The ter( of office of the /abataang baranga" officials elected )ithin the said period shall be
e.tended correspondingl" to coincide )ith the ter( of office of those elected !nder this Code.
+ss!e: 3hether the case has been (oot and acade(ic.
;eld: The ,!pre(e Co!rt held that the iss!e is not (oot and it is necessar" in fact to decide the case on the iss!es
raised b" the parties. The case co(es )ith the r!le that co!rts )ill decide a 1!estion other)ise (oot and acade(ic if
it is <capable of repetition and "et evade revie).>
8e4ecting the contention of being (oot and acade(ic, the ,!pre(e Co!rt in the ,o!thern Pacific Ter(inal
case held:
The 1!estion involved in the orders of the +nterstate Co((erce Co((ission are !s!all" contin!ing
(as are (anifestl" those in the case at bar, and these considerations o!ght not to be, as the"
(ight be, defeated, b" short=ter( orders, capable of repetition, "et evading revie), and at one ti(e
the govern(ent, and at another ti(e the carriers, have their rights deter(ined b" the Co((ission
)itho!t a chance of redress.
6oreover in 8oa vs. 3ade, the U, ,!pre(e Co!rt e.plained: <K3Lhen, as here, pregnanc" is a significant
fact the litigation, the nor(al $''=da" h!(an gestation period is so short that the pregnanc" )ill co(e to ter( before
the !s!al appellate process is co(plete. +f that ter(ination (a/es a case (oot, pregnanc" litigation seldo( )ill
s!rvive. O!r la)s sho!ld not be that rigid. Pregnanc" provides a classic 4!stification for a concl!sion of non(ootness.
+t tr!l" co!ld be Ocapable of repetition, "et evading revie).E>
3;-8-5O8-, the decision of the 8egional Trial Co!rt of 6anila, Granch 3' is 8-A-8,-C and the case
filed against petitioner b" private respondents is C+,6+,,-C
ALUNAN ET AL. VS (IRASOL et al. D!l" 31, 199% 7.8. #o. 1&*399
This is a petition for revie) on certiorari of the Cecision dated Dan!ar" 19, 1993 of the 8egional
Trial Co!rt, Granch 3', 6anila n!llif"ing an order of the C+B7, )hich cancelled the general elections for the
,H dated Cece(ber 9, 199$ in the Cit" of 6anila on the gro!nd that the elections previo!sl" held on 6a"
$', 199& served the p!rpose of the first ,H !nder the B7C of 1991 (8.A. %1'&.
On ,epte(ber 1*, 199$, the C+B7 iss!ed a resol!tion thro!gh then ,ecretar" 8afael 6. Al!nan +++
e.e(pting the Cit" of 6anila fro( holding its ,H election on Cece(ber 9, 199$. This )as iss!ed in relation
to the letter of Dosh!e 8. ,antiago, acting president of the HG Cit" 5ederation of 6anila. +n its resol!tion,
the C+B7 stated:
KAL close e.a(ination of . . . 8A %1'& )o!ld readil" reveal the intention of the legislat!re to
e.e(pt fro( the forthco(ing ,angg!niang Habataan elections those /abataang baranga"
chapters )hich (a" have cond!cted their elections )ithin the period of Dan!ar" 1, 19**
and Dan!ar" 1, 199$ !nder GP 33%. 6anifestl" the ter( of office of those elected HG
officials have been correspondingl" e.tended to coincide )ith the ter( of office of those
)ho (a" be elected !nder 8A %1'&.
8espondents filed a petition for certiorari and (anda(!s in the 8TC of 6anila, )hich then iss!ed an
in4!nction ordering petitioners to desist fro( i(ple(enting the order of the C+B7.
Trial of the case ens!ed and a Cecision )as iss!ed holding that the (1 the C+B7 had no po)er to
Ie.e(ptI the Cit" of 6anila fro( holding ,H elections on Cece(ber 9, 199$ beca!se !nder Art. +?, C,
M$(1 of the Constit!tion the po)er to enforce and ad(inister Iall la)s and reg!lations relative to the
cond!ct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referend!(, and recallI is vested solel" in the CO6-B-C2 ($
the CO6-B-C had alread" in effect deter(ined that there had been no previo!s elections for HG b" calling
for general elections for ,H officers in ever" baranga" )itho!t e.ception2 and (3 the Ie.e(ptionI of the Cit"
of 6anila )as violative of the e1!al protection cla!se of the Constit!tion beca!se, according to the C+B7Ns
records, in 5,&&& baranga"s HG elections )ere held bet)een Dan!ar" 1, 19** and Dan!ar" 1, 199$ b!t onl"
in the Cit" of 6anila, )here there )ere *9% baranga"s, )as there no elections held on Cece(ber 9, 199$.
Petitioners so!ght this revie) on certiorari. The" insist that the Cit" of 6anila, having alread"
cond!cted elections for the HG on 6a" $', 199&, )as e.e(pted fro( holding elections on Cece(ber 9,
199$. +n s!pport of their contention, the" cite M53$(d of the Bocal 7overn(ent Code of 1991, )hich
provides that:
All seats reserved for the pederas"on ng (ga sangg!niang /abataan in the different
sangg!niang shall be dee(ed vacant !ntil s!ch ti(e that the sangg!niang /abataan
chair(en shall have been elected and the respective pederas"on presidents have been
selected: Provided, That, elections for the /abataang baranga" cond!cted !nder Gatas
Pa(bansa Glg. 33% at an" ti(e bet)een Dan!ar" 1, 19** and Dan!ar" 1, 199$ shall be
considered as the first elections provided for in this Code. The ter( of office of the
/abataang baranga" officials elected )ithin the said period shall be e.tended
correspondingl" to coincide )ith the ter( of office of those elected !nder this Code.
+ss!e: 3hether the case has been (oot and acade(ic.
;eld: The ,!pre(e Co!rt held that the iss!e is not (oot and it is necessar" in fact to decide the case on
the iss!es raised b" the parties. The case co(es )ith the r!le that co!rts )ill decide a 1!estion other)ise
(oot and acade(ic if it is <capable of repetition and "et evade revie).>
8e4ecting the contention of being (oot and acade(ic, the ,!pre(e Co!rt in the ,o!thern Pacific
Ter(inal case held:
The 1!estion involved in the orders of the +nterstate Co((erce Co((ission are !s!all"
contin!ing (as are (anifestl" those in the case at bar, and these considerations o!ght not
to be, as the" (ight be, defeated, b" short=ter( orders, capable of repetition, "et evading
revie), and at one ti(e the govern(ent, and at another ti(e the carriers, have their rights
deter(ined b" the Co((ission )itho!t a chance of redress.
6oreover in 8oa vs. 3ade, the U, ,!pre(e Co!rt e.plained: <K3Lhen, as here, pregnanc" is a
significant fact the litigation, the nor(al $''=da" h!(an gestation period is so short that the pregnanc" )ill
co(e to ter( before the !s!al appellate process is co(plete. +f that ter(ination (a/es a case (oot,
pregnanc" litigation seldo( )ill s!rvive. O!r la)s sho!ld not be that rigid. Pregnanc" provides a classic
4!stification for a concl!sion of non(ootness. +t tr!l" co!ld be Ocapable of repetition, "et evading revie).E>
3;-8-5O8-, the decision of the 8egional Trial Co!rt of 6anila, Granch 3' is 8-A-8,-C and
the case filed against petitioner b" private respondents is C+,6+,,-C
A&$AYAN VS A0UINO P D!l" 1' $&&*
5ACT,:
Petition for (anda(!s and prohibition )as filed b" the petitioners, as congresspersons, citi0ens and
ta.pa"ers, re1!esting respondents to s!b(it to the( the f!ll te.t of the Dapan=Philippines -cono(ic
Partnership Agree(ent (DP-PA.
Petitioner e(phasi0e that the ref!sal of the govern(ent to disclose the said agree(ent violates there right
to infor(ation on (atters of p!blic concern and of p!blic interest. That the non=disclos!re of the sa(e
doc!(ents !nder(ines their right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political
and econo(ic decision (a/ing.
8espondent herein invo/e e.ec!tive privilege. The" relied on the gro!nd that the (atter so!ght involves a
diplo(atic negotiation then in progress, th!s constit!ting an e.ception to the right to infor(ation and the
polic" of f!ll disclos!re of (atters that are of p!blic concern li/e the DP-PA. That diplo(atic negotiation are
covered b" the doctrine of e.ec!tive privilege.
+ss!e:
3hether or not the petition has been entirel" rendered (oot and acade(ic beca!se of the s!bse1!ent
event that occ!rredQ
3hether the infor(ation so!ght b" the petitioners are of p!blic concern and are still covered b" the doctrine
of e.ec!tive privilegeQ
;eld:
On the first iss!e, the ,!pre(e Co!rt r!led that tLhe principal relief petitioners are pra"ing for is the
disclos!re of the contents of the DP-PA prior to its finali0ation bet)een the t)o ,tates parties,> p!blic
disclos!re of the te.t of the DP-PA after its signing b" the President, d!ring the pendenc" of the present
petition, has been largel" rendered (oot and acade(ic.
The te.t of the DP-PA having then been (ade accessible to the p!blic, the petition has beco(e (oot and
acade(ic to the e.tent that it see/s the disclos!re of the <f!ll te.t> thereof.
The petition is not entirel" (oot, ho)ever, beca!se petitioners see/ to obtain, not (erel" the te.t of the
DP-PA, b!t also the Philippine and Dapanese offers in the co!rse of the negotiations.
6oving on to the second iss!e, The ,!pre(e Co!rt 8!led that Ciplo(atic negotiations, therefore, are
recogni0ed as privileged in this 4!risdiction, the DP-PA negotiations constit!ting no e.ception. +t bears
e(phasis, ho)ever, that s!ch privilege is onl" pres!(ptive. 5or as ,enate v. -r(ita holds, recogni0ing a
t"pe of infor(ation as privileged does not (ean that it )ill be considered privileged in all instances. Onl"
after a consideration of the conte.t in )hich the clai( is (ade (a" it be deter(ined if there is a p!blic
interest that calls for the disclos!re of the desired infor(ation, strong eno!gh to overco(e its traditionall"
privileged stat!s.
The co!rt adopted also the doctrine in P6P5 v. 6anglap!s, 3herein petitioners )ere see/ing infor(ation
fro( the PresidentEs representatives on the state of the then on=going negotiations of the 8P=U, 6ilitar"
Gases Agree(ent. The Co!rt denied the petition, stressing that <secrec" of negotiations )ith foreign
co!ntries is not violative of the constit!tional provisions of freedo( of speech or of the press nor of the
freedo( of access to infor(ation.
ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.
G.R. No. 97855. June 19, 1997
PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF FISHFARM PRODUCERS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM,respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N

ROMERO, J p:
Before this Court are consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of
some portions of Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law.
1
Petitioners Atlas Fertilizer Corporation,
2
Philippine Federation of Fishfarm
Producers, Inc. and petitioner-in-intervention Archie's Fishpond, Inc. and Arsenio Al.
Acuna
3
are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fshponds and prawn farms.
They assail Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of R.A. 6657, as well as the
implementing guidelines and procedures contained in Administrative Order Nos. 8 and
10 Series of 1988 issued by public respondent Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform as unconstitutional.
Petitioners claim that the questioned provisions of CARL violate the Constitution in
the following manner:
1. Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of CARL extend agrarian reform to
aquaculture lands even as Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution limits agrarian
reform only to agricultural lands.
2. The questioned provisions similarly treat of aquaculture lands and agriculture
lands when they are diferently situated, and diferently treat aquaculture lands and
other industrial lands, when they are similarly situated in violation of the
constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.
3. The questioned provisions distort employment benefts and burdens in favor
of aquaculture employees and against other industrial workers even as Section 1
and 3, Article XIII of the Constitution mandate the State to promote equality in
economic and employment opportunities.
4. The questioned provisions deprive petitioner of its government-induced
investments in aquaculture even as Sections 2 and 3, Article XIII of the Constitution
mandate the State to respect the freedom of enterprise and the right of enterprises
to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth.
The constitutionality of the above-mentioned provisions has been ruled upon in the
case of Luz Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
4
regarding the inclusion of land
devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.
The issue now before this Court is the constitutionality of the same above-
mentioned provisions insofar as they include in its coverage lands devoted to the
aquaculture industry, particularly fshponds and prawn farms.
In their frst argument, petitioners contend that in the case of Luz Farms,
Inc. v.Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
5
this Court has already ruled impliedly that lands
devoted to fshing are not agricultural lands. In aquaculture, fshponds and prawn farms,
the use of land is only incidental to and not the principal factor in productivity and,
hence, as held in "Luz Farms," they too should be excluded from R.A. 6657 just as lands
devoted to livestock, swine, and poultry have been excluded for the same reason. They
also argue that they are entitled to the full beneft of "Luz Farms" to the efect that only
fve percent of the total investment in aquaculture activities, fshponds, and prawn farms,
is in the form of land, and therefore, cannot be classifed as agricultural activity. Further,
that in fshponds and prawn farms, there are no farmers, nor farm workers, who till
lands, and no agrarian unrest, and therefore, the constitutionally intended benefciaries
under Section 4, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution do not exist in aquaculture.
In their second argument, they contend that R.A. 6657, by including in its coverage,
the raising of fsh and aquaculture operations including fshponds and prawn ponds,
treating them as in the same class or classifcation as agriculture or farming violates the
equal protection clause of the Constitution and is, therefore, void. Further, the
Constitutional Commission debates show that the intent of the constitutional framers is
to exclude "industrial" lands, to which category lands devoted to aquaculture, fshponds,
and fsh farms belong.
Petitioners also claim that Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 issued by the
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform are, likewise, unconstitutional, as held
in "Luz Farms," and are therefore void as they implement the assailed provisions of
CARL.
The provisions of CARL being assailed as unconstitutional are as follows:
(a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of fsh in the defnition of
"Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity." (Emphasis Supplied)
(b) Section 11 which defnes "commercial farms" as private agricultural lands
devoted tofshponds and prawn ponds . . ." (Emphasis Supplied)
(c) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing plan.
(d) Section 16(d) and 17 which vest on the Department of Agrarian reform the
authority to summarily determine the just compensation to be paid for lands
covered by the comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
(e) Section 32 which spells out the production-sharing plan mentioned in Section
13
". . . (W)hereby three percent (3%) of the gross sales from the production of such lands
are distributed within sixty (60) days at the end of the fscal year as compensation to
regular and other farmworkers in such lands over and above the compensation they
currently receive: Provided, That these individuals or entities realize gross sales in
excess of fve million pesos per annum unless the DAR, upon proper application,
determines a lower ceiling.
In the event that the individual or entity realizes a proft, an additional ten percent (10%)
of the net proft after tax shall be distributed to said regular and other farmworkers within
ninety (90) days of the end of the fscal year. . . ."
While the Court will not hesitate to declare a law or an act void when confronted
squarely with constitutional issues, neither will it preempt the Legislative and the
Executive branches of the government in correcting or clarifying, by means of
amendment, said law or act. On February 20, 1995, Republic Act No. 7881
6
was
approved by Congress. Provisions of said Act pertinent to the assailed provisions of
CARL are the following:
"Section 1. Section 3, Paragraph (b) of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Defnitions. For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise:
"(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of
the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such farm
products and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction
with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical."
Sec. 2. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.
xxx xxx xxx
"b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fshponds
shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and
fshponds have not been distributed and Certifcate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)
issued to agrarian reform benefciaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
"In cases where the fshponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, by voluntary ofer to sell, or commercial farms
deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the
actual regular workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year
from the efectivity of this Act. When the workers or tenants do not agree to this
exemption, the fshponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker-
benefciaries or tenants who shall form a cooperative or association to manage the
same.
"In cases where the fshponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the consent of the farm workers shall no longer
be necessary, however, the provision of Section 32-A hereof on incentives shall apply."
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3. Section 11, Paragraph 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 11. Commercial Farming. Commercial farms, which are private agricultural
lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-fower farms, and
cacao, cofee and rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory
acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from the efectivity of this Act. In the case
of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the frst year of commercial
production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the
Government shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just
compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of
organized cooperatives or associations, which shall thereafter manage the said lands
for the workers-benefciaries."
Sec. 4. There shall be incorporated after Section 32 of Republic Act No. 6657 a
section to read as follows:
"Sec. 32-A. Incentives. Individuals or entities owning or operating fshponds and
prawn farms are hereby mandated to execute within six (6) months from the efectivity of
this Act, an incentive plan with their regular fshpond or prawn farm workers'
organization, if any, whereby seven point fve percent (7.5%) of their net proft before tax
from the operation of the fshpond or prawn farms are distributed within sixty (60) days
at the end of the fscal year as compensation to regular and other pond workers in such
ponds over and above the compensation they currently receive.
"In order to safeguard the right of the regular fshpond or prawn farm workers under the
incentive plan, the books of the fshpond or prawn owners shall be subject to periodic
audit or inspection by certifed public accountants chosen by the workers.
"The foregoing provision shall not apply to agricultural lands subsequently converted to
fshponds or prawn farms provided the size of the land converted does not exceed the
retention limit of the landowner."
The above-mentioned provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fshponds
and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the
question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot
and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
SANLA&AS Vs. E1#-2!*v# S#-3#!a34
526 SCRA 757 G.R. No. 659895
F#:32a34 ;, 2885
Fa-!s' C!ring the )ee ho!rs of D!l" $%, $&&3, so(e three=h!ndred 4!nior officers and enlisted (en
of the A5P, acting !pon instigation, co((and and direction of /no)n and !n/no)n leaders have
sei0ed the Oa/)ood G!ilding in 6a/ati. P!blicl", the" co(plained of the corr!ption in the A5P and
declared their )ithdra)al of s!pport for the govern(ent, de(anding the resignation of the President,
,ecretar" of Cefense and the P#P Chief. These acts constit!te a violation of Article 139 of the
8evised Penal Code, and b" virt!e of Procla(ation #o. 9$% and 7eneral Order #o. 9, the
Philippines )as declared !nder the ,tate of 8ebellion. #egotiations too/ place and the officers )ent
bac/ to their barrac/s in the evening of the sa(e da". On A!g!st 1, $&&3, both the Procla(ation
and 7eneral Orders )ere lifted, and Procla(ation #o. 935, declaring the Cessation of the ,tate of
8ebellion )as iss!ed.
+n the interi(, ho)ever, the follo)ing petitions )ere filed: (1 ,A#BAHA, A#C PA8T+CO #7
6A#77A7A3A A,. -?-CUT+A- ,-C8-TA8R, petitioners contending that ,ec. 1* Article A++ of
the Constit!tion does not re1!ire the declaration of a state of rebellion to call o!t the A5P, and that
there is no fact!al basis for s!ch procla(ation. ($,D, OfficersS6e(bers v. ;on. -.ec!tive
,ecretar", et al, petitioners contending that the procla(ation is a circ!(vention of the report
re1!ire(ent !nder the sa(e ,ection 1*, Article A++, co((anding the President to s!b(it a report to
Congress )ithin 9* ho!rs fro( the procla(ation of (artial la). 5inall", the" contend that the
presidential iss!ances cannot be constr!ed as an e.ercise of e(ergenc" po)ers as Congress has
not delegated an" s!ch po)er to the President. (3 8ep. ,!plico et al. v. President 6acapagal=
Arro"o and -.ec!tive ,ecretar" 8o(!lo, petitioners contending that there )as !s!rpation of the
po)er of Congress granted b" ,ection $3 ($, Article A+ of the Constit!tion. (9 Pi(entel v. 8o(!lo,
et al, petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of rebellion Iopens the door to the
!nconstit!tional i(ple(entation of )arrantless arrestsI for the cri(e of rebellion.
Iss2#'
3hether or #ot Procla(ation #o. 9$% and 7eneral Order #o. 9 are constit!tionalQ
3hether or #ot the petitioners have a legal standing or loc!s standi to bring s!itQ
H#.' The Co!rt rendered that the both the Procla(ation #o. 9$% and 7eneral Order #o. 9 are
constit!tional. ,ection 1*, Article A++ does not e.pressl" prohibit declaring state or rebellion. The
President in addition to its Co((ander=in=Chief Po)ers is conferred b" the Constit!tion e.ec!tive
po)ers. +t is not disp!ted that the President has f!ll discretionar" po)er to call o!t the ar(ed forces
and to deter(ine the necessit" for the e.ercise of s!ch po)er. 3hile the Co!rt (a" e.a(ine
)hether the po)er )as e.ercised )ithin constit!tional li(its or in a (anner constit!ting grave ab!se
of discretion, none of the petitioners here have, b" )a" of proof, s!pported their assertion that the
President acted )itho!t fact!al basis. The iss!e of the circ!(vention of the report is of no (erit as
there )as no indication that (ilitar" trib!nals have replaced civil co!rts or that (ilitar" a!thorities
have ta/en over the f!nctions of Civil Co!rts. The iss!e of !s!rpation of the legislative po)er of the
Congress is of no (o(ent since the President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling o!t the
ar(ed forces, )as (erel" e.ercising a )edding of her Chief -.ec!tive and Co((ander=in=Chief
po)ers. These are p!rel" e.ec!tive po)ers, vested on the President b" ,ections 1 and 1*, Article
A++, as opposed to the delegated legislative po)ers conte(plated b" ,ection $3 ($, Article A+. The
fear on )arrantless arrest is !nreasonable, since an" person (a" be s!b4ect to this )hether there is
rebellion or not as this is a cri(e p!nishable !nder the 8evised Penal Code, and as long as a valid
)arrantless arrest is present.
