You are on page 1of 63

1

Part VIII
ARTICLE VIII - THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1: The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

A. What is judicial power?
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of judges to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

G.R. No. 92649, FEBRUARY 14, 1991
SPOUSES LEONOR BADUA & ROSA BADUA VS CORDILLERA BODONG ADMINISTRATION, CORDILLERA PEOPLE’S LIBERATION
ARMY, MANUE TAO-IL, AMOGAO-EN KISSIP, DALALO ILLIQUES, JUANITO GAYYED, PEDRO CAANTO, VICENTE DAYEM & DAVID
QUEMA
FACTS: The main issue tackled in this case is whether a tribal court of the Cordillera Bodong Administration can render a VALID AND
EXECUTORY DECISION in a land dispute.
David Quema filed a complaint before the Tribal Court of Maeng in Abra alleging that the parcels of land being occupied
and cultivated by the spouses Leonor and Rosa Badua belonged to him. On the one hand, Quema claims that he mortgaged the said
disputed lands to a certain Dra. Erotida Valera and was able to redeem said parcels of land after 22 years. On the other hand, the
Baduas claim that they bought the land from Valera, but they were not able to present a deed of sale since it is in the possession of
Vice-Governor Benesa. The Tribal Court of Maeng decided that Quema was the rightful owner and that the spouses Badua are
ordered to vacate the said disputed lands.
On June 30, 1989, they received a “warning order” coming from the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA) of the
Cordillera Boding Administration (CBA). As per “court order” of the Maeng Tribal Court, they are ordered to pay back the expenses
incurred for the case by Quema and that the spouses should not attempt to bring the case to another Court otherwise, the CPLA will
be forced to settle the matter.
This led the Baduas to file a petition “for Special and Extraordinary Reliefs” alleging that the decision
rendered by the Cordillera Bodong Administration through the Tribal Court of Maeng is null and void.

ISSUE:
1. The Baduas were denied due process or formal hearing.
2. The CBA has no judicial power nor jurisdiction over the Baduas nor over David Quema as neither of them members of the Maeng
Tribe.
The respondents raised the following in answer:
1. The Supreme Court does not have a jurisdiction over the tribal courts because they are not part of the judicial system.
2. The Maeng Tribe as a cultural minority of Abra is a part of the CBA or Administration whose military arm is the CPLA and that the
tribal court is composed of prominent and respected residents in the locality who, as a group decide and settle all kinds of land
disputes more speedily than the regular courts, without the intervention of lawyers.
3. Proceedings and decisions rendered by the tribal court are respected and obeyed by the parties, the municipal and barangay
officials and the people in the locality.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the decision rendered by the Maeng Tribal Court is annulled for lack of jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court said that the Maeng Tribal Court is an ordinary tribal court existing under the customs and traditions of an
indigenous cultural community. Such tribal courts are NOT part of the Philippine Judicial System which consists of the Supreme
Court and the lower courts which have been established by law pursuant to Sect. 1, Article VIII of the Constitution. They DO NOT
possess the judicial power unlike the pangkats or conciliation panels created under P.D. 1508 in the barangays as advisory and
conciliatory bodies whose principal objectives is to bring together the parties to a dispute and persuade them to make peace, settle,
and compromise.

2

Take note also that the CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION never came into existence ergo as a logical consequence, the
indigenous and special courts of the indigenous cultural communities of the Cordillera region, and the Cordillera People’s Liberation
Army as a regional police force or regional command of the AFP DO NOT LEGALLY EXIST. Since the CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS
REGION do not legally exist, the Maeng Tribal Court was not constituted as a special or indigenous court rendering it as an ordinary
tribal court as mentioned above.

Distinguish political question from justiciable question.
Political Question
It is a question of policy. It refers to those questions which under the constitution, are to be decided by the people in their:
1. Sovereign authority
2. Or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
(Tañada v. Cuenco)
Political questions are neatly associated with the WISDOM, NOT THE LEGALITY of a particular measure. (Sanidad v. COMELEC)

Justiciable Question
Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-
political.
The SC explained this further in Sanidad v. Comelec thus:

“What is is the heels of the court is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments to the constitution
but the constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of the constituent assembly.

Whether the amending process confers on the President that power to propose amendments is, therefore, a downright justiciable
question. Should the contrary be formed, the activation of the President would normally be a brutum fulmen. If the constitution
provides how it will be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that consti, can declare whether the procedure followed or the
authority assumed was valid or not.

[G.R. No. L-36142] March 31, 1973
JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE AND THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE
FACTS:
The Plebiscite Case
A Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132,
approved on August 24, 1970.
While the Convention was in session, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law,
Sept 21, 1972
On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution. The next day, the President issued Presidential
Decree No. 73, "submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor," as well as setting the plebiscite for said
ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution.
On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines and
the Auditor General, to enjoin said "respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, in any manner, until
further orders of the Court," upon the grounds, inter alia, that said Presidential Decree "has no force and effect as law because the
calling ... of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the
question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged
exclusively in Congress ...," and "there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15, 1973,
there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents
thereof."
On December 23, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the
Proposed Constitution. No formal action to this effect was taken until when General Order No. 20 was issued, directing "that the
plebiscite scheduled to be held on January 15, 1978, be postponed until further notice."

3

Because of these events relative to the postponement of the aforementioned plebiscite, the Court deemed it fit to refrain,
for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite
would be held were known or announced officially.
Then, again, Congress was, pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, scheduled to meet in regular session on January 22, 1973,
and since the main objection to Presidential Decree No. 73 was that the President does not have the legislative authority to call a
plebiscite and appropriate funds therefor.
"In the afternoon of January 12, 1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. 
L-35948 filed an "urgent motion," praying that said
case be decided "as soon as possible, preferably not later than January 15, 1973."
The next day, the Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to comment on said "urgent
motion" and "manifestation," "not later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973."
While the case was being heard, on the date last mentioned, at noontime, Proclamation No. 1102 was issued and which
had just been signed by the President.
Thereupon, the writer read Proclamation No. 1102:
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES:
"PROCLAMATION NO. 1102
ANNOUNCING THE RATIFICATION BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION”
...
"WHEREAS, Citizens Assemblies were created in barrios, in municipalities and in districts/wards in chartered cities pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 86, dated December 31, 1972, composed of all persons who are residents of the barrio, district or ward for
at least six months, fifteen years of age or over, citizens of the Philippines and who are registered in the list of Citizen Assembly
members kept by the barrio, district or ward secretary;
….
"WHEREAS,.... the following questions were posed before the Citizens Assemblies or Barangays: Do you approve of the New
Constitution? Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?
"WHEREAS,... (14,976,561) members of all the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) voted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution,
as against.. (743,869) who voted for its rejection; while on the question as to whether or not the people would still like a plebiscite
to be called to ratify the new Constitution, fourteen million...(14,298,814) answered that there was no need for a plebiscite and that
the vote of the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) should be considered as a vote in a plebiscite;
"WHEREAS, since the referendum results show that more than ninety-five (95) per cent of the members of the Barangays (Citizens
Assemblies) are in favor of the new Constitution,...
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the power vested...
_________________________________

The Ratification Case
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed Case G.R. No. L-36142 against the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National
Defense, Justice and Finance, to restrain said respondents "and their subordinates or agents from implementing any of the
provisions of the propose Constitution not found in the present Constitution" referring to that of 1935. The petition therein, filed by
Josue Javellana, as a "Filipino citizen, and a qualified and registered voter" and as "a class suit, for himself, and in behalf of all citizens
and voters similarly situated," was amended on or about January 24, 1973. After reciting in substance the facts set forth in the
decision in the plebiscite cases, Javellana alleged that the President had announced "the immediate implementation of the New
Constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including," and that the latter "are acting without, or in excess of jurisdiction in
implementing the said proposed Constitution" upon the ground: "that the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies"; that the same "are without power to approve the proposed
Constitution ..."; "that the President is without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed
Constitution"; and "that the election held to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence null and void."
-----------
The Issues/Resolution/Ratio:
-----------
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a justiciable, or political and therefore non-justiciable, question?
Inasmuch as it is claimed there has been approval by the people, the Court may inquire into the question of whether or not there

by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal. The procedure therein followed is such that there is no reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the officers who conducted said plebiscite. The point is that. on January 17. The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is void. Justice Makalintal and Castro so voted on the strength of their view that "(T)he effectivity of the said Constitution. 1102. the alleged plebiscite in the Citizen’s Assemblies is null and void. Esguerra. But there is not even a certification by the COMELEC in support of the alleged results of the citizen’s assemblies relied upon in Proclamation No. Are petitioners entitled to relief? On the fourth question of relief. Zaldivar. The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in the Citizen’s assemblies void. 1973 neither the alleged president of the Federation of Provincial or City Barangays nor the Department of Local Governments had certified to the President the alleged result of the citizens' assemblies all over the Philippines." 2. to insure the "free. Castro. uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and secrecy in the voting. six (6) members of the Court. into the accuracy of the election returns. which provides only one way for ratification. Antonio and Esguerra voted to DISMISS the petition. Barredo. is the basic and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve which considerations other than judicial.. Makasiar. in negative. Article XV of the 1935 Constitution envisages with the term "votes cast" choices made on ballots – not orally or by raising hands – by the persons taking part in plebiscites. Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people? Proclamation No. 4 has actually been such an approval. Proceedings held in such Citizen’s Assemblies were fundamentally irregular. Castro. an therefore beyond the competence of this Court. Also. Justices Makalintal. 4. there being more than prima facie showing that the proposed Constitution has not been ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution. i. It is to my mind a matter of judicial knowledge that there have been no such citizen’s assemblies in many parts of Manila. either strictly. in the final analysis. For this. insofar as the same are claimed to have ratified the revised Constitution. Teehankee and myself. Article X of the 1935 Constitution places COMELEC the "exclusive" charge to the "the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections. ACCORDINGLY. Petitions therein should be given due course. Barredo. Fernando. Justices Makalintal.e. but. or has been acquiesced in by the people or majority thereof. substantially. The Constitution does not allow Congress or anybody else to vest in those lacking the qualifications and having the disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution the right of suffrage. namely. in the affirmative. when necessary. the Court may determine from both factual and legal angles whether or not Article XV of the 1935 Constitution been complied with. 5. Makasiar. and honest" expression of the people's will. "in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters. The proceedings in the Citizen’s Assemblies must be considered null and void Viva voce voting (voice vote) for the ratification of the constitution is void. section 1 of the 1935 Constitution. in that persons lacking the qualifications prescribed in Article V Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution were allowed to vote in said Assemblies. since the early years of the American regime. The citizen’s assemblies did not adopt the proposed constitution." Justices Makasiar." independently of the Executive. the Court should keep hands-off out of respect to the people's will. Antonio. we had adopted the Australian Ballot System. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution in force? Court hold that it is in force by virtue of the people's acceptance thereof. namely. or three (3) members of the Court hold that the issue is political and "beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry. and. orderly. as amended. Antonio and Esguerra with . with its major characteristics. 3. Castro. This is but natural and logical. This is another patent violation of Article X of the 1935 Constitution which form part of the fundamental scheme set forth in the 1935 Constitution. 1102 is not an evidence of ratification. for. with the advantage of keeping records that permit judicial inquiry. . such of the Barrio Assemblies as were held took place without the intervention of the COMELEC and without complying with the provisions of the Election Code of 1971 or even of those of Presidential Decree No. or six (6) members of the Court also hold that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV. 73. Has the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions? On the second question of validity of the ratification.