Begal standing or loc!s standi has been defined as a personal and s!bstantial interest in the case
s!ch that the part" has s!stained or )ill s!stain direct in4!r" as a res!lt of the govern(ental act that
is being challenged. The gist of the 1!estion of standing is )hether a part" alleges Is!ch personal
sta/e in the o!tco(e of the controvers" as to ass!re that concrete adverseness )hich sharpens the
presentation of +ss!e !pon )hich the co!rt depends for ill!(ination of diffic!lt constit!tional
1!estions. Gased on the foregoing, petitioners ,anla/as and P6, and ,D, OfficersS6e(bers have
no legal standing to s!e. Onl" petitioners 8ep. ,!plico et al. and ,en. Pi(entel, as 6e(bers of
Congress, have standing to challenge the s!b4ect iss!ances. +t s!stained its decision in Philippine
Constit!tion Association v. -nri1!e0, that the e.tent the po)ers of Congress are i(paired, so is the
po)er of each (e(ber thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the e.ercise of the
po)ers of that instit!tion.
8andolf ,. Cavid v. 7loria 6acapagal=Arro"o, 7.8. #o. 1%139', 6a" 3, $&&' (and other consolidated
cases
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERRE/, J.'
I. THE FACTS
On 5ebr!ar" $9, $&&', as the 5ilipino nation celebrated the $&th Anniversar" of the -C,A People
Po)er +, President Arro"o iss!ed PP 1&1%, i(ple(ented b" 7.O. #o. 5, declaring a state of national
e(ergenc", th!s:
NO<, THEREFORE, +, 7loria 6acapagal=Arro"o, President of the 8ep!blic of the Philippines and
Co((ander=in=Chief of the Ar(ed 5orces of the Philippines, b" virt!e of the po)ers vested !pon (e b"
,ection 1*, Article % of the Philippine Constit!tion )hich states that: <The President. . . )henever it
beco(es necessar", . . . (a" call o!t (the ar(ed forces to prevent or s!ppress. . .rebellion. . .,> and in ("
capacit" as their Co((ander=in=Chief, do hereb" co((and the Ar(ed 5orces of the Philippines, to
(aintain la) and order thro!gho!t the Philippines, prevent or s!ppress all for(s of la)less violence as )ell
as an" act of ins!rrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the la)s and to all decrees, orders
and reg!lations pro(!lgated b" (e personall" or !pon (" direction2 and as provided in ,ection 1%, Article
1$ of the Constit!tion do hereb" declare a ,tate of #ational -(ergenc".
+n their presentation of the fact!al bases of PP 1&1% and 7.O. #o. 5, respondents stated that the
pro.i(ate ca!se behind the e.ec!tive iss!ances )as the conspirac" a(ong so(e (ilitar" officers, leftist
ins!rgents of the #e) PeopleEs Ar(", and so(e (e(bers of the political opposition in a plot to !nseat or
assassinate President Arro"o.The" considered the ai( to o!st or assassinate the President and ta/e=over
the reins of govern(ent as a clear and present danger.
Petitioners Cavid and Bla(as )ere arrested )itho!t )arrants on 5ebr!ar" $9, $&&' on their )a" to
-C,A. 6ean)hile, the offices of the ne)spaper Cail" Trib!ne, )hich )as perceived to be anti=Arro"o, )as
searched )itho!t )arrant at abo!t 1:&& A.6. on 5ebr!ar" $5, $&&'. ,ei0ed fro( the pre(ises P in the
absence of an" official of the Cail" Trib!ne e.cept the sec!rit" g!ard of the b!ilding P )ere several
(aterials for p!blication. The la) enforcers, a co(posite tea( of P#P and A5P officers, cited as basis of
the )arrantless arrests and the )arrantless search and sei0!re )as Presidential Procla(ation 1&1% iss!ed
b" then President 7loria 6acapagal=Arro"o in the e.ercise of her constit!tional po)er to call o!t the Ar(ed
5orces of the Philippines to prevent or s!ppress la)less violence.
II. THE ISSUE
1. 3ere the )arrantless arrests of petitioners Cavid, et al., (ade p!rs!ant to PP 1&1%, validQ
$. 3as the )arrantless search and sei0!re on the /aily Tri0une1s officescond!cted p!rs!ant to PP 1&1%
validQ
III. THE RULING
2The Court partially #R,%T3/ the petitions$4
1. NO the warrantless arrests of petitioners !avid et al. made pursuant to "" 1#1$ were
NO% valid.
K,earches, sei0!res and arrests are no3=a..4 !nreasonable !nless a!thori0ed b" a validl" iss!ed
search )arrant or )arrant of arrest. ,ection 5, 8!le 113 of the 8evised 8!les on Cri(inal Proced!re
provides Kfor the follo)ing circ!(stances of valid )arrantless arrestsL:
,ec. 5. Arrest without warrant& when lawful$ = A peace officer or a private person (a", )itho!t a
)arrant, arrest a person:
(a 3hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co((itted, is act!all" co((itting, or is atte(pting to
co((it an offense.
(b 3hen an offense has 4!st been co((itted and he has probable ca!se to believe based on personal
/no)ledge of facts or circ!(stances that the person to be arrested has co((itted it2 and
. . ..
#either of the Kprovisions on in flagrante nor hot p!rs!it )arrantless arrestsL 4!stifies petitioner
CavidEs )arrantless arrest. C!ring the in1!est for the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of GP
**&, all that the arresting officers co!ld invo/e )as their observation that so(e rall"ists )ere )earing t=
shirts )ith the invective 5Oust #loria %ow6and their erroneo!s ass!(ption that petitioner Cavid )as the
leader of the rall". Conse1!entl", the +n1!est Prosec!tor ordered his i((ediate release on the gro!nd of
ins!fficienc" of evidence. ;e noted that petitioner Cavid )as not )earing the s!b4ect t=shirt and even if he
)as )earing it, s!ch fact is ins!fficient to charge hi( )ith inciting to sedition.
'. NO the warrantless search and seizure on the !aily %ribune(s offices conducted
pursuant to "" 1#1$ was NO% valid.
KTLhe search Kand sei0!re in the Cail" Trib!ne pre(isesL is illegal. 8!le 1$' of The 8evised 8!les
on Cri(inal Proced!re la"s do)n the steps in the cond!ct of search and sei0!re. ,ection 9 re1!ires that a
search )arrant be iss!ed !pon probable ca!se in connection )ith one specific offence to be deter(ined
personall" b" the 4!dge after e.a(ination !nder oath or affir(ation of the co(plainant and the )itnesses he
(a" prod!ce. ,ection * (andates that the search of a ho!se, roo(, or an" other pre(ise be (ade in the
presence of the la)f!l occ!pant thereof or an" (e(ber of his fa(il" or in the absence of the latter, in the
presence of t)o ($ )itnesses of s!fficient age and discretion residing in the sa(e localit". And ,ection 9
states that the )arrant (!st direct that it be served in the da"ti(e, !nless the propert" is on the person or
in the place ordered to be searched, in )hich case a direction (a" be inserted that it be served at an" ti(e
of the da" or night. All these r!les )ere violated b" the C+C7 operatives.
============&====================&====================&========================&================================&============
+n 5ebr!ar" $&&', d!e to the escape of so(e 6agdalo (e(bers and the discover" of a plan (Oplan ;ac/le
+ to assassinate the president, then president 7loria 6acapagal=Arro"o (76A iss!ed Presidential
Procla(ation 1&1% (PP1&1% and is to be i(ple(ented b" 7eneral Order #o. 5 (7O 5. The said la) )as
ai(ed to s!ppress la)lessness and the connivance of e.tre(ists to bring do)n the govern(ent.
P!rs!ant to s!ch PP, 76A cancelled all plans to celebrate -C,A + and at the sa(e ti(e revo/ed all per(its
iss!ed for rallies and other p!blic organi0ationS(eeting. #ot)ithstanding the cancellation of their rall"
per(it, Hil!sang 6a"o Uno (H6U head 8andolf Cavid proceeded to rall" )hich led to his arrest.
Bater that da", the Cail" Trib!ne, )hich Cacho=Olivares is the editor, )as raided b" the C+C7 and the"
sei0ed and confiscated anti=76A articles and )rite !ps. Bater still, another /no)n anti=76A ne)s agenc"
(6ala"a )as raided and sei0ed. On the sa(e da", Geltran of Ana/pa)is, )as also arrested. ;is arrest )as
ho)ever gro!nded on a )arrant of arrest iss!ed )a" bac/ in 19*5 for his actions against 6arcos. ;is
s!pporters cannot visit hi( in 4ail beca!se of the c!rrent i(position of PP 1&1% and 7O 5.
+n 6arch, 76A iss!ed PP 1&$1 )hich declared that the state of national e(ergenc" ceased to e.ist. Cavid
and so(e opposition Congress(en averred that PP1&1% is !nconstit!tional for it has no fact!al basis and it
cannot be validl" declared b" the president for s!ch po)er is reposed in Congress. Also s!ch declaration
is act!all" a declaration of (artial la). Olivares=Cacho also averred that the e(ergenc" conte(plated in
the Constit!tion are those of nat!ral cala(ities and that s!ch is an overbreadth. Petitioners clai( that PP
1&1% is an overbreadth beca!se it encroaches !pon protected and !nprotected rights. The ,ol=7en arg!ed
that the iss!e has beco(e (oot and acade(ic b" reason of the lifting of PP 1&1% b" virt!e of the
declaration of PP 1&$1. The ,ol=7en averred that PP 1&1% is )ithin the presidentEs calling o!t po)er, ta/e
care po)er and ta/e over po)er.
ISSUE' 3hether or not PP 1&1% and 7O 5 is constit!tional.
HELD' PP 1&1% and its i(ple(enting 7O are partl" constit!tional and partl" !nconstit!tional.
The iss!e cannot be considered as (oot and acade(ic b" reason of the lifting of the 1!estioned PP. +t is
still in fact operative beca!se there are parties still affected d!e to the alleged violation of the said PP.
;ence, the ,C can ta/e cognition of the case at bar. The ,C r!led that PP 1&1% is constit!tional in part and
at the sa(e ti(e so(e provisions of )hich are !nconstit!tional. The ,C r!led in the follo)ing )a"2
8esol!tion b" the ,C on the 5act!al Gasis of its declaration
The petitioners )ere not able to prove that 76A has no fact!al basis in iss!ing PP 1&1% and 7O 5. A
reading of the ,olicitor 7eneralEs Consolidated Co((ent and 6e(orand!( sho)s a detailed narration of
the events leading to the iss!ance of PP 1&1%, )ith s!pporting reports for(ing part of the records.
6entioned are the escape of the 6agdalo 7ro!p, their a!dacio!s threat of the 6agdalo C=Ca", the
defections in the (ilitar", partic!larl" in the Philippine 6arines, and the reproving state(ents fro( the
co((!nist leaders. There )as also the 6in!tes of the +ntelligence 8eport and ,ec!rit" 7ro!p of the
Philippine Ar(" sho)ing the gro)ing alliance bet)een the #PA and the (ilitar". Petitioners presented
nothing to ref!te s!ch events. Th!s, absent an" contrar" allegations, the Co!rt is convinced that the
President )as 4!stified in iss!ing PP 1&1% calling for (ilitar" aid. +ndeed, 4!dging the serio!sness of the
incidents, 76A )as not e.pected to si(pl" fold her ar(s and do nothing to prevent or s!ppress )hat she
believed )as la)less violence, invasion or rebellion. ;o)ever, the e.ercise of s!ch po)er or d!t" (!st
not stifle libert".
8esol!tion b" the ,C on the Overbreadth Theor"
5irst and fore(ost, the overbreadth doctrine is an anal"tical tool developed for testing Oon their facesE
stat!tes in free speech cases. The % consolidated cases at bar are not pri(aril" Ofreedo( of speechE cases.
Also, a plain reading of PP 1&1% sho)s that it is not pri(aril" directed to speech or even speech=related
cond!ct. +t is act!all" a call !pon the A5P to prevent or s!ppress all for(s of la)less violence. 6oreover,
the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validit" of a la) that Oreflects legiti(ate state interest
in (aintaining co(prehensive control over har(f!l, constit!tionall" !nprotected cond!ct.E Undo!btedl",
la)less violence, ins!rrection and rebellion are considered Ohar(f!lE and Oconstit!tionall" !nprotected
cond!ct.E Th!s, clai(s of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving stat!tes )hich, b" their
ter(s, see/ to reg!late onl" Ospo/en )ordsE and again, that Ooverbreadth clai(s, if entertained at all, have
been c!rtailed )hen invo/ed against ordinar" cri(inal la)s that are so!ght to be applied to protected
cond!ct.E ;ere, the incontrovertible fact re(ains that PP 1&1% pertains to a spectr!( of cond!ct, not free
speech, )hich is (anifestl" s!b4ect to state reg!lation.
8esol!tion b" the ,C on the Calling O!t Po)er Coctrine
On the basis of ,ec 1%, Art % of the Constit!tion, 76A declared PP 1&1%. The ,C considered the
PresidentEs Ocalling=o!tE po)er as a discretionar" po)er solel" vested in his )isdo(, it stressed that Othis
does not prevent an e.a(ination of )hether s!ch po)er )as e.ercised )ithin per(issible constit!tional
li(its or )hether it )as e.ercised in a (anner constit!ting grave ab!se of discretion. The ,C r!led that
76A has validl" declared PP 1&1% for the Constit!tion grants the President, as Co((ander=in=Chief, a
Ose1!enceE of grad!ated po)ers. 5ro( the (ost to the least benign, these are: the calling=o!t po)er, the
po)er to s!spend the privilege of the )rit of habeas corp!s, and the po)er to declare 6artial Ba). The onl"
criterion for the e.ercise of the calling=o!t po)er is that O)henever it beco(es necessar",E the President
(a" call the ar(ed forces Oto prevent or s!ppress la)less violence, invasion or rebellion.E And s!ch criterion
has been (et.
8esol!tion b" the ,C on the Ta/e Care Coctrine
P!rs!ant to the $
nd
sentence of ,ec 1%, Art % of the Constit!tion (;e shall ens!re that the la)s be faithf!ll"
e.ec!ted. the presidentdeclared PP 1&1%. Cavid et al averred that PP 1&1% ho)ever violated ,ec 1, Art '
of the Constit!tion for it arrogated legislative po)er tothe President. ,!ch po)er is vested in Congress.
The" assail the cla!se Oto enforce obedience to all the la)s and to all decrees, orders and reg!lations
pro(!lgated b" (e personall" or !pon (" direction.E The ,C noted that s!ch provision is si(ilar to the
po)er that granted for(er President 6arcos legislative po)ers (as provided in PP 1&*1. The ,C r!led
that the assailed PP 1&1% is !nconstit!tional insofar as it grants 76A the a!thorit" to pro(!lgate
Odecrees.E Begislative po)er is pec!liarl" )ithin the province of the Begislat!re. ,ec 1, Article '
categoricall" states that OKtLhe legislative po)er shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines )hich
shall consist of a ,enate and a ;o!se of 8epresentatives.E To be s!re, neither 6artial Ba) nor a state of
rebellion nor a state of e(ergenc" can 4!stif" 76AEKs e.ercise of legislative po)er b" iss!ing decrees. The
president can onl" <ta/e care> of the carr"ing o!t of la)s b!t cannot create or enact la)s.
8esol!tion b" the ,C on the Ta/e Over Po)er Coctrine
The president cannot validl" order the ta/ing over of private corporations or instit!tions s!ch as the Cail"
Trib!ne )itho!t an" a!thorit" fro( Congress. On the other hand, the )ord e(ergenc" conte(plated in the
constit!tion is not li(ited to nat!ral cala(ities b!t rather it also incl!des rebellion. The ,C (ade a
distinction2 the president can declare the state of national e(ergenc" b!t her e.ercise of e(ergenc"
po)ers does not co(e a!to(aticall" after it for s!ch e.ercise needs a!thorit" fro( Congress. The a!thorit"
fro( Congress (!st be based on the follo)ing:
(1 There (!st be a )ar or other e(ergenc".
($ The delegation (!st be for a li(ited period onl".
(3 The delegation (!st be s!b4ect to s!ch restrictions as the Congress (a" prescribe.
(9 The e(ergenc" po)ers (!st be e.ercised to carr" o!t a national polic" declared b" Congress.
8esol!tion b" the ,C on the +ss!e that PP 1&1% is a 6artial Ba) Ceclaration
The ,C r!led that PP 1&1% is not a 6artial Ba) declaration and is not tanta(o!nt to it. +t is a valid e.ercise
of the calling o!t po)er of the president b" the president.
A$S -C$N vs P"*.*>>*n# (2.!*-(#*a S4s!#= In-
Philippine 6!lti=6edia ,"ste( +nc (P6,+ is a signal provider )hich has cable and satellite services. +t is
providing its satellite services thro!gh Crea( Groadcasting ,"ste(. P6,+ has its <5ree TA> and <Pre(i!(
Channels>. The 5ree TA incl!des AG,=CG#, 76A=% and other local net)or/s. The pre(i!( channels
incl!de A?#, Dac/ TA, etc )hich are paid b" s!bscribers before s!ch channels can be trans(itted as feeds
to a s!bscriberEs TA set )hich has been installed )ith a Crea( satellite.
AG,=CG# is a television and broadcasting corporation. +t broadcasts television progra(s b" )ireless
(eans to 6etro 6anila and nearb" provinces, and b" satellite to provincial stations thro!gh Channel $ and
Channel $3. The progra(s aired over Channels $ and $3 are either prod!ced b" AG,=CG# or p!rchased
fro( or licensed b" other prod!cers. AG,=CG# also o)ns regional television stations )hich pattern their
progra((ing in accordance )ith perceived de(ands of the region. Th!s, television progra(s sho)n in
6etro 6anila and nearb" provinces are not necessaril" sho)n in other provinces.
+n 6a" $&&$, AG,=CG# s!ed P6,+ for allegedl" engaging in rebroadcasting and thereb" infringing on AG,=
CG#Es cop"rights2 that the trans(ission of Channels $ and $3 to the provinces )here these t)o channels
are not !s!all" sho)n altered AG,=CG#Es progra((ing for the said provinces. P6,+ arg!ed that it is not
infringing !pon AG,=CG#Es cop"rights beca!se it is operating !nder the <6!st=Carr" 8!le> o!tlined in #TC
(#ational Teleco((!nications Co((ission Circ!lar #o. 9=&*=**.
ISSUE' 3hether or not P6,+ infringed !pon the cop"rights of AG,=CG#.
HELD' #o. The <6!st=Carr" 8!le> !nder #TC Circ!lar #o. 9=&*=** falls !nder the li(itations on cop"right.
The 5ilipino people (!st be given )ider access to (ore so!rces of ne)s, infor(ation, ed!cation, sports
event and entertain(ent progra(s other than those provided for b" (ass (edia and afforded television
progra(s to attain a )ell infor(ed, )ell=versed and c!lt!rall" refined citi0enr" and enhance their socio=
econo(ic gro)th. The ver" intent and spirit of the #TC Circ!lar )ill prevent a sit!ation )hereb" station
o)ners and a fe) net)or/s )o!ld have !nfettered po)er to (a/e ti(e available onl" to the highest
bidders, to co((!nicate onl" their o)n vie)s on p!blic iss!es, people, and to per(it on the air onl" those
)ith )ho( the" agreed P contrar" to the state polic" that the (franchise grantee li/e AG,=CG#, and other
TA station o)ners and even the li/es of P6,+, shall provide at all ti(es so!nd and balanced progra((ing
and assist in the f!nctions of p!blic infor(ation and ed!cation.