It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law. rather what is sought to be achieved by this liberal interpretation is to preclude any plausibility to the charge that in the exercise of the conceded power of reorganizing tulle inferior courts. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. it would be in accordance with accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far as incumbent justices and judges are concerned. Nonetheless. No. In the implementation of the assailed legislation. PD 1033 Issued by Marcos. the former is to be preferred. 11: “The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge duties of their office. there is in law no occupant. 129 is constitutional. such conclusion flowing "from the fundamental proposition that the legislature may abolish courts inferior to the Supreme Court and therefore may reorganize them territorially or otherwise thereby necessitating new appointments and commissions. SANIDAD. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary. 1976 PABLO C. Nothing is better settled in our law than that the abolition of an office within the com petence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. 5 the four (4) dissenting votes of the Chief Justice and Justices Zaldivar. to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office.P. ISSUE: Whether or not B. Realistically. 129 is constitutional. In case of removal." Removal is. or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon”. such a construction would be in accordance with the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives between one which would save and another which would invalidate a statute. It was pointed out by Justice Laurel in Zandueta v. of PD 991. . for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished. G. the power of removal of the present incumbents vested in this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. Blg. As to its effect. all the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. respondents. there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. · the power of such replacement 20 days after (Sept 22): Marcos issued (related) PD 1031 (amending 991 by declaring the provisions of PD 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in “barangays” (Citizen assemblies) for the nat’l referendum-plebiscite of Oct 16. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office.R. L-44640 October 12. the effect is one of separation. 129. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER. therefore. entitled “An act reorganizing the Judiciary. He questioned the constitutionality of the law because Congress has no power to remove judges of the judiciary. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. Blg. G. NOT AMENDMENT) Petitioners question the authority of the President in issuing several PDs proposing amendments to the New Constitution and calling for a national referendum-plebiscite for the said amendments. (DEFINE POL QUESTION ONLY. No. B. De La Llana. stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the ref-pleb on Oct 16. et al. citing Art 8 Sec. L-57883 (1982) FACTS: Citing a dire need for judicial reorganization. There is no departure therefore from the tried and tested ways of judicial power. it is devoid of significance. HELD: Yes. Fernando and Teehankee. vs. of course. Moreover. This being the vote of the majority. this Court be consulted and that its view be accorded the fullest consideration. no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office. even one not readily discernible except to those predisposed to view it with distrust. the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Appropriating Funds therefor and for Other Purposes” was passed by the legislature. Judge Gualberto De La LLana’s incumbency as a judge in Olongapo will be terminated by this law. Sept 2. De la Costa that the mere creation of an entirely new district of the same court is valid and constitutional.R. Sec 4. Batas Pambansa Blg. vs Alba. 1976: Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a nat’l referendum on Oct 16 for the citizen’s assemblies (“barangays”) to resolve: the issues of martial law · the period of its existence · the interim assembly · the length of the period · its replacement · for the exercise by the Pres of his present powers. No fear need be entertained that there is a failure to accord respect to the basic principle that this Court does not render advisory opinions. petitioner.P. et al. The challenged Act would thus be free from any unconstitutional taint. PD 1031 repealed. After the abolition.

ISAGANI M. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act. Respondents. For normalization. the President shall have the power to assume the constituent power to propose amendments lodged in the Legislative body. however. 1984. both as to proposal and ratification raises a justiciable question. not the legality of a particular act.. Thereupon.R. as well as Presidential Decree No. 991 and 1033. the Court proceeded to uphold the President’s power. We disagree. both as to proposal and ratification.(2) In a crisis government. HELD: That the amending process. FACTS: As provided for in Batas Pambansa Blg. JUNGCO. Petitioners herein seek to enjoin the submission on January 27. Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom. father and son. What is confronting the SC is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments to the Constitution. 6 In its “whereas” clause. lying outside the domain of judicial review. a function normally exercised by the legislature. As a consequence.] ALEX G. 1984 to either approve or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by Resolution Nos. *(1) The amending process. 1984 of Question Nos. to the people for ratification or rejection on the ground that there has been no fair and proper submission following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. SANIDAD. People reveal their desire to abolish and replace interim Nat’l Assembly through a consti amendment to have a new interim leg. COMELEC (41 SCRA 707). can propose amendments to the Constitution and he was able to present those proposals to the people in sufficient time. ISSUE: WON the issue is a political question. MANUEL ALBA and THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. which cover Resolution Nos. v. but his constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. VARGAS. DORINTINO FLORESTA. since the question is political in nature. ESTANISLAO L. ALMARIO. This is specifically true in cases where the power of the President to initiate the amending process by a proposal of amendment. is seriously doubted. filed a Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Comelec from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. raises a justiciable question. That Sanidads have no standing to sue And at this state of transition period (from ML): only Marcos has the authority to exercise constituent power. the Referendum-- Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis. who was also the legislature. ET AL. 111.. The President. Body. 110. the Filipino electorate will go to the polls on January 27. Sept 27: PABLO and PABLITO V. to be submitted to the people (directly) in the ref-pleb of Oct 16. Petitioners. 104. to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. The proposed amendments are embodied in four (4) separate questions to be answered by simple YES or NO answers. 3 and 4. No. “ The SolGen would consider the question at bar as a pure political one. insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to: · supervise · conduct the Referendum--Plebiscite scheduled on October 16. CESA. 105. L-66088. The petitioners do not seek to prohibit the holding of the plebiscite but only ask for . ref- plebiscite is a step. 1031. This petition is DISMISSED. January 25. The Amending process both as to proposal and ratification. 105 and 113. 112. HON. Contention of Solicitor General: That the court cannot take cognizance. as they propose amendments to the Constitution. beyond judicial cognizance of SC. JR. [G. and 113 of the Batasang Pambansa. 643.” That the validity of the manner of proposing amendments and question were justiciable and not political questions. raises a judicial question. FIDELA Y. · control 197 · hold Pablo and Pablito Sanidad’s contention: They contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution.

etc.” ISSUE: Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later date. for example. HELD: The present provisions of the Constitution are adequate to support any program of the government for the grant of public lands to qualified and deserving citizens or for the implementation of urban land reform. "SUCH PROGRAM MAY INCLUDE THE GRANT OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO QUALIFIED TENANTS. adding the following paragraph to Section 12 of Article XIV of the Constitution. the remedy is to vote "NO" in the plebiscite but not to substitute his or their aversion to the proposed amendments by denying to the millions of voters an opportunity to express their own likes or dislikes. That much the Solicitor General conceded when he stated that the amendments under Question No. Act No." We likewise see no constitutional infirmity to a law passed by the Batasang Pambansa. Questions No. emancipating our tenants and transferring to them ownership of the land they toil. No. any legislation laying down the rules on urban land reform will have to survive the constitutional tests of due process. QUESTION NO. therefore. whether or not "grant" of public land and "urban land reform" are unwise or improvident or whether or not the proposed amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide. Assuming that a member or some members of this Court may find undesirable any additional mode of disposing of public land or an urban land reform program. More important. notably Rep. Precisely. if ratified with an affirmative vote. 105 and 113 until the nature and effect of the proposals are fairly and properly submitted to the electorate. 4. 4 Do you vote for the approval of an amendment to the Constitution as proposed by the Batasang Pambansa in its Resolution Numbered 113. there were several laws enacted attempting at land reform. The questions are presented for their determination. and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. the desirability. farmer. Homesteads and free patents are "grants. that would grant alienable and disposable lands of the public domain not more than twenty four (24) hectares to any qualified tenant. under the present Constitution. since 1972 with the passage of P. . expediency. with the enactment of Commonwealth Act No.” As argued by the Solicitor-General: "‘Agrarian reform program". 21. without mentioning the fact that even prior to this. however. carry the weight of applicable precedents which surround the associated words "homestead" and "purchase" in the same clause of the Constitution. The issue is whether or not the voters are aware of the wisdom. 3 and No. HOMELESS OR INADEQUATELY SHELTERED LOW INCOME RESIDENT CITIZENS REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE LAND AND DECENT HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE IV OF THIS CONSTITUTION. police power. 3844 (1964). farmers and other landless citizens. "THE STATE SHALL MOREOVER UNDERTAKE AN URBAN LAND REFORM AND SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM TO PROVIDE DESERVING LANDLESS. 7 more time for the people to study the meaning and implications of Resolution Nos. Nor is it correct to say that after the agrarian land reform program now being implemented and the agitation for a similar program in urban areas. Similarly. 1972). will serve at most a symbolic purpose. 27 (Oct. now applied to agrarian land reform. the meaning of "urban land reform" is not yet understood.. is that the necessity. amending and compiling the previously scattered laws relative to the conservation and disposition of lands of the public domain. ordaining the agricultural Land Reform Code and instituting land reforms in the country. Any interpretation of "grant" will. 141. More importantly and more to the point. ‘grant’ or ‘land grant or distribution’ are subject matters that have been in the ‘consciousness’ of the Filipino people since Commonwealth days. provide that grant shall be an additional mode for the acquisition of lands belonging to the public domain and that the agrarian reform program may include the grant or distribution of alienable lands of the public domain to qualified tenants. reasonable compensation. 3 Do you vote for the approval of amendments to the Constitution as proposed by the Batasang Pambansa in Resolution Numbered 105 which. The questions to be presented to the electorate at the plebiscite are: QUESTION NO. NOT EXCEEDING THE LIMITATIONS FIXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SECTION. acting pursuant to such law. 3 serve to confirm existing practice pursuant to long standing legislation.D. in substance. The petitioners have failed to make out a case that the average voter does not know the meaning of "grant" of public land or of "urban land reform. FARMERS AND OTHER LANDLESS CITIZENS IN AREAS WHICH THE PRESIDENT MAY BY OR PURSUANT TO LAW RESERVE FROM TIME TO TIME. or the dangers of abuse. equal protection. has been in the ‘consciousness of the Filipino people’. to borrow a phrase from the petitioners. and other landless citizen in areas reserved by the President.

LORENZO M. CATALINA CAYETANO. except a few where there are no local newspapers. Laurel. The existing provisions of the Constitution more than sufficient basis for legislation to achieve the objectives of the proposed amendments. assailed that it would also be a violation of his right to an impartial tria . HELD: Yes. even if the Senate elects its members. DELGADO. Upon reading Question No. 8 The respondents assure us that publication in all provinces and cities. associate Justices Fernando. Fernando Lopez and Cipriano Primicias. for his part. on the other hand. Tañada assailed this process before the Supreme Court. FACTS: After the 1955 national elections. *SET should be composed of 9 members comprised of the following: 3 justices of the Supreme Court. Cuenco argued that the remedy for Tañada and Macapagal was not to raise the issue before judicial courts but rather to leave it before the bar of public opinion. Cuenco and Francisco A. vs. The petitioners have failed to explain why. but the validity of the manner by which power was exercised (constitutionality). And because there is only one minority senator (Tañada as member of the Citizen’s Party) the other two SET members supposed to come from the minority were filled in by the Nacionalista Party upon the nomination of Senator Primicias. Makasiar and Antonio are of the view that the question is political and therefore beyond the competence and cognizance of this Court. As a result. as a member of the Liberalista Party. PLACIDO REYES. Macapagal. TAÑADA and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL. Associate Justices Teehankee. the voter will know whether or not he or she is in favor of an urban land reform program. there is still fair and proper submission. The case at bar is not an action against the Senate compelling them to allow petitioners to exercise duties as members of ET. ALFREDO CRUZ. It is not a political question but rather a justiciable question hence the Court has Jurisdiction over the issue. etc The average voter who goes to the polling place and reads Question No. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and various civic organizations have taken a strong stand for or against the last two proposed questions. 2. as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Television and radio programs regularly broadcast the amendments. FRANCISCO A. homesteads and purchases. inspite of all the above. The Supreme Court is not being asked by Tañada to decide upon the official acts of Senate. will not have any chance in his election contest. The issue is not the power of the Senate to elect or nominate. and FERNANDO HIPOLITO in his capacity as cashier and disbursing officer. The Nacionalista Party chose Senators Jose P. Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules for the Senate. But prior to a decision the SET would have to choose its members. petitioners. The lone opposition senator was Lorenzo Tañada who belonged to the Citizen’s Party. MARIANO JESUS CUENCO. 4 of Senate. The issue being raised by Tañada was whether or not the elections of the 5 NP members to the SET are valid – which is a judicial question. MANUEL SERAPIO. violates Sec. ISSUE: Whether the Court has Jurisdiction over the Issue.respondents. Respondents Senator Mariano Cuenco et al (members of NP) contend that the Court is without jurisdiction to try the appointment of ET members. Delgado as members of the same Electoral Tribunal making the SET composed of 5 Senators from the Majority Party (NP). Art. . has been affected and that Barangays all over the country have been enjoined to hold community gatherings for this purpose. the Senate chose Senators Mariano J. as respondents are about to decide on Electoral Case No. 6 of PC. Diosdado Macapagal. 3 senators from the majority party and 3 senators from the minority party. He argued that if the SET would be dominated by NP senators then he. since 3 seats on the ETare reserved for minority senators duly nominated by the minority party representatives. He alleges that the nomination by Sen. They further contend that it is a political question and thus the court has no jurisdiction over the matter. 3 will know whether or not he or she is in favor of distributing alienable public lands through "grants" in addition to leases. "Upon the third issue. The Court is concerned with the existence and extent of said discretionary powers. 23 members of the Nacionalista Party occupied the Senate. and Muñoz Palma hold that prescinding from the President’s lack of authority to exercise the constituent power to propose the amendments. 4. was a senatorial candidate of the Liberal Party who lost the bid but was contesting it before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). The ET is part of neither House. since it is a constitutional right granted to Senate and it is vested on the senate alone.

· the authority exercised by that department of government which is charged with the declaration of what the law is and its construction so far as it is written law. are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. certiorari is a remedy against judicial function.. the Chairman of the SET. Jr. a question of policy. · the power belonging to or emanating from a judge as such. Represented by his Mother. Jr. (test to determine whether a tribunal or board exercises judicial functions): 1) there must be specific controversy involving rights of persons brought before a tribunal for hearing and determination 2) that the tribunal must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a decision. the "third placer" Teodoro Santiago. 9 *The term Political Question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance. · "Committee On The Rating Of Students For Honor" (composed of the respondents-appellees) was constituted for the purpose of selecting the "honor students" of its graduating class. nor board. namely. of a particular measure. under Rule 65. represented by his mother. or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. involving the exercise of judgment and discretion in the determination of questions of right in specific cases affecting the interest of persons or property. · the power conferred upon a public officer. C. as distinguished from ministerial power or authority to carry out the mandates of judicial power or the law. Patricia Liñgat as second honor and Teodoro C. as third honor. · the authority vested in some court. This is still valid provided the majority members of the SET (referring to those legally sitting) concurred with the Chairman. apparently already appointed members that would fill in the minority seats (even though those will come from the majority party). Cases on Judicial Power in General 2) TEODORO C. . ROMEO AGUSTIN. SOLEDAD FRANCISCO and MR. · Respondents argue that the Committee on Ratings is not a tribunal. and with his father as counsel. Mrs. RULING: A judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers. not legality. In this case. or persons to hear and determine when the rights of persons or property or the propriety of doing an act is the subject matter of adjudication. (Minor. MILKITA INAMAC. The exercise of judicial function is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. Santiago. AURORA LORENA. *The election of respondents Cuenco & Delgado void ab initio. Angelita C. sought the invalidation of the "ranking of honor students". FACTS: Teodoro Santiago. ROSALINDA ALPAS. LUNA SARMAGO. was a pupil in Grade Six at the public school named Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. · the authority or power vested in the judges or in the courts. MISS JUANITA BAUTISTA. FLOR MARCELO respondents-appellees. In order for an action for certiorari to exist. officer. ISSUE: Whether judicial function is exercised in this case. the SET may set its own rules in situations like this provided such rules comply with the Constitution. Besides. under the Constitution. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom. SANTIAGO. exercising judicial functions. But how should the gridlock be resolved? The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the supposed seat of the minority members) must not come from the majority party. · The committee deliberated and finally adjudged Socorro Medina as first honor. REBECCA MATUGAS. · Three days before the school’s graduation. Jr. AIDA CAMINO. It refers to those questions which. JR. vs. 3) the tribunal must pertain to that branch of the sovereign which belongs to the judiciary Judicial power defined: · as the authority to determine the rights of persons or property by arbitrating between adversaries in specific controversies at the instance of a party thereto. Santiago) petitioner-appellant.

the word "departments" in these sections to mean the several divisions among which are . The court could not maintain its independence and dignity as the Constitution intends if the Executive personally or through subordinate officials could determine for the court what it should or use in the discharge of its functions. BUT the provisions speak of departments. The term "judicial power" does not necessarily include the power to hear and determine a matter that is not in the nature of a suit or action between the parties. Inc. or some matter incidental thereto. furniture and equipment for the use of the government is governed by the Revised Admin Code and various orders of the Executive Dept. 3) Radiowealth v Agregado (1950) Facts: ● The SC purchased a Webster Teletalk Model 206A and 6 Webster Telephone speakers (intercom apparatus) from Radiowealth. They do not speak of the legislature or the Supreme Court. Without the power to provide itself with appropriate instruments for the performance of its duties. Casimiro Dacanay disapproved the purchase and installation because it is contrary to EO 302 (administrative regulations covering the procedure to be followed in making regular and emergency purchase of supplies. That the Property Requisition Committee be declared dissolved. the power which adjudicates upon and protects the rights and interests of individual citizens.” The Chief Executive has no more authority to encroach on the Supreme Court in the choice of the instruments needed to carry on its functions than the court has to dictate to the executive what. The purchase was said to be made because of their need for an emergency. ● Agregado likewise disapproved and referred the papers to the Chief Justice. we believe. furniture and equipment for the government) and a policy they adopted for the discontinuance of open market purchases ● The auditor of the SC refused to countersign the warrant for the payments. and to insure effectiveness in the administration of justice. · the power of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment. and when and how it should obtain them. it is within its power free from encroachment by the Executive to acquire books and other office equipment reasonably needed to the convenient transaction of its business. materials. the prerogatives of this court which the Constitution secures against interference includes not only the powers to adjudicate causes but all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice. praying: 1. It includes the power to hear and determine but not everyone who may hear and determine has judicial power. The Revised Administrative Code regulates the purchase of government supplies and directs that such purchase should be effected through the Bureau of Supply. commenting that the purchase of emergency supplies. bureaus. they have power to preserve their integrity. but there was no evidence to show that the requirements of the law and/or regulations aforecited had been complied with. and offices. and to that end construes and applies the law. so Radiowealth took the matter up with Auditor General Manuel Agregado. That the respondent Auditor General be ordered to countersign the treasury warrant ISSUE: Is the purchase of the apparatus a matter that the Executive Dept should have a say on? Can the Judicial Dept make purchases without the prior approval of the Executive Dept? HELD: Yes. "Judicial power" implies the construction of laws and the adjudication of legal rights. ● As Chairman of Property Requisition Committee (Exec Dept). ● Radiowealth filed a petition. The purchase of the necessary equipment would contribute to a more effective judiciary. when and how to get his. with a total amount of P585. the express powers with which the Constitution endows it would become useless. materials. The Court ruled: “Contrary to the Auditor General's theory. requesting that the payments be approved. 10 · the power exercised by courts in hearing and determining cases before them.00 ● The SC clerk certified that the purchase and installation of the apparatus (on the 2nd and 3rd floor of the Malacanang which housed the SC) were of urgent character and necessary to public service. The judiciary has the power to maintain its existence. and of which they have jurisdiction. So. and its powers be left to be performed by the Auditor General alone 2. maintain their dignity.

emoluments. much less modify or reverse. petitioner.000. PURISIMA in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. ISSUE: Whether the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court. files for mandamus to compel Cabanos (President of Phil. The said grant of privileges is unconstitutional. This is one of the express hesitations upon the power of Courts imposed by General Order No. as Executive Secretary FACTS: Petitioner Antonio Noblejas is the duly appointed Commissioner of Land Registration. On March 17. This being the case.” Noblejas then answered that as stated in RA 1151. as Secretary of Justice. order or act issued. and consolidated-subdivision plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by original titles. dated Sept." Outside of these exceptions his duty to approve the payments is mandatory. Lina claims she was removed from office by Cabanos who acted in grave abuse of discretion and authority forcibly excluded petitioner from the position without valid cause. He then filed the next day a petition claiming lack of jurisdiction and abuse of discretion. and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance”. and Rafael M. 1081. the petitioner received a communication of suspension with the grounds of gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to public interest. "irregular. a bureau nor an office within the meaning of the provisions. petitioner had a right to appeal from her dismissal. Julio Tamondong. unnecessary. the respondents admitted the facts but denied that the Commissioner is entitled with the same privileges in terms of investigation as of a district judge— who can only be investigated by the Supreme Court. Said general order provides: I do hereby further order that the Judiciary shall continue to function in accordance with its present organization and personnel. excessive and extravagant. and would reduce the protanto the control of the Chief Executive over such officials. Those involving the validity. In response. consolidation. 4) Noblejas vs. or any other court process. which means that he could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as them. Such grant would give the Supreme Court the administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials. 21. Since her removal is pursuant to a Letter of Instruction issued by the President pursuant to Proclamation No. legality. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK. whether by means of the writ of certiorari and/or mandamus. a position created by RA 1151. 1972. LINA. or constitutionality of any decree. Salas. 1968. except the following cases: 1. It now appears from the annexes of the amended petition that petitioner was dismissed by Cabanos pursuant to Letters of Instruction No. Teenhankee Petitioner: Antonio H. as Commissioner of Land Registration Respondents: Claudio Teenhankee. respondents. But the appeal was denied. and the venue of the appeal is the Office of the President. the validity or legality of said act is beyond the power of the courts to review. The cost of the equipment and labor has been certified to be the lowest obtainable on the market. . FACTS: Lualhati Lina was a bookkeeper at Philippines Veterans Bank. 11 distributed the functions and duties devolving upon the Chief Executive. The Auditor General may not question the court's expenditures except when they are. respondent Secretary of Justice required the Commissioner to explain in writing in not later than two (2) days as to why there is no disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioner for “approving or recommending approval of subdivision. The Honorable AMANTE P. She did appeal. nor basis in law. HELD: No. granting him a salary the same with a district judge— P 19. 1972. and there is appropriation from which the items may lawfully be paid for.) LUALHATI L. Noblejas. for it violates the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers. Petitioner. in the words of the organic law. 14 and No. he enjoys the same ranks and privileges as of a district judge.3 issued by the President on September 22. 19-A. and to be suspended and removed upon its recommendation. 1081. it also states that the removal of petitioner was 'upon recommendation of Branch Manager. The Supreme Court is neither a department. promulgated or performed by me or by my duly designated representative pursuant to Proclamation No. and shall try and decide in accordance with existing laws all criminal and civil cases. Lina. The same act also provides that the Commissioner is “entitled to the same compensation. 1968. On March 7. would also grant the same right to those executive officials whom the Legislature has indiscriminately conferred the same privileges. for being notoriously undesirable. 5. vs. It would also be implied that the right of the Commissioner to be investigated only by the Supreme Court. Veterans Bank) to restore Lina to her position. and ESTEBAN CABANOS.