P6,+ )as li/e)ise granted a legislative franchise !nder 8ep!blic Act #o. *'3&, ,ection 9 of )hich si(ilarl"
states that it <shall provide ade1!ate p!blic service ti(e to enable the govern(ent, thro!gh the said
broadcasting stations, to reach the pop!lation on i(portant p!blic iss!es2 provide at all ti(es so!nd and
balanced progra((ing2 pro(ote p!blic participation s!ch as in co((!nit" progra((ing2 assist in the
f!nctions of p!blic infor(ation and ed!cation.
The <6!st=Carr" 8!le> favors both broadcasting organi0ations and the p!blic. +t prevents cable
television co(panies fro( e.cl!ding broadcasting organi0ation especiall" in those places not reached b"
signal. Also, the r!le prevents cable television co(panies fro( depriving vie)ers in far=fl!ng areas the
en4o"(ent of progra(s available to cit" vie)ers.
ANTONIO (. SERRANO
A,.
7ABBA#T 6A8+T+6- ,-8A+C-,, +#C.
5ACT,:
Petitioner Antonio ,errano )as hired b" respondents 7allant 6ariti(e ,ervices, +nc. and 6arlo)
#avigation Co., +nc., !nder a PO-A=approved contract of e(plo"(ent for 1$ (onths, as Chief Officer, )ith
the basic (onthl" salar" of U,T1,9&&, pl!s T%&&S(onth overti(e pa", and % da"s paid vacation leave per
(onth.
On the date of his depart!re, ,errano )as constrained to accept a do)ngraded e(plo"(ent contract !pon
the ass!rance and representation of respondents that he )o!ld be Chief Officer b" the end of April 199*.
8espondents did not deliver on their pro(ise to (a/e ,errano Chief Officer.
;ence, ,errano ref!sed to sta" on as second Officer and )as repatriated to the Philippines, serving onl"
t)o (onths and % da"s, leaving an !ne.pired portion of nine (onths and t)ent"=three da"s.
Upon co(plaint filed b" ,errano before the Babor Arbiter (BA, the dis(issal )as declared illegal.
On appeal, the #B8C (odified the BA decision based on the provision of 8A *&9$.
,errano filed a 6otion for Partial 8econsideration, b!t this ti(e he 1!estioned the constit!tionalit" of the
last cla!se in the 5th paragraph of ,ection 1& of 8A *&9$.
+,,U-,:
1. 3hether or not the s!b4ect cla!se violates ,ection 1&, Article +++ of the Constit!tion on non=i(pair(ent of
contracts2
$. 3hether or not the s!b4ect cla!se violate ,ection 1, Article +++ of the Constit!tion, and ,ection 1*, Article
++ and ,ection 3, Article ?+++ on labor as a protected sector.
;-BC:
On the first iss!e.
The ans)er is in the negative. PetitionerEs clai( that the s!b4ect cla!se !nd!l" interferes )ith the
stip!lations in his contract on the ter( of his e(plo"(ent and the fi.ed salar" pac/age he )ill receive is not
tenable.
The s!b4ect cla!se (a" not be declared !nconstit!tional on the gro!nd that it i(pinges on the i(pair(ent
cla!se, for the la) )as enacted in the e.ercise of the police po)er of the ,tate to reg!late a b!siness,
profession or calling, partic!larl" the recr!it(ent and deplo"(ent of O53s, )ith the noble end in vie) of
ens!ring respect for the dignit" and )ell=being of O53s )herever the" (a" be e(plo"ed.
On the second iss!e.
The ans)er is in the affir(ative.
To 5ilipino )or/ers, the rights g!aranteed !nder the foregoing constit!tional provisions translate to
econo(ic sec!rit" and parit".
Upon c!rsor" reading, the s!b4ect cla!se appears faciall" ne!tral, for it applies to all O53s. ;o)ever, a
closer e.a(ination reveals that the s!b4ect cla!se has a discri(inator" intent against, and an invidio!s
i(pact on, O53s at t)o levels:
5irst, O53s )ith e(plo"(ent contracts of less than one "ear vis=U=vis O53s )ith e(plo"(ent contracts of
one "ear or (ore2
,econd, a(ong O53s )ith e(plo"(ent contracts of (ore than one "ear2 and
Third, O53s vis=U=vis local )or/ers )ith fi.ed=period e(plo"(ent2
The s!b4ect cla!se singles o!t one classification of O53s and b!rdens it )ith a pec!liar disadvantage.
Th!s, the s!b4ect cla!se in the 5th paragraph of ,ection 1& of 8.A. #o. *&9$ is violative of the right of
petitioner and other O53s to e1!al protection.
The s!b4ect cla!se <or for three (onths for ever" "ear of the !ne.pired ter(, )hichever is less> in the 5th
paragraph of ,ection 1& of 8ep!blic Act #o. *&9$ is C-CBA8-C U#CO#,T+TUT+O#AB.
)OYA, ET AL. VS. PCGG GR No. 97556. A2+2s! 25, 699;
onente7 8ellosillo- 9$
5acts: 6ateo Caparas, then Chair(an of the PC77, thro!gh the a!thorit" granted b" then Pres. A1!ino,
signed a Consign(ent Agree(ent allo)ing ChristieEs of #e) Ror/ to a!ction off Old 6asters Paintings and
the 1*
th
and 19
th
cent!r" silver)are alleged to be part of the ill=gotten )ealth of Pres. 6arcos, his relatives,
and cronies, for and in behalf of 8P. 35 petitioners in this ,pecial Civil Action for Prohibition and 6anda(!s
)ith Pra"er for Preli(inar" +n4!nction andSor 8estraining Order so!ght to en4oin PC77 fro( proceeding
)ith the a!ction sale )hich nevertheless proceeded on sched!le. Petitioners clai( that, as 5ilipino citi0ens,
ta.pa"ers, and artists deepl" concerned )ith the preservation and protection of the co!ntr"Es artistic )ealth
and that the paintings and silver)are are p!blic properties collectivel" o)ned b" the( and the people in
general to vie) and en4o" as great )or/s of art alleging that the" have been deprived of their right to p!blic
propert" )itho!t d!e process of la), the" have the legal personalit" to restrain the respondents )ho are
acting contrar" to their p!blic d!t" to conserve the artistic creations as (andated b" ,ec. 19=1* of Art. ?+A
of the Constit!tion and 8A 9*9'.
+ss!e: 3hether the petition co(plies )ith the legal re1!isites for the Co!rt to e.ercise its po)er of 4!dicial
revie) over this case.
;eld: #O. Petitioners failed to sho) that the" have the legal standing, i.e. a personal and s!bstantial
interest in the case s!ch that the" have s!stained or )o!ld s!stain direct in4!r" as a res!lt of the
govern(ental act that is being challenged, beca!se the" are not the legal o)ners of the
art)or/sSsilver)ares or that the val!ed pieces have beco(e p!blicl" o)ned since s!ch art)or/s are in fact
o)ned b" the 6etropolitan 6!se!( of 6anila 5o!ndation, a non=profit, non=stoc/ corporation established
to pro(ote non=Philippine arts and the silver)ares )ere in fact gifts to the 6arcos co!ple on their silver
)edding anniversar". The (anda(!s s!it cannot prosper beca!se )hat the petitioners see/ is the
en4oining of an official act beca!se it is constit!tionall" infir(ed not beca!se the" are after the f!lfil(ent of a
positive d!t" re1!ired of the respondent p!blic officials )hich is the onl" gro!nd for a )rit of (anda(!s to
be iss!ed. The ta.pa"ersE s!it cannot prosper as )ell since the ite(s in 1!estion )ere ac1!ired fro(
private so!rces and not )ith p!blic (one".
5or a co!rt to e.ercise its po)er of ad4!dication, there (!st be an act!al controvers" P one )hich involves
a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal clai(s s!sceptible of 4!dicial resol!tion2 the case
(!st not be (oot or acade(ic or based on e.tra=legal or other si(ilar considerations not cogni0able b" a
co!rt of 4!stice. A case beco(es (oot and acade(ic )hen its p!rpose has beco(e stale, s!ch as this
case. ,ince the p!rpose of this petition for prohibition is to en4oin the respondents fro( holding the a!ction
sale of the art)or/s on a partic!lar date )hich had long past, the iss!es raised have beco(e (oot and
acade(ic. #evertheless, the Co!rt has the discretion to ta/e cogni0ance of a s!it )hich does not satisf"
the re1!ire(ents of an act!al case or legal standing )hen para(o!nt p!blic interest is involved. ;o)ever,
there is no s!ch 4!stification in this petition.
Petition dis(issed.
+n la), the 3#a. >a3!4 *n *n!#3#s! is the one )ho act!all" possesses the s!bstantive right being asserted
and has a legal right to enforce the clai( (!nder applicable s!bstantive la). Additionall", the Ireal part" in
interestI (!st s!e in his o)n na(e. +n (an" sit!ations, the real part" in interest )ill be the parties
the(selves (i.e., plaintiff and defendant.
6acasiano vs. #;A
&ILOS$AYAN V GUINGONA
+n 1993, the Philippine Charit" ,)eepsta/es Office decided to p!t !p an on=line lotter" s"ste( )hich )ill
establish a national net)or/ s"ste( that )ill in t!rn e.pand PC,OEs so!rce of inco(e.
A bidding )as (ade. Philippine 7a(ing 6anage(ent Corporation (P76C )on it. A contract of lease )as
a)arded in favor of P76C.
Hilosba"an opposed the said agree(ent bet)een PC,O and P76C as it alleged that:
1. P76C does not (eet the nationalit" re1!ire(ent beca!se it is %5V foreign o)ned (o)ned b" a
6ala"sian fir( Ger4a"a 7ro!p Gerhad2
$. PC,O, !nder ,ection 1 of its charter (8A 11'9, is prohibited fro( holding and cond!cting lotteries
<in collaboration, association or 4oint vent!re )ith an" person, association, co(pan" or entit">2
3. The net)or/ s"ste( so!ght to be b!ilt b" P76C for PC,O is a teleco((!nications net)or/.
Under the la) (Act #o. 3*9', a franchise is needed to be granted b" the Congress before an" person (a"
be allo)ed to set !p s!ch2
9. P76CEs articles of incorporation, as )ell as the 5oreign +nvest(ents Act (8.A. #o. %&9$ does not
allo) it to install, establish and operate the on=line lotto and teleco((!nications s"ste(s.
P76C and PC,O, thro!gh Teofisto 7!ingona, Dr. and 8enato Corona, -.ec!tive ,ecretar" and Asst.