dated Sept. Macaraig was not able to assume the duties and functions of a judge due to the fact that his Court Room cannot be properly established due to problems as to location and as to appropriations to make his Court up and running. convinced Macaraig to forego his leave and instead to assist the Secretary. Jr. due to pressure of duties. have long been acknowledged as more paramount than the serving of any temporary or passing governmental conveniences or exigencies. none of these is to be taken as meaning that the Court looks with favor at the practice of long standing. of judges being detailed in the DOJ to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over the courts. and the validity or legality of said act is beyond the power of the courts to review. whenever he was not busy attending to the needs of his court. Macaraig’s inability to perform his judicial duties under the circumstances mentioned above does not constitute incompetence. Those involving the validity. ISSUE: Whether or not Macaraig has acted with incompetence and dishonesty as Judge. 21. Paz Garcia on the other hand filed a complaint alleging that Macaraig is incompetent. The fundamental advantages and the necessity of the independence of said three departments from each other. Judge Catalino Macaraig. whenever it feels the best interests of justice would be thereby subserved. Foregoing considered. 39 SCRA 106 (1971) FACTS: 1. On the other hand. HELD: No. The court. to be sure. limited only by the specific constitutional precepts on check and balance between and among them. the amended petition is dismissed ISSUE: Whether or not the removal of Lina was pursuant to LOI issued by the President pursuant to Proclamation 1081. 1972. 1971. but forces and circumstances beyond his control prevented him from discharging his judicial duties. Macaraig was. When Macaraig realized that it would be some time before he could actually preside over his court. 4. The line between what a judge may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the other great departments of the government must always be kept clear and jealously observed. however. 5. and it further appears that all the facts needed for a complete determination of the whole controversy are already before the Court undisputed or uncontroverted by the parties. 2. 12 2. orders or acts issued.) HELD: In any case elevated to this Court for the correction of any supposed procedural error of any lower court. and instead. It is thus of grave importance to the judiciary under our present constitutional scheme of government that no judge of even the lowest court in this Republic should place himself in a position where his actuations on matters submitted to him for action or resolution would be subject to review and . had to be organized from scratch. From July 1. eager to assume his judicial duties and rid himself of the stigma of being ‘a judge without a sala’. 1970 to February 28. the Supreme Court may already resolve the pertinent determinative issues and render the final judgment on the merits. Garcia v. dispense with the usual procedure of remanding the case to the court of origin for its own judgment. he applied for an extended leave (during the 16 years he had worked in the Department of Justice. legality or constitutionality of any rules. it should be found that indeed there has been a mistake. took his oath as Judge of the CFI of Laguna and San Pablo City on June 29. never gone on extended leave. And that Macaraig has received salaries as a judge while he is fully aware that he has not been performing the duties of a judge. the Supreme Court may at its option. promulgated or performed by public servants pursuant to decrees. dishonest and has acted in violation of his oath as a judge. 1081. orders. 3. much less modify. being one of the 112 newly created CFI branches. a department of the executive in charge of prosecution of cases. he had. resulting in his forfeiting all the leave benefits he had earned beyond the maximum ten months allowed by the law). or reverse. rules and regulations issued and promulgated by me or by my duly designated representative pursuant to Proclamation No. The Secretary of Justice. Macaraig. Also questioned was the fact that a member of the judiciary is helping the the DOJ. lest the principle of separation of powers on which our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions in the interest of the public service. (This is one of the express limitations upon the power of the Courts in GENERAL ORDER # 3 by President Marcos. without being extended a formal detail. 1970. Garcia said that Macaraig has not submitted the progress of his Courts as required by law. like every lawyer who gets his first appointment to the bench.

and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc. only 33 bills were acted upon. It may sit en banc or in its discretion. ISSUE: WON the cityhood laws converting the 16 municipalities into cities constitutional. before they can have legal effect. During the 12 th Congress. this Court should do no less by stamping its imprimatur to the clear and unmistakable legislative intent and by duly recognizing the certain collective wisdom of Congress. During the 13th Congress. It amends section 450 of the Local Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement from Php20 million to Php100 million.. X of the Constitution because they prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to local government units. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and. the 12th Congress ended without the Senate approving the Joint Resolution No. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. 4: The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. or law. The SC Ruling: “We should not ever lose sight of the fact that the 16 cities covered by the Cityhood Laws not only had conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress. as the case may be. or operation of presidential decrees. Art. It was then approved by the House of Representatives on December 22. 57 bills were filed before the House of Representatives seeking for the conversion of municipalities into component cities. following the advice of Senator Pimentel. Hence. 10. 2009 Decision: The SC (voting 6-4) reversed its November 18. in divisions of three. that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc . instructions. which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc. which took effect on June 30. orders. X of the Constitution requires that such exemption must be written into the LGC and not into any other laws. 29. the Court feels very strongly that it is best that this practice is discontinued. five. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. must be strictly followed because such criteria prescribed by law. Sec. without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. 29. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.” November 18. 9009. ordinances. worst still. prescribe. Congress enacted into law Republic Act No. the case shall be decided en banc: Provided. deliberations and clear legislative intent was that the then pending cityhood bills would be outside the pale .A. application. by any authority other than the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. shall be automatically and regularly released.. 13 prior approval and. Sec. and other regulations. League of Cities of the Philippines vs. When the required number is not obtained. proclamations. “The Cityhood Laws violate sec. Needless to say. 16 of the 24 municipalities filed their individual cityhood bills through their respective sponsors. 3: The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. 2006. COMELEC th FACTS: During the 11 Congress. Art. after approval. and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. The criteria. However. The amendment was done to restrain the rush of the municipalities to convert into cities solely to secure a larger share in the Internal Revenue Allotment despite the fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence. Congress undeniably gave these cities all the considerations that justice and fair play demanded. including those involving the constitutionality. international or executive agreement. However. 2008 decision and declared it as constitutional. the House of Representatives adopted Joint Resolution No. as prescribed in sec. HELD: Yes. 2: The Congress shall have the power to define. 450 of the Local Government Code. or seven Members. It said that based on Congress. and in no case. 6. but have also complied with the requirements of the LGC prescribed prior to its amendment by R. 9009. No. 2008 Decision: The SC (voting 6-5) ruled that the exemptions in the City Laws is unconstitutional because sec. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. which sought to exempt from the income requirement in RA 9009. reversal.” December 21. (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. The bills contained a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalities from the annual income requirement in RA 9009. 2001. After which. are material in determining the ‘just share’ of the Local Government Units in national taxes. it is constitutional. Sec.

Since Section 14 interrupts some of the powers of the displaced Justices. as a body. Hence. If. RILLORAZA FACTS: Petitioner filed a motion assailing the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People’s Court Act (Commonwealth Act No. but it may sit in five divisions of three Judges each. HELD: No because it violates the doctrine on separation of power. They will be chosen among the pool of District Judges of First Instance. again without prejudice to proper cases of disqualification under Rule 126. or Cadastral Judges to be temporary members of the Supreme Court to complete the quorum. section 1 of the Rules of Court.” ISSUES: The Supreme Court decided to approach this question from these angles: (a) Whether or not the Congress had power to as to the preexisting grounds of disqualification of a Justice of the Supreme Court. majority of those who will review cases from the People’s Court would be “Temporary Justices. Methods in Judging: The People’s Court shall. and the Public Service Commissioner. The Court held that the favourable treatment accorded the sixteen municipalities by the Cityhood Laws rests on substantial distinction. the Securities and Exchange Commissioner. What it aims to do: The Commonwealth Act aims to create a People’s Court that will try and decide all cases of crimes against national security (ex. 8. on account of such disqualification. that provided for in said Section 14. (well this is at least my interpretation. 1941 and Sept. Who will comprise the People’s Court: The People’s Court will be comprised of a Presiding Judge and fourteen Associate Judges. and RA 9009 would not have any retroactive effect insofar as the Cityhood Bills are concerned. the imperatives of fairness dictate that they should be given a legal remedy by which they should be allowed to prove that they have all the necessary qualifications for city status using the criteria set forth under the Local Government Code of 1991 prior to its amendment by RA 9009. Cadastral Judges. who shall be appointed by the President. What is the commonwealth act? Title: an act creating a people’s court and an office of special prosecutors for the prosecution and trial of crimes against national security committed during the second world war. the President may designate such number of Judges of First Instance. instrumentality and/or agency thereof. Judges-at-large of First Instance. having none of the disqualifications set forth in said section one hereof. “Thus. or on account of illness. challenges the supposedly “uninterrupted continuity” in the tenure of Justices in exercising his powers and fulfilling his duty. absence or temporary disability the requisite number of Justices necessary to constitute a quorum or to render judgment in any case is not present. with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. 2. According to the Supreme Court. Judges-at-large of First Instance. Until when is it valid: It will cease to exist once the President certifies that all cases filed have been tried and disposed. in order to form a quorum or until a judgment in said case is reached. In case that a Justice or Justices are disqualified on the account that they were members of the aforementioned groups this section provides that the President may designate Judges of First Instance. as may be necessary to sit temporarily as Justices of said Court. or Cadastral Judges. the deprivation of his or their judicial power is equivalent to the deprivation of the judicial power of the court itself. Final decisions and orders of the People’s Court will be reviewed by the Supreme Court who shall sit en banc and decide the case promptly without filing placing it upon the regular calendar. 1945. Section 14 of the Commonwealth Act. Judges- at-large of First Instance. To impose on them the much higher income requirement after what they have gone through would appear to be indeed unfair. 2159 proposes. it added. treason and espionage) committed between Dec. as is the case with the Justices of this Court.) IMPLICATION OF SECTION 14: Only four of the Justices that time were not adversely affected by this disqualification. This is premised on the belief that a disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial power if that judge is the one designated by the constitution to exercise the jurisdiction of his court. The sessions will be held in the City Manila unless public interest justifies otherwise. 1)VARGAS VS. which provides for the disqualification of a Justice on the grounds mentioned above. a Justice must be left unhampered to exercise all the powers and fulfill all the responsibilities of said office in all cases properly coming before his Court under the constitution. 14 of the miimum income requirement of Php100 million that Senate Bill No. 682). it is unconstitutional. Please note that the Commonwealth Act mandates the Supreme Court En banc (emphasis here) to review the cases. The Court stressed that respondent Local Government Units were qualified cityhood applicants before the enactment of RA 9009. if Section 14 is applied. but not its property as such. Judges of the Court of Industrial Relations. sit en banc. The conversion of a municipality into a city will only affect its status as a political unit. or because of any of the grounds of disqualification of judges in Rule 126. and for other purposes. . The Section in question: Section 14. A Re-statement: This section basically aims to disqualify Justices of the Supreme Court who were members of the PEC or the Second Philippine Republic from reviewing the cases coming from the People’s Court. Any Justice of the Supreme Court who held any office or position under the Philippine Executive Commission[1] or under the government called Philippine Republic[2] may not sit and vote in any case brought to that Court under section thirteen hereof in which the accused is a person who held any office or position under either or both the Philippine Executive Commission and the Philippine Republic or any branch.