-.ec!tive ,ecretar" respectivel", alleged that P76C is not a collaborator b!t (erel" a contractor for a
piece of )or/, i.e., the b!ilding of the net)or/2 that P76C is a (ere lessor of the net)or/ it )ill b!ild as
evidenced b" the nat!re of the contract agreed !pon, i.e., Contract of Bease.
ISSUE' 3hether or not Hilosba"an is correct.
HELD' Res, b!t onl" on iss!es $, 3, and 9.
1. On the iss!e of nationalit", it see(s that P76CEs foreign o)nership )as red!ced to 9&V tho!gh.
$. On iss!es $, 3, and 9, ,ection 1 of 8.A. #o. 11'9, as a(ended b" G.P. Glg. 9$, prohibits the PC,O
fro( holding and cond!cting lotteries <in collaboration, association or 4oint vent!re )ith an" person,
association, co(pan" or entit", )hether do(estic or foreign.> There is !ndo!btedl" a collaboration bet)een
PC,O and P76C and not (erel" a contract of lease. The relations bet)een PC,O and P76C cannot be
defined si(pl" b" the designation the" !sed, i.e., a contract of lease. P!rs!ant to the )ordings of their
agree(ent, P76C at its o)n e.pense shall :2*., o>#3a!#, an =ana+# !"# n#!?o3@ s4s!#= incl!ding
its facilities needed to operate a nation)ide online lotter" s"ste(. PC,O bears no ris/ and all it does is to
provide its franchise P in violation of its charter. #ecessaril", the !se of s!ch franchise b" P76C is a
violation of Act #o. 3*9
SENATE VS. ER(ITA , 78 1'9%%%, April $&, $&&'
5ACT,:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has ab!sed po)er b" iss!ing -.O.
9'9 <-ns!ring Observance of the Principles of ,eparation of Po)ers, Adherence to the 8!le on -.ec!tive
Privilege and 8espect for the 8ights of P!blic Officials Appearing in Begislative +n1!iries in Aid of
Begislation Under the Constit!tion, and for Other P!rposes>. Petitioners pra" for its declaration as n!ll and
void for being !nconstit!tional.
+n the e.ercise of its legislative po)er, the ,enate of the Philippines, thro!gh its vario!s ,enate
Co((ittees, cond!cts in1!iries or investigations in aid of legislation )hich call for, inter alia, the attendance
of officials and e(plo"ees of the e.ec!tive depart(ent, b!rea!s, and offices incl!ding those e(plo"ed in
7overn(ent O)ned and Controlled Corporations, the Ar(ed 5orces of the Philippines (A5P, and the
Philippine #ational Police (P#P.
The Co((ittee of the ,enate iss!ed invitations to vario!s officials of the -.ec!tive Cepart(ent for the( to
appear as reso!rce spea/ers in a p!blic hearing on the rail)a" pro4ect, others on the iss!es of (assive
election fra!d in the Philippine elections, )ire tapping, and the role of (ilitar" in the so=called <7loriagate
,candal>.
,aid officials )ere not able to attend d!e to lac/ of consent fro( the President as provided b" -.O. 9'9,
,ection 3 )hich re1!ires all the p!blic officials en!(erated in ,ection $(b to sec!re the consent of the
President prior to appearing before either ho!se of Congress.
+,,U-:
+s ,ection 3 of -.O. 9'9, )hich re1!ires all the p!blic officials, en!(erated in ,ection $(b to sec!re the
consent of the President prior to appearing before either ho!se of Congress, valid and constit!tionalQ
8UB+#7:
#o. The en!(eration in ,ection $ (b of -.O. 9'9 is broad and is covered b" the e.ec!tive privilege. The
doctrine of e.ec!tive privilege is pre(ised on the fact that certain infor(ation (!st, as a (atter of
necessit", be /ept confidential in p!rs!it of the p!blic interest. The privilege being, b" definition, an
e.e(ption fro( the obligation to disclose infor(ation, in this case to Congress, the necessit" (!st be of
s!ch high degree as to o!t)eigh the p!blic interest in enforcing that obligation in a partic!lar case.
Congress !ndo!btedl" has a right to infor(ation fro( the e.ec!tive branch )henever it is so!ght in aid of
legislation. +f the e.ec!tive branch )ithholds s!ch infor(ation on the gro!nd that it is privileged, it (!st so
assert it and state the reason therefor and )h" it (!st be respected.
The infir( provisions of -.O. 9'9, ho)ever, allo) the e.ec!tive branch to evade congressional re1!ests for
infor(ation )itho!t need of clearl" asserting a right to do so andSor proffering its reasons therefor. G" the
(ere e.pedient of invo/ing said provisions, the po)er of Congress to cond!ct in1!iries in aid of legislation
is fr!strated.
CO((ISSION ON HU(AN RIGHTS E(PLOYEESA ASSOCIATION BCHREAC, petitioner VS
CO((ISSION ON HU(AN RIGHTS BCHRC, respondent G.R. No. 655;;7 Nov#=:#3 25, 2885
Ponente: Chico=#a0ario, D.:
FACTS'
,epte(ber 9, 199* P C;8 pro(!lgated )esolution No. A*+,#-$ adopting an !pgrading and
reclassification sche(e a(ong selected positions in the co((ission and ordering its ;!(an 8eso!rces
Cepart(ent Civision to prepare the necessar" #otice of ,alar" Ad4!st(ent and other appropriate
doc!(ents to i(ple(ent the resol!tion
October 19, 199* P C;8 iss!ed )esolution No. A*+,#.. providing for the !pgrading and raising of salar"
grades of certain positions in the co((ission. According to the sa(e resol!tion, savings !nder Personnel
,ervices )o!ld be !sed to s!pport the i(ple(entation of the sche(e.
#ove(ber 1%, 199* P C;8 iss!ed )esolution No. A*+,#/' OcollapsingE vacant positions in the bod" to
provide additional so!rce of f!nding for said staffing (odification.
The C;8 for)arded said staffing (odification and !pgrading sche(e to the CG6 )ith a re1!est for its
approval, b!t the then CG6 ,ecretar" Gen4a(in Cio/no denied the re1!est )ith the 4!stifications that
- The !pgrading sche(e involved elevating the level of divisions to a b!rea! or regional office, and
elevating services to offices
- 0ection $+ of the General "rovisions of the GAA of 1**+ says that no or1anizational unit or
chan1es in key positions shall be authorized unless provided by law or directed by the
president and there is no e2istin1 law which the 34) can use as a le1al basis for their
proposed scheme.
- 0ection ' of ).A. No. /$.+ known as the 3ompensation 0tandardization 5aw, provides that
the CG6 is directed to establish and ad(inister a !nified co(pensation and position classification
s"ste( in the govern(ent. And the ,!pre(e Co!rt r!led in Aictorina Cr!0 vs Co!rt of Appeals 7.8.
#o. 119155 that the CG6 has the sole po)er and discretion to ad(inister the co(pensation and
position classification s"ste( of the #ational 7overn(ent.
- Tho!gh the C;8 (a" be a (e(ber of the C5A7 (Constit!tional 5iscal A!tono(" 7ro!p, it is not
vested )ith the a!thorit" to reclassif", !pgrade and create positions )itho!t the approval of the
CG6. The (e(bers of the C5A7 (a" for(!late and i(ple(ent organi0ational str!ct!res b!t these
(!st be )ithin the para(eters of the Unified Position Classification and Co(pensation ,"ste(
established !nder 8.A. '%5*.
+n light of the C6GEs disapproval, the C,C=#C8 Office reco((ended to the C,C=Central Office that the
s!b4ect appoint(ents be re4ected. The petitioner C;8-A also re1!ested the C,C=Central Office to affir(
the reco((endation.
;o)ever, the C,C=Central Office denied the petitioners re1!est in a resol!tion dated Cece(ber 19, 1999
and reversed the reco((endation of the C,C= #C8. C;8-A filed a (otion for reconsideration )ith the
C,C=Central Office b!t this )as denied. C;8-A, therefore, elevated the case to the Co!rt of Appeals.
3hen the co!rt of Appeals affir(ed the resol!tion of the C,C=Central Office and !pheld the validit" of the
!pgrading sche(e, C;8-A filed a petition in the ,!pre(e Co!rt.
+n this petition, C;8-A contends that the Co!rt of Appeals and C,C=Central Office erred in approving of
the C;8Es alleged a!thorit" to !pgrade, classif" and create positions )hen the CG6Es approval is
indispensable for s!ch sche(e. C;8-A also contends that the Co!rt of Appeals erred )hen it held that,
according to the constit!tion, the C;8 en4o"s 5iscal A!tono(".
+n their ans)er, the respondent 1!estioned the loc!s standi of the C;8-A considering that it is not a
recogni0ed bona fide organi0ation of its e(plo"ees and that its president, 6arcial ,anche0 has no a!thorit"
to s!e the C;8. 8espondent also contends that it has the a!thorit" to i(ple(ent the sche(e it proposed
even )itho!t the approval of the CG6 beca!se it en4o"s fiscal a!tono(".
ISSUES'
1. 3hether or not the petitioner has a loc!s standi on the case.
$. 3hether or not the approval of the CG6 is a condition precedent to the enact(ent of an !pgrading,
reclassification, creation and collapsing of plantillas in the C;8.
HELD'

1. Petitioner )hich consists of ran/ and file e(plo"ees of respondent C;8 is in i((inent danger of
s!staining in4!r" as a res!lt of the proposed sche(e. Onl" a select fe) in the !pper level positions
in the Co((ission )ill benefit fro( the said sche(e, )hich )hen fo!nd valid )ill eat !p a big
portion of the Co((issionEs savings that can other)ise be allocated to Personnel ,ervices, fro(
)hich the benefits of the e(plo"ees are derived. The personalit" of the C;8-A )as also
recogni0ed b" C,C )hen it too/ cogni0ance of the petitionerEs re1!est to affir( the
reco((endations fro( the C,C=#C8 Office.
$. The co!rt held that )itho!t the approval of the CG6, the resol!tions iss!ed b" the C;8 are
disallo)ed.
3herefore the petition )as granted, the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals )as reversed and set aside, and
the r!ling of the C,C=#C8 reinstated.
RATIO'
8A '%5* provides that the CG6 shall establish and ad(inister a !nified Co(pensation and Position
Classification ,"ste(. The coverage of this a!thorit" incl!des all positions in the govern(ent, govern(ent=
o)ned and Pcontrolled corporations and govern(ent financial instit!tions. <7overn(ent> refers to the
-.ec!tive, Begislative, and the D!dicial Granch and even the Constit!tional Co((issions that s!pposedl"
have fiscal a!tono(".