It is evident here that there is a huge gap in the qualifications. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FACTS: It appears the Seamen entered into separate contracts of employment with the VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES. And the infringement is enhanced and aggravated where a majority of the members of the Court — as in this case — are replaced by judges of first instance. they cannot sit as Temporary Judges. the company sent another cablegram to Bisulan telling them that the membership fee of 28 crew were already been paid.) VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES. which reputedly can tie down a vessel in a port by preventing its loading or unloading. in representation of the other seamen (officers and crew members) . The “designees” do not need to be confirmed by the Commission of Elections Furthermore. (ITF is the acronym for the International Transport Workers Federation. Since they are acting as Temporary Justices they should as well be qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice since they will be acting as such albeit temporarily. In principle. 15 Also. there is no escaping the fact that he would be participating in the deliberations and acts of the Supreme Court. Unnecessary to prove or impute sinister motives behind the statutory disqualification. The Constitution mandates that the members of the Supreme Court should be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission of Appointments. Let it not be argued that the Court is the same. engaging them to work on board M/T' Jannu for a period of twelve (12) months. of the Constitution do not admit any composition of the Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice and Associate Justices therein mentioned appointed as therein provided. a "temporary member" thereof would be a misnomer. And the constitution provides for only one Supreme Court. Judge at large of First Instance. or Cadastral Judge. HELD: No. This is a sanction resorted to by ITF to enforce the payment of its wages rates for seafarers the so-called ITF rates. and thus decisively influence the decision. implying a position not contemplated by the constitution. sent cablegram informing the Company that the officers and crew members not contented with their present salaries 'based on the volume of works. There can be no doubt that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices required by section 4 of Article VIII of the Constitution to compose the Supreme Court — indeed. sections 4 and 5. The master of the vessel complainant Rogelio H. if Section 14 is promulgated. only the membership being different. his vote would count as much as that of any regular Justice of the Court.S. The framers of the Constitution intended the Supreme Court to function through its members as defined in Section 4 and 5 of Article VII of the Constitution and for this members to be appointed pursuant to Section 6 of the same Article. if the wages of the crew members of a vessel who have affiliated with it are below its prescribed rates). but maintaining the permanence and the inalterability of Court which is enshrined in the Constitution. vs. designated by the President under the same section can constitutionally "sit temporarily as Justice" of the Supreme Court by virtue thereof. So ordered. (c) Whether or not by the method of "designation" created by the afore cited section 14 a Judge of First Instance. There is no also provision in the constitution that allows the temporary constitution of the Supreme Court. a militant international labor organization with affiliates in different ports of the world. depriving Philippine citizens of their right of impartial awards from judges selected without any reference to the parties or interest to be affected. (b) Whether or not a person may act as a Justice of the Supreme Court who has not been duly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments pursuant to the constitution. it can enable the Congress in specific situations to order that Judge X shall not decide the controversy between Y and Z or that Justice M shall not sit in the appeal of P. the designees need not be at least forty years of age. Bisula. and if allowed to do so. INC. and so on ad infinitum. After 2 months. 2. Even if the action or participation of a judge designated under section 14 of the People's Court Act in a collaboration case of the class therein defined. because under said section he need only have practiced law for a period of not less than five years or have held during a like period within the Philippines an office requiring a lawyer's diploma. Such legislative power might thus be wielded to interfere with the functions of the judiciary. Section For the foregoing consideration. nor have more than ten years or more been a judge of a court of record or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines (as required by section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution). what really matters is not the length or shortness of the constitutional composition of the Court.That the officers and crew (were) not interested in ITF membership if not . Rogelio Bisula. for or against one party litigant. even only as a "designee" (***designees are those who will act as Temporay Justices as appointed by the President) ; HELD: No. It is distinctly another Supreme Court in addition to this. Because Article VIII. received a cablegram from the Company advising him of the possibility that the vessel might be directed to call at ITF-controlled ports said at the same time informing him of the procedure to be followed in the computation of the special or additional compensation of crew members while in said ports. Since the designees have not been appointed and confirmed pursuant to said sections 5 and 6. it is declared and ordered: (a) that section 14 of the People's Court Act is unconstitutional in the respects specified in the body of this resolution; and (b) that this case be dealt with henceforward in pursuance of and in harmony with this resolution. as the appellate tribunal in such a case. type of ship with hazardous cargo and registered in a worldwide trade.

2. (Albert v. Inc.) In the rare instances when one Division disagrees in its views with the other Division. When the vessel arrived in Japan the seamen where repatriated to Manila. Tugade v. claiming that its principals had terminated their manning agreement because of the actuations of the Seamen which the NSB granted. the petitioner's comment on the third motion for reconsideration states that the resolution of the motion might be the needed vehicle to make the ruling in the Wallem case clearer and more in time with the underlying principles of the Labor Code. Court of Appeals. the law requires that all manning contracts shall be approved by said agency. a First Division case with the same facts and issues. Conformably to the power vested in the NSB. the NLRC required the Vir-Jen Shipping Inc. Court of First Instance. ISSUE: 1. We are constrained to answer the initial question in the affirmative. the Court. such as the local Filipino recruiting agent. complete. unitary. and other pleadings related thereto. Whether or not the termination of the seamen is illegal. Article X. that there is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts are required to take their bearings. Shipping Inc. or the necessary votes on an issue cannot be had in a Division. 1981). A fundamental postulate of Philippine Constitutional Law is the fact. Any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court. The majority of the Court's work is now performed by its two Divisions. 23 SCRA 948. Barrera v. 16 actually paid with ITF rate and that their demand is only 50% increase based on present basic salary (They compare the Company's salary rates 'especially in tankers with other shipping agencies in Manila). . and perspicacious consideration of the motions for reconsideration and the comments. 85 SCRA 226). when the Court states what the law is. therefore. but the Court remains one court. resolved to transfer the case to the Court en banc. INC is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Barrera. The petition of VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES. the motions for reconsideration of SEAMEN are hereby GRANTED. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED. single. the Company proposed a 25% increase in the basic pay of the complainant crew members. NB: Technically there are two court division 1 st ruled that termination of seamen is illegal (I assume the 1 st Division is the NLRC di kasi nakalagay) and the 2nd division which set aside the decision of NLRC and sustains the NSB’s decision (it is here also the seamen file motion for reconsideration twice). the case is brought to the Court en banc to reconcile any seeming conflict. the Court en banc is constrained to grant the motions. (Section 2(3). No costs. v. The stringent rules governing Filipino seamen abroad foreign ships are dictated by national interest. YES . and supreme. while ' individual Justices may dissent or partially concur with one another. 34 SCRA 98. The NLRC reversed the decision of the NSB on the ground that the termination of the contract was without valid cause. To grant the motion is to keep faith with the constitutional mandate to afford protection to labor and to assure the rights of workers to self-organization and to just and humane conditions of work. painstaking. February 20. the foreign owner of vessel and the Filipino seamen in general as well as the country itself. Hon. After an exhaustive. 2. Minister of Labor (L-50734-37. WHEREFORE. YES 1. The termination of the contract of the seamen was illegal. and to declare the Court's doctrine. The seamen appealed the decision of the NSB to the National Labor Relations Commision (NLRC). The proposal was accepted by the Seamen with certain conditions which were accepted by the Company. HELD: 1. Flowing from this nature of the Supreme Court is the fact that. may be modified or reversed only by the Court en banc. Subsequently. Parenthetically. And that voice being authoritative should be a clear as possible. to pay the wages and other monetary benefits corresponding to the unexpired portion of the employment contract. This is what has happened in this case. Minister of Labor (102 SCRA 835). In reply. it speaks with only one voice. Constitution. The case was referred to and accepted by the Court en banc because of the movants' contention that the decision in this case by the Second Division deviated from Wallem Phil. replies. to reverse or modify an earlier decision. v. Faced with two seemingly conflicting resolutions of basically the same issue by its two Divisions. speaking through the First Division. We agree with the petitioner. in Wallem Shipping. A manning contract involves the interests not only of the signatories thereto. The decision sought to be reconsidered appears to be a deviation from the Court's decision. Also. Whether or not the Court en banc should give due course to the motion for reconsideration inspite of its having been denied twice by the Court's Second Division?. 2. the Company sought authority from the NSB to cancel the contracts of employment of the Seamen. whether en banc or in Division. We sustain the decision of the respondent National labor Relations Commission.

private respondent cannot bring an action for damages against the petitioner if there is an absence of reservation. HELD: No. On January 31. Institution of criminal and civil actions. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. 253 SCRA FACTS: Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. that the right to bring an action for damages under the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule 111. . reserves his right to institute it separately. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions. Florido. 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly provides: Section 1.But the trial court. from Baguio City proper to its plant site at the Export Processing Authority in Loakan. the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. there being fault or negligence.1 and Abellana v. . unless the offended party waives the civil action. II. and damages under Articles 32. denied petitioners motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Branch III. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. 1992. 1991. 1990 against petitioner’s driver. CA. 33. as a general rule.). which it held allowed a civil action for damages to be filed independently of the criminal action even though no reservation to file the same has been made ISSUE: The question is whether despite the absence of such reservation. one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado along Loakan Road. except only (1) when such action arising from the same act or omission. citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver .When a criminal action is instituted. Such fault or negligence. . On the basis of Rule 111.. 1990. Inc. the action could proceed independently of the criminal action. 2 Marave. private respondent may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner under the following provisions of the Civil Code: Art. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals. as originally provided in Rule 111 before the amendment of the Rules of Court in 1988. (2) the right to bring it separately is reserved or . 2176. 2176 of the Civil Code must be reserved otherwise they will be deemed instituted with the criminal action. On January 7. the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition on the authority of Garcia v. on April 19. In other words the right of the injured party to sue separately for the recovery of the civil liability whether arising from crimes or from quasi delict under Art. a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed on March 2. impliedly instituted with the criminal action. A month later. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code. 1 clearly requires that a reservation must be made to institute separately all civil actions for the recovery of civil liability. in its order dated August 30. Herminio Andaya. or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. As a result of the accident. Rule 111. a civil case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner himself . Art. as the court concluded. 1 I. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused Rule 111. 1-3. . .Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him. (Phils. 17 Maniago vs. in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. maintaining that the civil action could not proceed independently of the criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it separately had been made in the criminal case. otherwise they will be deemed to have been instituted with the criminal case. 2180. which is the subject of the criminal action. is waived. Baguio City. a civil action for the recovery of civil liability is. 1990. Such civil actions are not limited to those which arise from the offense charged. Baguio City.

impost. (2) Review. or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. and habeas corpus. pleading. Had the driver been convicted and found insolvent. his employer would have been held subsidiarily liable for damages. [G. and procedure in all courts. 2004] . or modify substantive rights. assessment. 5: The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. or toll. prohibition. mandamus. increase. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. bus driver. 29 of the Civil Code. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. but merely an expression of the superiority of the Constitution. The party being the one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the acts complained of. modify. or regulation is in question. law. 149848. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. there would be no possibility that the employer would be held liable because in such a case there would be no pronouncement as to the civil liability of the accused. Power of Judicial Review: the power of the Courts to test the validity of the Executive and Legislative acts in light of their conformity with the Constitution. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax. In the present case. practice. revise. But if the right to bring a separate civil action is reserved. There is a practical reason for requiring that the right to bring an independent civil action under the Civil Code separately must be reserved. as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. Requisites: 1. other public ministers and consuls. If he fails to reserve the filing of a separate civil action he will be deemed to have elected to recover damages from the bus driver on the basis of the crime. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. November 25. the criminal action was filed against the employee. the admission to the practice of law. Actual case or controversy: a conflict of legal rights. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. Legal standing: Constitutional question must be raised by the proper party. The rule requiring reservation in the end serves to implement the prohibition against double recovery for the same act or omission. 4. 3. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. the Integrated Bar. international or executive agreement. reverse. and over petitions for certiorari. the acquittal of the accused will not bar recovery of civil liability unless the acquittal is based on a finding that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist because of Art. Determination of the constitutionality of the statute must be necessary to a final determination of the case. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. and shall not diminish. As held in Barredo v. 18 (3) such action has been instituted prior to the criminal action.R. presidential decree. This is not an assertion of superiority by the courts over the other departments. quo warranto. Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Sec. It is to avoid the filing of more than one action for the same act or omission against the same party. In such case the institution of a separate and independent civil action under the Civil Code would not result in the employee being held liable for the same act or omission. instruction. or affirm on appeal or certiorari. In this case case his cause of action against the employer will be limited to the recovery of the latter’s subsidiary (bus driver) liability under Art. Even if an action has not been reserved or it was brought before the institution of the criminal case. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. proclamation. No. ordinance. order. an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial determination 2. Garcia the injured party must choose which of the available causes of action for damages he will bring.

Jurisdiction covers Marawi City and the province of Lanao Del Sur. BONCODIN – DBM SEC FACTS: Republic Act No. As to the Department Order. On March 2001 Basilan and Marawi City voted to join ARMM." Item No. 9054). To compel the DBM Sec from releasing budgets for the mentioned case “There is no similar basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel respondent DBM Secretary to release funds appropriated for public works projects in Marawi City and Lanao del Sur to the DPWH ARMM First Engineering District in Lanao del Sur and to compel respondent DPWH Secretary to allow the DPWHARMM. 6734 – An Act Providing for An Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.al.On July 2001. RUBEN TORRES. respectively.A. It violates the regional autonomy under the constitution thru RA 6074 – Province of Lanao Del Sur minus Marawi City. ADELPHA FERNANDEZ. HON. was enacted pursuant to the said constitutional mandate . 6734.” 1-A. . First Engineering District in Lanao del Sur to implement all public works projects within its jurisdictional area.in their capacity as Officer-in-Charge and District Engineer/Engineer II. 1 of the assailed DOLE Circular provides as follows: 1. The Secretary of Labor and Employment may. only 4 voted for the creation of ARMM. 9054 (R. X Sec. RA 8999 ventures to re-establish National Governments jurisdiction over infrastructures in Lanao del Sur. 01-91 dated 20 November 1991 entitled "Prescribing Additional Requirements. harassment. entitled An Act to Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. RA 9054 then lapsed.A.Congress later passed Republic Act No. DATUMANONG – DPWH SEC EMILIA T. Petition seeking for writ of mandamus against respondents is denied. (Lanao del Sur. of the first Engineering District of DPWH-ARMM in Lanao del Sur vs. Sulu. entitled An Act Providing for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. and Tawi-tawi) EO 246 . In all cases. Prohibit the DPWH Sec from implementing RA 8999 and DO 119. singers and members of dance troupes. 8999) . it has tasked the Marawi SubDistrict Engineering Office with functions that have already been devolved to the DPWHARMM First Engineering District in Lanao del Sur. et al. Maguindanao. RA 9054 superceded / repeals the RA 8999. the performing artists must have a track record of legitimate and reputable performance in the Philippines for at least one year. et. rape and even death suffered by female performing artists and . as Amended. DIMALOTANG . 2. exempt performing artists from coverage hereof. and the release of funds for projects intended for Lanao del Sur and Marawi City to the Marawi Sub District. In no case shall the performing artists be below 23 years old. 1 of DOLE Circular No.Two (2) years later Pres. SECRETARY OF LABOR. Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 119 .Placing the Control and Supervision of the Offices of the Department of Public Works and Highways within the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao under the Autonomous Regional Government. Nine (9) years later. The former advances the regional autonomy. physical injuries.No Filipino entertainer shall be deployed outside the Philippines except for legitimate performing artists consisting of musicians.Creation of Marawi SubDistrict Engineering Office History Art. for justifiable reasons. Respondents SIMEON A.A. the Disomangcop and Dimalotang addressed a petition to Datumanong ISSUE: Are RA 8999 and DO 119 unconstitutional/inoperative? HELD: Yes. Estrada approved and signed into law RA 8999 creating the First Engineering District of Lanao Del Sur and appropriating funds therefor. 1 and 15 – constitutional mandate that created ARMM and CAR R. vs. and for other purposes . FACTS: Petitioners seek certiorari and prohibition to prohibit and restrain the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment ("DOLE") and the Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration ("POEA") from enforcing and implementing Item No.ARMM was formally organized on 6 November 1990. 8999 (R. It was promulgated in response to the growing number of documented reports and complaints about the exploitative working conditions. DPWH Sec Gregorio Vigilar issued DO 119 creating the Marawi Sub-District Engineering Office. forcible detention. . They eventually became the ARMM.An Act Establishing An Engineering District in the First District of the Province of Lanao del Sur and Appropriating Funds DPWH Department Order No. (Note: Marawi is a City of Lanao Del Sur) . DISOMANGCOP and RAMIR M. Conditions and Procedures for the Deployment of Performing Artists.calls for the holding of a plebiscite in several provinces. 19 ARSADI M.

Because a comprehensive prohibition of such deployment would obviously adversely affect the economy. for then there comes into play regard for the court's duty to avoid decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion. 1. It admits of exception. Obviously. was convened to evaluate a Government proposal for a complete interdiction of overseas deployment of Philippine entertainers and performing artists. 1. Nor that respondent officials have arbitrarily denied their applications for exemption from the minimum age requirement or from any other requirement establishment by Item No. Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually solid the problem may be. They challenge the constitutional validity of Item No. Petitioners had not previously applied with the Secretary of Labor for exemption from the coverage of the Circular in line with the afore-quoted provision. 2) Official duty has been or will be regularly performed. fairly explicit and precisely drawn grounds for exempting particular performing artists from the coverage of Item No. the First National Tripartite Conference for the Protection of Overseas Entertainers. and (2) that it was promulgated by public respondent DOLE Secretary and POEA Administrator without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. 01-91: (1) that it is violative of the equal of the protection clause and the due process clause of the Constitution. It provides that: "the Secretary of Labor and Employment may. . Reasons: 1) Item No. does not establish an absolute and comprehensive prohibition of deployment abroad of entertainers below 23 years of age. 1 of DOLE Circular No. (3) the controversy must be raised at the earliest reasonable opportunity. it does not present a justiciable controversy. to avoid the adverse effects which complete prohibition would impose on the country's manpower export program. 1 DOLE Circ. Said provision connotes that the prohibition is not at all permanent or absolute. subjection to white slavery. To the contrary. An action like this is brought for a positive purpose to obtain actual and positive relief. The labor representative recommended that the minimum age for performing artists seeking overseas deployment be raised from eighteen (18) years to twenty-three (23) years. so as to create a reasonable expectation that their applications would be immediately and arbitrarily denied. women entertainers) abroad were discussed openly: vulnerability to operations of organized crime syndicate abroad. 01-91. that they had previously applied to public respondent officials for exemption from the minimum age restriction imposed by Item No. (2) the party raising the constitutional issue must have a personal and substantial interest in the resolution thereof. Solicitor General: the Petition at bar does not present a justiciable controversy for having been filed prematurely. exempt from performing artists from coverage hereof. should they in fact file them. harsh and substandard working conditions. mostly singers and dancers." 2) Petitioners have failed to allege or have refrained from alleging. ISSUE: Whether the petition present a justiciable controversy. The firmly settled rule is that a constitutional question will not be heard and resolved by the courts unless the following requirements of judicial inquiry are met: (1) the existence of an actual case or controversy." of ages 18-22 years. 1 are set out in a set of "Administrative Guidelines Implementing Department Circular No. This is specially true where the issues "reach constitutional dimensions. oppressive and discriminatory against performing artists of ages eighteen18-22 who would otherwise be qualified for overseas employment. At the end of the Conference. it was resolved that Government should adopt a policy of selective (rather than comprehensive) prohibition of deployment abroad of Philippine entertainers. Petitioners allege themselves to be "qualified performing artists. Two (2) important presumptions are here applicable. During this Conference. and (4) that the resolution of the constitutional issue must be indispensable for the final determination of the controversy. 20 entertainers abroad. for justifiable reasons. and so forth. vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. especially thethe entertainment industry. the petition must fail for prematurity." The discretionary authority here asserted by the DOLE Secretary does not purport to be unlimited and arbitrary in nature. Neither have petitioners alleged that public respondents have continually threatened to deny all and sundry applications for exemption. and the state policy on protection of labor because it is arbitrary. HELD: No. Mere apprehension that the Secretary might under the law arbitrarily deny their applications for exemption are considered mere stipulations and does not constitute a justiciable controversy. 1) Administrative orders and regulations are entitled to the presumption of constitutionality. some of the problems facing Filipino entertainers (in particular.

the petitioner sued NOA for damages in RTC Makati." the provisions of the Convention automatically apply and exclusively govern the rights and liabilities of the airline and its passenger. 28. On September 23. as such.  The petitioner purchased from NOA a round-trip ticket in San Francisco. otherwise known as the Warsaw Convention. INTERNATIONAL LAW: Warsaw Convention. when applicable: To all "international transportations of persons by aircraft for hire.  Despite a previous confirmation and reconfirmation. No. and was deposited with the Polish government on November 9. U. has the force and effect of law in this country. (1) An action for damage must be brought at the option of the plaintiff. a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government and. Santos III vs. The Philippine instrument of accession was signed by President Elpidio Quirino on October 13. is too close to rendering an advisory opinion in a hypothetical case — an undertaking clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Does the Warsaw Convention apply in this case? By its own terms. 201. has the force and effect of law in this country. President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. as such. he was informed that he had no reservation for his flight for Tokyo to Manila. the petitioner checked in at the NOA counter in the San Francisco airport for his departure to Manila." FACTS:  Augusto Benedicto Santos III is a minor and a resident of the Philippines." The Convention is thus a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government and. The Convention was concurred in by the Senate.S. on May 16. under the facts and circumstances here obtained. 1950. in advance of official efforts to apply the provisions of the challenged circular. The Convention became applicable to the Philippines on February 9. 1950. 1955.the existence of actual case or controversy. 1987. "to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof. through its Resolution No. 19. An intermediate place where the carriage may be broken is not regarded as a "place of destination.A. He therefore had to be wait-listed. It took effect on February 13. 1950. declaring our formal adherence thereto.  Private respondent Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign corporation with principal office in Minnesota. This failure renders unnecessary consideration of the other requisites of constitutional litigation. and licensed to do business and maintain a branch office in the Philippines. the Convention applies to all international transportation of persons performed by aircraft for hire. beginning with the place of departure and ending with the ultimate destination. 1933." Whether the transportation is "international" is determined by the contract of the parties. upon the supposition that petitioners' legal rights in the premises might be denied by public respondent officials. which in the case of passengers is the ticket. 1986. 21 To engage in judicial review. or before the court at the place of destination. INTERNATIONAL LAW: Warsaw Convention. The use of the singular in th is expression indicates the understanding of the parties to the Convention that every contract of carriage has one place of departure and one place of destination. International transportation is defined in paragraph (2) of Article 1 as follows: .  On March 12. 1951. in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties. Petitioners have failed to show the first requisite of a judicial inquiry. or where he has a place of business through which the contract has been made. Constitutionality of the Warsaw Convention The Republic of the Philippines is a party to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air. NOA moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.R. 1992 INTERNATIONAL LAW: Warsaw Convention is constitutional.A. When the contract of carriage provides for the transportation of the passenger between certain designated terminals "within the territories of two High Contracting Parties. June 23. In December 19. Northwest Orient Airlines G. either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of his principal place of business. jurisdiction: Place of Destination vis-a-vis Agreed Stopping Place: The contract is a single undivided operation. ISSUE: Whether or not Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention is in accordance with the constitution so as to deprive the Philippine Courts jurisdiction over the case HELD: Art. 101538.S. U.