D!rispr!dence also s!pports this po)er granted to the CG6. P8A vs Des!sito B. G!nag, Aictorino Cr!0 vs
Co!rt of Appeals, +ntia Dr., vs COA
On the (ista/en pre(ise that C;8 belongs to the species of constit!tional co((issions, the Constit!tion
and Chapter 5 sections $9 and $' Goo/ ++ of the Ad(inistrative code (ention onl" 3 constit!tional
co((issions, the C,C, the CO6B-C and the COA. +n fact, the C;8 is considered as OOther GodiesE. +ts
being (e(ber of the C5A7 does not grant it fiscal a!tono(" beca!se fiscal a!tono(" can onl" be granted
b" the Constit!ion.
-ven ass!(ing en arg!endo that the C;8 en4o"s fiscal a!tono(", all govern(ent offices (!st, all the
sa(e /o)to) to the ,alar" ,tandardi0ation Ba), for )hich its ad(inistration has been given b" Congress
to the CG6.
AUTO(OTIVE INDUSTRY <OR&ERS ALLIANCE BAI<AC VS. RO(ULO 7.8. #o. 15%5&9, Dan!ar" 1*, $&&5
5acts:
The A!to(otive +nd!str" 3or/ers Alliance (A+3A and its Affiliated Unions filed a petition for ,!pre(e Co!rt
to e.ercise its po)er of 4!dicial revie) to declare -.ec!tive Order #o. 1*5 !nconstit!tional. The petitioners
contended that -O 1*5 violated their rights and interests as labor !nions and as ta.pa"ers. G" the said -O, the
ad(inistrative s!pervision over the #ational Babor 8elations Co((ission (#B8C, its regional branches and all its
personnel incl!ding the e.ec!tive labor arbiters and labor arbiters )as transferred fro( the #B8C Chairperson to the
,ecretar" of Babor and -(plo"(ent. Clai(ing that the iss!es does not pose an act!al case or controvers",
respondents contend that the petitioners have not specificall" cited ho) -O #o. 1*5 has pre4!diced or threatened to
pre4!dice their rights and e.istence as labor !nions and as ta.pa"ers. 5!rther(ore, the" arg!ed that the petitioners
lac/ed legal standing to challenge the validit" of said -O, not even in their capacit" as ta.pa"ers, considering that
labor !nions are e.e(pt fro( pa"ing ta.es.
+ss!e:3hether or not petitioners have legal standing to assail the validit" of -O 1*5.
8ation Cecidendi:
Begal standing or loc!s standi is defined as a Ipersonal and s!bstantial interest in the case s!ch that the
part" has s!stained or )ill s!stain direct in4!r" as a res!lt of the govern(ental act that is being challenged.I ,ince
petitioners have not sho)n that the" have s!stained or are in danger of s!staining an" personal in4!r" d!e to -O #o.
1*5, it cannot be said that the afore(entioned -O )ill pre4!dice their rights and interests. Onl" #B8C personnel, the
s!b4ect of the ,ecretar" of BaborEs disciplinar" a!thorit", have a direct and specific interest in this iss!e.+n their
capacit" as ta.pa"ers, petitioners also do not have legal standing on this
iss!esince there is no (ention of an established disb!rse(ent of p!blic f!nds incontravention of la) or the
Constit!tion. The ,!pre(e Co!rt dis(issed the petition for lac/ of (erit. The challenging of -O 1*5Esconstit!tionalit"
have to )ait for the proper part" in a proper case before the co!rt (a" intervene and entertain.
TANADA VS. TUVERA 136 SCRA 27 ( 1985)
Publication Presidential Proclamations etc What unless otherwise provided means
in Article 2 of the Civil Code
FACTS:
Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number of
presidential decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by law. The
government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it
was otherwise provided, as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to
become effective immediately upon their approval. In the decision of this case on pril
!", #$%&, the 'ourt affirmed the necessity for the publication of some of these decrees,
declaring in the dispositive portion as follows(
)ith the *upreme 'ourt+s decision that ordered Tuvera et al to publish in the ,fficial
-a.ette the unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and
unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect, Tuvera et al move for
reconsideration and clarification.
ISSUE: )hether or not publication should be made in the ,fficial -a.ette or elsewhere
as long as the people were sufficiently informed.
HELD: The *upreme 'ourt cannot rule upon the wisdom of a law or repeal or modify it
if it finds the same as impractical. That is not its function for such is the function of the
legislature. The task of the *upreme 'ourt is merely to interpret and apply the law as
conceived and approved by the political departments of the government in accordance
with prescribed procedure. /ence, the 'ourt declared that all laws shall immediately
upon their approval or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the ,fficial
-a.ette, to become effective only after #& days from their publication, or on another
date specified by the legislature, in accordance with rticle ! of the 'ivil 'ode. The
clause unless otherwise provided pertains to the date of publication and not the
requirement of publication.
I01 2*. 34,5 6T 7. -5. 8o. #"#!%"
9acts(
'ase for prohibition:certiorari filed by I01 against 6;ec. *ec, 181 'hief etc seeking the
nullify on constitutional grounds the order of then 1resident 6strada commanding the
deployment of the 4arines to <oin the 181 for visibility patrols. This was due to the rise
of violent crimes in 4etro 4anila. To improve the peace and order situation, the 4arines
was to augment the 181 for increased police patrols. The 1resident invokes his powers
as 'ommander=in='hief under *ection #%, rt. 2II of the 'onstitution.

I**>6(
)hether or not the deployment of 4arines to augment the 181 is violative of the
civilian supremacy clause?
)hether or not the I01 has the legal standing @locus standiA to pursue the case?
)hether or not the 1resident commited a grave abuse of discretion?
5uling(
1etition dismissed. Bapunan. The I01 failed to present a specific and substantial
interest in the resolution of the case. 7egal standing @locus standiA is defined as
personal and substantial interest in the case such thatthe party has sustained or will
sustain direct in<ury as a result of the governmental act challenged. Interests must be
material, not mere or accidental interest. There must be a personal stake in there
solution of the controversy.I01 claim to have the responsibility to uphold 'onstitution
and the rule of law not sufficient. Interest too general not e;clusive to I01 but rather
shared with other groups and citi.enry as a whole. I01+s primary purpose @ elevate
law professions standards, improve administration of <ustice A cannot be affected.I01
president was not authori.ed to file by a formal board resolution. The president, nor
none of the members had suffered or may suffer any form of in<ury, had been arrested
or had their civil liberties violated. 1resumed in<ury, that of militari.ation too vague,
highly speculative.I01 is not ruled as to categorically having no standing but must
prove its standing to raise constitutional issues by way of allegations and proof. The
1resident did not commit grave abuse of discretion. cts of the 1resident not
necessarily that of calling out the armed forces. )hat is involved may be maintenance
of peace and order and promotion of general welfare. ctual emergency or a foreign foe
not needed to e;ercise wide discretion in the e;ercise of duties in day to day problems.
ssuming that commander=in=chief powers are involved, still no grave abuse of
discretion. The I01 failed to show that there e;ists no factual basis or <ustification for
1residentsC acts. lso no evidence to support that grave abuse was committed violative
of constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy. In cases of declaration of martial law
or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, there are prescribed manners for revocation
or review. In addition, two other conditions are required, thatthere be an actual invasion
or rebellion, and that public safety requires it. In the matter of calling out the armed
forces, that power is fully discretionary, the only criterion being whenever it becomes
necessary It is considered a lesser power compared to the two other 'ommander=in=
'hief powers for is does not involve curtailment and suppression of certain dasic civil
rights and individual freedom. 9rom 'on'om, commander=in=chief powers graduated,
the sequence being, call out armed, suspend habeas, martial law. *eparate ,pinion,
1uno, political question doctrine if applied, would diminish power of <udicial review,
weakened checking authority of the *' over 1res. 6ven in power to review not
specifically provided for case of calling out power, 'ourt must not decline to act because
of political question doctrine. 6ven if lesser power, cannot be left to absolute discretion
of 1res. 6ven if with lesser impact, must be reviewed. 5egarding issue, despite
*ol-ens assertion that it is a political question, *' ruled that since it involves a grant
of power that is qualified, conditional or sub<ect to limitation, it is <usticiable, the problem
being leagality or validity, not wisdom. 6ven if political question, 'onstitution provides
for determination limited to whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting tolack e;cess of <urisdiction on part of questioned official.

The deployment of the 4arines did not violate the civilian supremacy clause. The case
consitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement i.e. <oint
visibility patrols. The role of 4arines was limited as the civilian 181 is in charge. The
real authority was with the 181 with the 4anila 1olice 'hief as overall head. The 91
does not e;ercise any control. 8one of the 4arines were incorporated into the 181. s
such, civilian authority is still supreme over the military. The 4arines rendered nothing
more that assistance. )hat e;ist is only mutual support and cooperation. 4ilitary
assistance to civilian authorities persist, e;amples of previous implementation include,
civil functions such as elections, 5ed 'ross operations, disaster relief and rescue,
licensure e;ams, nationwide e;ams, etc. 1osse 'omitatus ct of >*, the use of military
in civilian law enforcement generally prohibited. lso >* 'onstitution does not provide
for a similar power to call armed forces. To be a violation of posse comitatus, there must
be e;ercise of military power which is regulatory@controls or directs,A proscriptive
@prohibits or condemnsA or compulsory @e;erts coercive forceApplying above, no
violation of civilian supremacy. s per 7,I, 4arines do not control or direct operation, no
power to prohibit or condemn, arrested persons must be brought to nearest police
station, no coercive force.
KMU LABOR VS. GARCIA -5. ##&D%# Dec. !D, #$$"
This case is consolidated with 'onsolidated with 0ayan 4una vs 6rmita
In !EE&, 6;ecutive ,rder 8o. "!E was passed. This law sought to harmoni.e and
streamline the country+s id system. Bilusang 4ayo >no, 0ayan 4una, and other
concerned groups sought to en<oin the Director=-eneral from implementing the 6,
because they allege that the said 6, is unconstitutional for it infringes upon the right to
privacy of the people and that the same is a usurpation of legislative power by the
president.
ISSUE: )hether or not the said 6, is unconstitutional.
HELD: 8o. *ection # of 6, "!E directs these government entities to adopt a unified
multi=purpose ID system. Thus, all government entities that issue IDs as part of their
functions under e;isting laws are required to adopt a uniform data collection and format
for their IDs.