following which the jurisdiction of a particular court must be established pursuant to the applicable domestic law. which in the case of passengers is the ticket. beginning with the place of departure and ending with the ultimate destination. the NA in session assembled. are situated [either] within the territories of two High Contracting Parties . Manila should therefore be considered merely an agreed stopping place and not the destination. When the contract of carriage provides for the transportation of the passenger between certain designated terminals "within the territories of two High Contracting Parties. December 9. 22 (2) For the purposes of this convention. et al. the ticket between the passenger and the carrier. 1935. within the meaning of the Warsaw Convention. Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss because by virtue of NA resolution. and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly" . The contract is a single undivided operation. It is so ordered. and Dionisio Mayor for said position filed a Motion of Protest before the Electoral Commission .where the matter is governed by the Warsaw Convention. the expression "international transportation" shall mean any transportation in which." WHEREFORE. it is subject to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Although the date of the return flight was left open. Ynsua can no longer protest. Since the flight involved in the case at bar is international. October 7. 8 confirming its elected members and no protest had thus far been filed . since the plaintiff’s destination was Manila? The place of destination. . despite the resolution from NA. the petition is DENIED. whether or not there be a break in the transportation or a transshipment. Was the case properly filed in the Philippines. the contract of carriage between the parties indicates that NOA was bound to transport the petitioner to San Francisco from Manila. Does Article 28(1) refer to Jurisdiction or Venue? . The EC acted within its jurisdiction and in the legitimate exercise of the implied powers granted by the Constitution to decide in "all contests relating to the election. Whether EC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to the cognizance of the protest filed against Angara despite the resolution of National Assembly . the place of departure and the place of destination. jurisdiction takes on a dual concept. An intermediate place where the carriage may be broken is not regarded as a "place of destination. the Electoral Commission issued a resolution fixing December 9 as the last day of filing election protests . they passed Resolution No. December 8. Whether the transportation is "international" is determined by the contract of the parties. Ynsua said EC resolution prevails and that EC is not subject to prohibition from SC ISSUE: . Miguel Castillo.. the same being from the United States to the Philippines and back to the United States. Article 1(2) also draws a distinction between a "destination" and an "agreed stopping place. . This second question shall be governed by the law of the court to which the case is submitted. respondents and rivals Pedro Ynsua. Only after the question of which court has jurisdiction is determined will the issue of venue be taken up. Jurisdiction in the international sense must be established in accordance with Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. specifically in this case. Angara was proclaimed member-elect of National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas ." It is the "destination" and not an "agreed stopping place" that controls for purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction under the Convention. according to the contract made by the parties. Examination of the petitioner's ticket shows that his ultimate destination is San Francisco." the provisions of the Convention automatically apply and exclusively govern the rights and liabilities of the airline and its passenger. Whether SC has jurisdiction over the EC and that it can take cognizance on the matter HELD: . returns. The use of the singular in this expression indicates the understanding of the parties to the Convention that every contract of carriage has one place of departure and one place of destination. which enumerates the four places where an action for damages may be brought. with costs against the petitioner. ANGARA v ELECTORAL COMMISSION. is determined by the terms of the contract of carriage or. December 3.. 63 Phil 139 FACTS: . including Article 28(1).

52 Sec. Even then. Petitioner Dumlao has joined this suit in his individual capacity as a candidate. and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN. including acts amounting to subversion. it was only during the hearing. They are actually without cause of action. Special Disqualification in addition to violation of section 10 of Art. The SC as the final arbiter can take cognizance in cases of conflict between government agencies. a)Actual Controversy . 4: Any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. Neither one of them has been called to have been adversely affected by the operation of the statutory provisions they assail as unconstitutional c) Unavoidability of constitutional question .Igot and Salapantan.Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of that provision. HELD: It is unacceptable for judicial resolution. Yes. which are hereby declared as disqualification for any of the elective officials enumerated in section 1 hereof. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS FACTS: The petition is based on the premise that Patricio Dumlao a former governor of Nueva Vizcaya who filed his certificate of candidacy in the forthcoming elections of January 30. b)Proper Party . 23 . The SC decided that the Electoral Commission has jurisdiction to hear and determine the contest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua et al against the petitioner Jose A. the present is not an "appropriate case" for either petitioner Dumlao or for petitioners Igot and Salapantan. JR. vs. nor do the latter join Dumlao in his. 1980 PATRICIO DUMLAO.. and the provision which bars persons charged for crimes from running for public office as well as the provision that provides that the mere filing of complaints against them after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office. that Igot is said to be a candidate for Councilor. 4. shall not be qualified to be a candidate for any of the offices covered by this Act. The respectively contest completely different statutory provisions. . 2) January 22. Petitioner Dumlao's interest is alien to that of petitioners Igot and Salapantan Petitioner Dumlao does not join petitioners Igot and Salapantan in the burden of their complaint. 52 Sec. and procedural regularity would require that this suit be dismissed. Any retired elective provincial city or municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law. insurrection. The action of petitioners Igot and Salapantan is more in the nature of a taxpayer's suit standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the function of judicial review (1) the existence of an appropriate case (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity (4) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity SC: Although the third requisite is satisfied . IGOT. No petition seeking Dumlao's disqualification has been filed before the COMELEC. section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. ROMEO B. the petitioners have not been able to satisfy the other 3 to qualify for judicial review. rebellion or other similar crimes. 1980 is not allowed to run for re-election as stated in the provisions of Batas Pambansa Big. (Qualified for judicial review): The petitioners contend that it is in violation of equal protection and due process under the Constitution. It follows that the necessity for resolving the issue of constitutionality is absent. ISSUE: Whether their petitions have cause of action. or to participate in any partisan political activity therein: provided that a judgment of conviction for any of the aforementioned crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima fascie evidence of such fact. Angara. not in their Petition. the length of the campaign. it cannot be denied that neither one has been convicted nor charged with acts of disloyalty to the State. nor disqualified from being candidates for local elective positions. and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired (Emphasis supplied) The suit was enjoined by Igot and Salapatan (tax payer’s suit) on the ground that the other provisions of BP52 regarding the term of office of the elected officials. XI I-C of the Constitution and disqualification mentioned in existing laws.

. search. Moreover. Though ABC did lose 7 of its original 10 radio stations pursuant to the said law. 576-A is constitutional. ABC is therefore deemed to have merely complied with the law and ABC is now estopped from denying such compliance. 24 ALLIED BROADCASTING CENTER. Judicial power is “the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants. ABC was able to established and operate ten (10) radio stations. The SC ruled that there is no actual case or controversy involving the law sought to be nullified. Arrest. he stated that he will reveal everything he knows about the bombings. Victor Burns Lovely. Through said broadcasting stations. and damage to property. 576-A. Lovely and his brothers Romeo and Baltazar Lovely were charged with subversion. ISSUE: Whether Presidential Decree No. illegal possession of explosives. Madella. Romeo. there is nothing in the case which indicated that ABC complied under protest. 3001. no allegation that any of the petitioner's stations had been confiscated or shut down pursuant to Presidential Decree No. The function of the courts is to determine controversies between litigants and not to give advisory opinions. Presidential Decree No. 1974. However. Functions of Judicial Review: Legitimizing Function: Upholds the validity of the law that results from a mere dismissal of a case challenging the validity of the law Checking Function: Invalidate law of executive act that is contrary to the Constitution Symbolic or educational function: Educates the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and concepts on matters of grave pubic importance for the guidance of and restraint upon the future. instead what the petitioner seeks is the nullification of Presidential Decree No. the petitioner does not also allege that it had been penalized or is being penalized for a violation under said Decree. ABC then filed directly with the Supreme Court a petition to declare the said law as invalid. the SC discussed the merit of the case. One of the law’s provisions is that a broadcasting station should only own one radio station per municipality or city. This made ABC lose 7 of its radio stations.. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. Salonga v Pano 134 SCRA 438 FACTS: A rash of bombings was occurred in Manila during August – October of 1980. There is no actual case or controversy involving the law sought to be annulled. likewise. Roman P. petitioner was able to provide adequate public service which enabled the government to reach the population on important public issues. vs. he was brought to the AFP Medical Hospital and was placed under the custody of Col. a small bomb exploded. Jr. It alleged that the law is arbitrary. a Philippine-born American citizen. Petitioner does not allege that it has filed an application for a license to operate a radio or television station in excess of the authorized number and that the same is being denied or refused on the basis of the restrictions under Presidential Decree No. Petitioner Jovito R. On November 11. 3001 was passed granting petitioner (Allied Broadcasting Center) the permit or franchise to construct. and assist the government in programs relating to public information and education. Shortly. HELD: No. as a result of a small bomb in his room. Obviously. The police found in his possession several pictures. maintain and operate radio broadcasting stations in the Philippines. Lovely offered himself to be a "state witness" and in his letter to the President. 1980. On September 6. Judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Facts: On January 19. the constitutional challenge is not being raised in the context of a specific case or controversy wherein the petitioner has asserted his rights. 576-A and the reinstatement of its rights under Republic Act No. There is. Salonga and his wife were appeared in the group pictures together with other guests in a birthday party. Due to the passage of the said act. the present petition is dismissed on this score. INC. On October 19. almost killed himself and injured his brother. and seizure orders (ASSOs) were issued against persons who were implicated by Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. The Supreme Court ruled that ABC’s petition is actually a petition of declaratory relief which is not among the petitions within the original jurisdiction of the SC. 1960. Thus. It must be brought to the before the Regional Trial Court and not before the Supreme Court. 1980. 576-A. The power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection with a bona fide case or controversy which involves the statute sought to be reviewed. Due to the injuries suffered by Lovely. 576-A entitled "Decree Regulating The Ownership And Operation Of Radio And Television Stations And For Other Purposes" was issued. Republic Act No. after the president delivered his speech for the International Conference of the American Society of Travel Agents at the Philippine International Convention Center.

stating that "the preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case has been set at 2:30 o'clock p. He stated that the house of Sen. The only evidence relied upon was based on the testimony of Victor Lovely Lovely. On November 2. Salonga was transferred from his hospital room to an army prison camp at Fort Bonifacio. The arresting officer showed him an ASSO but it did not specify the charge against him. 1980. Judge Advocate General sent the petitioner a Notice of Preliminary Investigation" in People v. On October 15. On or around March 26. On May 18. Benigno Aquino. JAVIER v COMELEC 144 SCRA 194 FACTS: Evelio Javier and Arturo Pacificador were running in Antique as candidates for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. 1980. 1984. 25 On October 21. Javier went to the COMELEC to question the canvassing of the election returns.. and not by division. 1980" Petitioner contends that he has not received any copy of the charges until January 17. (which included petitioner as a co-accused). the proclamation made by the board of canvassers was set aside as premature. Commissioner Jaime Opinion. along with 39 other accused with the violation of R. and should not have been relied upon. He states that to sanction his further prosecution despite the lack of evidence against him would be to admit that no rule of law exists in the Philippines today. 1980. et al. Lovely’s testimonies are inconsistent and insufficient. the Court still ruled that the contention of Salonga that there was no prima facie evidence established was correct. Contention of Petitioner: No prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him. Notwithstanding that the issue is moot and academic. they could no longer grant the petition of Salonga because the prosecution decided to exclude him as one of the accused in the information charged. He pointed out that one of the Commissioner who ruled the case.A as evidenced by the photo from a birthday party which was in the possession of Lovely. having been made before the lapse of the 5-day period of appeal. of followers of Javier. Salonga was used as meeting place (contact point) and Salonga had been meeting with several subversive personnel based in the U.S. is sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts. The incident was allegedly committed by Pacificador’s men. if unexplained or uncontradicted. However. On the eve of the elections. was a former law partner of Javier who refused to inhibit himself. which the petitioner had seasonably made. dated March 12. 1981. Pacificador. Makati. the same division ordered the board to immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission. or to counter-balance the presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction.A. . Javier contested the irregularities that took place upon the proclamation of Pacificador. Subsequently on November 27. On December 10. the military went to the Manila Medical Center and arrested Salonga who was currently confined. No trial should commence if there is no prima facie evidence or there is no probable cause to form a sufficient belief that as to the guilt of the accused. he was released for humanitarian reasons and was placed under house arrest. 1981. He also contested that the case involving a member of the Batasang Pambasa must be attended by COMELEC en banc. charging the petitioner. Prima facie evidence: Evidence which. 1984. On certiorari before this Court. HELD: The petition was dismissed. Because of this. as demonstrated by the killings. 1981. On June 7. on December 12. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish prima facie case against the Salonga. Prospero Olivas. ISSUE: Whether there is prima facie evidence established by the prosecution to justify the information charged. the counsel for petitioner was furnished a copy of an amended complaint signed by Gen. other voters gave their support the candidate of the ruling part. 1700 (Revised Anti – Subversion Act). still without the benefit of any investigation or charges. 1981. the 2nd Division of COMELEC directed the provincial board of canvassers of Antique to proceed with the canvass but to suspend the proclamation until further orders. Jr. Pacificador was a candidate of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL). the issue being moot and academic. the counsel for petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the charges against petitioner for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him.m. there was terrorism.