*ection # of 6, "!E enumerates the purposes of the uniform data collection and format.
The 1resident may by e;ecutive or administrative order direct the government entities
under the 6;ecutive department to adopt a uniform ID data collection and format. *ec
#F, rticle F of the #$%F 'onstitution provides that the 1resident shall have control of
all e;ecutive departments, bureaus and offices. The same *ection also mandates the
1resident to ensure that the laws be faithfully e;ecuted. 'ertainly, under this
constitutional power of control the 1resident can direct all government entities, in the
e;ercise of their functions under e;isting laws, to adopt a uniform ID data collection and
ID format to achieve savings, efficiency, reliability, compatibility, and convenience to the
public.
The 1resident+s constitutional power of control is self=e;ecuting and does not need any
implementing legislation. ,f course, the 1resident+s power of control is limited to the
6;ecutive branch of government and does not e;tend to the Gudiciary or to the
independent constitutional commissions. Thus, 6, "!E does not apply to the Gudiciary,
or to the ',4676' which under e;isting laws is also authori.ed to issue voter+s ID
cards. This only shows that 6, "!E does not establish a national ID system because
legislation is needed to establish a single ID system that is compulsory for all branches
of government.
KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. GARCIA GR. No. 115381
KAPUNAN, J.:
1ublic utilities are privately owned and operated businesses whose service are
essential to the general public. They are enterprises which specially cater to the needs
of the public and conduce to their comfort and convenience. s such, public utility
services are impressed with public interest and concern. The same is true with respect
to the business of common carrier which holds such a peculiar relation to the public
interest that there is superinduced upon it the right of public regulation when private
properties are affected with public interest, hence, they cease to be juris privati only.
)hen, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest,
he, in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to the control
by the public for the common good, to the e;tent of the interest he has thus created.
1
n abdication of the licensing and regulatory government agencies of their functions as
the instant petition seeks to show, is indeed lamentable. 8ot only is it an unsound
administrative policy but it is inimical to public trust and public interest as well.
The instant petition for certiorari assails the constitutionality and validity of certain
memoranda, circulars and:or orders of the Department of Transportation and
'ommunications @D,T'A and the 7and Transportation 9ranchising and 5egulatory
0oard 7T950A
2
which, among others, @aA authori.e provincial bus and <eepney
operators to increase or decrease the prescribed transportation fares without application
therefor with the 7T950 and without hearing and approval thereof by said agency in
violation of *ec. #H@cA of 'ommonwealth ct 8o. #"H, as amended, otherwise known as
the 1ublic *ervice ct, and in derogation of 7T950Cs duty to fi; and determine <ust and
reasonable fares by delegating that function to bus operators, and @bA establish a
presumption of public need in favor of applicants for certificates of public convenience
@'1'A and place on the oppositor the burden of proving that there is no need for the
proposed service, in patent violation not only of *ec. #H@cA of ' #"H, as amended, but
also of *ec. !E@aA of the same ct mandating that fares should be I<ust and
reasonable.I It is, likewise, violative of the 5ules of 'ourt which places upon each party
the burden to prove his own affirmative allegations.
3
The offending provisions contained
in the questioned issuances pointed out by petitioner, have resulted in the introduction
into our highways and thoroughfares thousands of old and smoke=belching buses, many
of which are right=hand driven, and have e;posed our consumers to the burden of
spiraling costs of public transportation without hearing and due process.
The relevant antecedents are as follows(
,n Gune !H, #$$EJ then *ecretary of D,T', ,scar 4. ,rbos, issued 4emorandum
'ircular 8o. $E=D$& to then 7T950 'hairman, 5emedios .*. 9ernando allowing
provincial bus operators to charge passengers rates within a range of #&K above and
#&K below the 7T950 official rate for a period of one @#A year. The te;t of the
memorandum order reads in full(
,ne of the policy reforms and measures that is in line with the thrusts and
the priorities set out in the 4edium=Term 1hilippine Development 1lan
@4T1D1A #$%F L #$$!A is the liberali.ation of regulations in the transport
sector. long this line, the -overnment intends to move away gradually
from regulatory policies and make progress towards greater reliance on
free market forces.
0ased on several surveys and observations, bus companies are already
charging passenger rates above and below the official fare declared by
7T950 on many provincial routes. It is in this conte;t that some form of
liberali.ation on public transport fares is to be tested on a pilot basis.
In view thereof, the 7T950 is hereby directed to immediately publici.e a
fare range scheme for all provincial bus routes in country @e;cept those
operating within 4etro 4anilaA. Transport Operators shall be allowed to
chare passeners within a rane of fifteen percent !"#$% above and
fifteen percent !"#$% below the &T'() official rate for a period of one
*ear.
-uidelines and procedures for the said scheme shall be prepared by
7T950 in coordination with the D,T' 1lanning *ervice.
The implementation of the said fare range scheme shall start on H ugust
#$$E.
9or compliance. @6mphasis ours.A
certificate of public convenience @'1'A is an authori.ation granted by
the 7T950 for the operation of land transportation services for public use
as required by law. 1ursuant to *ection #H@aA of the 1ublic *ervice ct, as
amended, the following requirements must be met before a '1' may be
granted, to wit( @iA the applicant must be a citi.en of the 1hilippines, or a
corporation or co=partnership, association or <oint=stock company
constituted and organi.ed under the laws of the 1hilippines, at least
HE per centum of its stock or paid=up capital must belong entirely to
citi.ens of the 1hilippinesJ @iiA the applicant must be financially capable of
undertaking the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities incident
to its operationJ and @iiiA the applicant must prove that the operation of the
public service proposed and the authori+ation to do business will promote
the public interest in a proper and suitable manner. It is understood that
there must be proper notice and hearing before the 1*' can e;ercise its
power to issue a '1'.
)hile adopting in toto the foregoing requisites for the issuance of a '1', 7T950
4emorandum 'ircular 8o. $!=EE$, 1art I2, provides for yet incongruous and
contradictory policy guideline on the issuance of a '1'. The guidelines states(
The issuance of a 'ertificate of 1ublic 'onvenience is determined by
public need. The presumption of public need for a service shall be
deemed in favor of the applicant, while the burden of provin that there is
no need for the proposed service shall be the oppositor-s. @6mphasis
oursA.
The above=quoted provision is entirely incompatible and inconsistent with *ection #H@cA
@iiiA of the 1ublic *ervice ct which requires that before a '1' will be issued, the
applicant must prove by proper notice and hearing that the operation of the public
service proposed will promote public interest in a proper and suitable manner. ,n the
contrary, the policy guideline states that the presumption of public need for a public
service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant. In case of conflict between a statute
and an administrative order, the former must prevail.
0y its terms, public convenience or necessity generally means something fitting or
suited to the public need.
16
s one of the basic requirements for the grant of a '1',
public convenience and necessity e;ists when the proposed facility or service meets a
reasonable want of the public and supply a need which the e;isting facilities do not
adequately supply. The e;istence or
non=e;istence of public convenience and necessity is therefore a question of fact that
must be established by evidence, real and:or testimonialJ empirical dataJ statistics and
such other means necessary, in a public hearing conducted for that purpose. The ob<ect
and purpose of such procedure, among other things, is to look out for, and protect, the
interests of both the public and the e;isting transport operators.
2erily, the power of a regulatory body to issue a '1' is founded on the condition that
after full=dress hearing and investigation, it shall find, as a fact, that the proposed
operation is for the convenience of the public.
17
0asic convenience is the primary
consideration for which a '1' is issued, and that fact alone must be consistently borne
in mind. lso, e;isting operators in sub<ect routes must be given an opportunity to offer
proof and oppose the application. Therefore, an applicant must, at all times, be required
to prove his capacity and capability to furnish the service which he has undertaken to
render.
18
nd all this will be possible only if a public hearing were conducted for that
purpose.
,therwise stated, the establishment of public need in favor of an applicant reverses
well=settled and institutionali.ed <udicial, quasi=<udicial and administrative procedures. It
allows the party who initiates the proceedings to prove, by mere application, his
affirmative allegations. 4oreover, the offending provisions of the 7T950 memorandum
circular in question would in effect amend the 5ules of 'ourt by adding another
disputable presumption in the enumeration of DF presumptions under 5ule #D#, *ection
& of the 5ules of 'ourt. *uch usurpation of this 'ourtCs authority cannot be
countenanced as only this 'ourt is mandated by law to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure.
1
Deregulation, while it may be ideal in certain situations, may not be ideal at all in our
country given the present circumstances. dvocacy of liberali.ed franchising and
regulatory process is tantamount to an abdication by the government of its inherent right
to e;ercise police power, that is, the right of government to regulate public utilities for
protection of the public and the utilities themselves.
)hile we recogni.e the authority of the D,T' and the 7T950 to issue administrative
orders to regulate the transport sector, we find that they committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing D,T' Department ,rder
8o. $!=&%F defining the policy framework on the regulation of transport services and
7T950 4emorandum 'ircular 8o. $!=EE$ promulgating the implementing guidelines on
D,T' Department ,rder 8o. $!=&%F, the said administrative issuances being
amendatory and violative of the 1ublic *ervice ct and the 5ules of 'ourt.
'onsequently, we rule that the twenty @!EKA per centum fare increase imposed by
respondent 10,1 on 4arch #H, #$$" without the benefit of a petition and a public
hearing is null and void and of no force and effect. 8o grave abuse of discretion
however was committed in the issuance of D,T' 4emorandum ,rder 8o. $E=D$& and
D,T' 4emorandum dated ,ctober %, #$$!, the same being merely internal
communications between administrative officers.
)/6569,56, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby -58T6D and
the challenged administrative issuances and orders, namely( D,T' Department ,rder
8o. $!=&%F, 7T950 4emorandum 'ircular
8o. $!=EE$, and the order dated 4arch !", #$$" issued by respondent 7T950 are
hereby D6'756D contrary to law and invalid insofar as they affect provisions therein
@aA delegating to provincial bus and <eepney operators the authority to increase or
decrease the duly prescribed transportation faresJ and @bA creating a presumption of
public need for a service in favor of the applicant for a certificate of public convenience
and placing the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service to the
oppositor.
The Temporary 5estraining ,rder issued on Gune !E, #$$" is hereby 4D6
1654868T insofar as it en<oined the bus fare rate increase granted under the
provisions of the aforementioned administrative circulars, memoranda and:or orders
declared invalid.
8o pronouncement as to costs.
*, ,5D656D.