There is grave violation of the Constitution Province of Batangas vs Romulo FACTS: In 1998. They must trust the judge. To bolster that requirement. OCD-99-006 and OCD-99- 003 which were approved by Pres. Since the release is automatic. To subject its distribution & release to the vagaries of the implementing rules .6. Thus. the Solicitor General moved the petition mood and academic. then President Estrada issued EO No.X of the Constitution mandates that the “just share” shall beautomatically released to the LGUs. ISSUE: WON due process was present in the proclamation of Pacificador HELD: No. 48 establishing the “Program for Devolution Adjustment and Equalization” to enhance the capabilities of LGUs in the discharge of the functions and services devolved to them through the LGC. Herminaldo Mandanas. there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect. and 2001. They must believe in his sense of fairness. theConstitution confines the President’s power over the LGUs to one of general supervision.25 of the Constitution. Section 5. This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge” as the indispensable imperative of due process. Sec. The LGSEF is part of the IRA or “just share” of the LGUs in the national taxes. we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. There was no due process. The relationship of the judge. Moot and academic cases shall still be resolved in the following cases: 1. and 2001. and the OCD resolutions infringe the Constitution and the LGC of 1991. Opinion. II. Governor of Batangas. supervision merely sees to it that the rules are followed but has no authority to set down the rules or the discretion to modify/replace them. The assailed provisos in the GAAs of 1999. ISSUE: Whether the assailed provisos in the GAAs of 1999. The guidelines formulated by the Oversight Committee required the LGUs to identify the projects eligible for funding under the portion of LGSEF and submit the project proposals and other requirements to the DILG for appraisal before the Committee serves notice to the DBM for the subsequent release of the corresponding funds. Hon. Without such confidence. Art. The Oversight Committee under Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora passed Resolutions No. “the State shall ensure the local autonomy of local governments“. 2000. 1999. petitioned to declare unconstitutional and void certain provisos contained in the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 1999. and the OCD resolutions constitute a “withholding” of a portion of the IRA – they effectively encroach on the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by LGUs and must be struck down. The entire process involving the distribution & release of the LGSEF is constitutionally impermissible. 26 While the case is still in its pendency. or decide to do it himself. otherwise they will not seek his judgment. According to Art. Estrada on October 6. due process demands that the judge inhibit himself. otherwise they will not go to him at all. the LGUs aren’t required to perform any act to receive the “just share” – it shall be released to them “without need of further action“. which has been interpreted to exclude the power of control. Consistent with the principle of local autonomy. if only out of a sense of delicadeza. They should be sure that when their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. and 2001. Limdistinguishes supervision from control: control lays down the rules in the doing of an act – the officer has the discretion to order his subordinate to do or redo the act. 2000. with one of the parties may influence the decision towards to the favor the said party. Drilon v. 2000. OCD-99-005. HELD: Yes. Javier was gunned down on February 1986. Where this is probable or even only posssible. Sec. insofar as they uniformly earmarked for each corresponding year the amount of P5billion for the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the Local Government Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF) & imposed conditions for the release thereof.

To permit the Congress to undertake these amendments through the GAAs would unduly infringe the fiscal autonomy of the LGUs. and Cesar Mancao). The Oversight Committee’s authority is limited to the implementation of the LGC of 1991 not to supplant or subvert the same. This justifies the idea of “the paramount public interest involved” which is supposed to be discussed with this case. however. The value of LGUs as institutions of democracy is measured by the degree of autonomy they enjoy. The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is. Increasing/decreasing the IRA of LGUs fixed in the LGC of 1991 are matters of general & substantive law. stones. Congress may amend any of the provisions of the LGC but only through a separate lawand not through appropriations laws or GAAs. they only had a fear of such that is why they filed the petitions. bladed weapons. The only possible exception to the mandatory automatic release of the LGUs IRA is if the national internal revenue collections for the current fiscal year is less than 40% of the collections of the 3rd preceding fiscal year. Yes. No. However. The exception does not apply in this case. PGMA ordered the lifting of the declaration of a state of rebellion in Metro Manila. they can still be arrested. and other deadly weapons. A general appropriations bill is a special type of legislation. thus. The petitioners were not actually arrested. Romeo Acop Vs Teofisto Guingona G. There were warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the rebellion. Our national officials should not only comply with the constitutional provisions in local autonomy but should also appreciate the spirit and liberty upon which these provisions are based. whose content is limited to specified sums of money dedicated to a specific purpose or a separate fiscal unit – any provision therein which is intended to amend another law is considered an “inappropriate provision“.R. Michael Ray Aquino. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involve Lacson v. May 6. claim that the proclamation of a state of rebellion is being used by the authorities to justify warrantless arrests. not based on the declaration of a state of rebellion. She also issued General Order No. making on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property. the Secretary of Justice denies that it has issued a particular order to arrest specific persons in connection with the rebellion. the SC still resolved this case. clubs. 2001: There was an angry and violent mob armed with explosives. and neither can it exercise control over the IRA of the LGUs. Perez (2001) FACTS: May 1. Accordingly. 1 directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to suppress the rebellion in the National Capital Region. They can be arrested with the required judicial warrant for all acts committed in relation to or in connection with the May 1. 27 & regulations as sanctioned by the assailed provisos in the GAAs of 1999-2001 and the OCD Resolutions would violate this constitutional mandate. attempting to break into the Malacañang. firearms. 134855 . ISSUE: Can the petitioners still be arrested after such lifting of the declaration of state of rebellion? HELD: Take into consideration the fact that the petitions are already moot and academic. 2001: Subsequently. 2001 siege of Malacañang. 2. Congress cannot include in a general appropriations bill matters that should be more properly enacted in a separate legislation. 38 declaring that there was a state of rebellion in the National Capital Region. In quelling or suppressing the rebellion. **Note: The Supreme Court pondered on the factual basis of the President exercising her “calling out power”. 2001 which means that preliminary investigators will henceforth be conducted. It is already the declared intention of the Justice Department and police authorities to obtain regular warrants of arrests from the courts for all acts committed prior to and until May 1. There are 4 petitions in this case which assail that the declaration of a state of rebellion by PGMA and the warrantless arrests had no basis both in fact and in law. The petitioners (Panfilo Lacson. all the petitions are rendered moot and academic. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo thereafter issued Proclamation No. the authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion if the circumstances so warrant.

we find it necessary to resolve the merits of the principal issue raised for a proper disposition of prayer c) for future guidance of both bench and bar as to the applications of Sec.A. who was then the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights. prayers a) and b) above had been rendered moot and academic by reason of the release of SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz from the coverage of the Program. 1999. However. dated February 10. 1997 and August 23. as evidenced by the letter of the Director of the Program addressed to OSG. yet evading review. but who are among the PNP officers implicated in the alleged rubout. also a member of the CIC. former Senator Raul Roco. 1995. Petitioners pray that the decision of the RTC be reversed and set aside and instead – a) An injunction be issued enjoining the Department of Justice from continuing to provide the benefits accruing under the Witness Protection Program to respondents SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz.A. 1998. No. 1995. Held: In its comment. like SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz. private respondents SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz agree with OSG. Indeed.” Judicial Review . b) Order the immediate discharge of respondent SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz from WPP and for the latter to be ordered to cease and desist from accepting benefits of the WPP. 6981. 6981. 3(d) and 4 of R. No. “courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is capable of repetition. the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims that the petition lacks merit and that the same has been rendered moot and academic because the coverage of SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz under the Program was already terminated on December 3. they were admitted into the said Program. 11 suspected members of the criminal group known as the Kuratong Baleleng gang were killed along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City in an alleged shootout with the Anti-Bank Robbery Intelligence Task Group of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Mirasol. 276 SCRA 501 (1997). As we have ruled in Alunan III vs. 3(d) for R. Herein petitioners. in their capacity as taxpayers. are disqualified from being admitted into the witness protection program even though they may be testifying against other law enforcement officers. This was attested by SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz. Security and Benefit Program. law enforcement officers. respectively. 28 Facts: On May 18. made a public disclosure of his findings that there was no shootout and the 11 suspected members of the gang were summarily executed. contend that under Sec. SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes. and c) Order respondent officers to return whatever monetary benefits they have received from the government as a consequence of their wrongful and illegal admission into the WPP. On June 2. Issue: W/N the petition for judicial review should prosper. In their comment. a member of the Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) of the PNP and who was one of the officers assigned to conduct an investigation on the incident. and Viola vs Alunan III 277 SCRA 409 (1997). recommended that SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz be admitted to the government’s Witness Protection. Accordingly. The senate conducted hearings to determine the circumstances surrounding the subject incident and SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz testified before the Senate hearings.

insurrection.) 1981 Investment Priorities Plan and EO 676. which deals with National Economy and Patrimony whose exploration.. respondents. ELIZALDE D.Allowed an increase in foreign equity participation in preferred areas of investment effective for one (1) year dated December 4. and vital controversy between litigants. (This was issued after the Martial Law was lifted. which amended RA 5186 and 6135. earnest.) They claim that the 1981 Investment Priorities Plan and EO 676 offends Article XIV Sec 8 & 9 of the 1973 Constitution. real increase in foreign investment. The Petitioners do not have a locus standi in seeking judicial redress by declaring the above laws unconstitutional. Davide was nominated by PGMA to become a permanent representative to the United Nations. (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question. FACTS: On March 2006. ONGPIN. DIAZ. Under that said provision of the law. Not even one of the petitioners has been adversely affected by the application of those laws. b. Petitioners advance an abstract. 15. vs. FACTS: President Ferdinand Marcos lifted Martial Law on January 16. development and exploitation are reserved to the citizens of the Philippines. No actual conflict has been alleged wherein the petitioner could validly and possibly say that the increase in foreign equity participation in non-pioneer areas of investment from the period of December 2. in his capacity as Treasurer of the Philippines. (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity. whether career or non-career. ISSUE: Do the petitioners have personality to sue? DECISION: No. 1989 NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION. . he issued several presidential decrees and issuances pursuant to his legislative power under the 1935 Constitution and the transitory provisions of the 1973 Constitution.) They aver that PD 1789 is an abuse of the legislative power of the President. that of raising the issue of constitutionality at the earliest instance in their pleadings.R.) PD 1789 – Omnibus Investment Code. It is their position that decree-making powers are limited to those relative to the suppression and prevention of the invasion. as the position in the case at bar. exploitation of the country’s natural resources by foreign investors under the decrees. and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case. JR. Paguia questioned the validity of such nomination. Prior to this and after this time. representing the public respondents maintains that the petitioners have no personality to sue absent any actual controversy on the enforcement of the above laws. 1981. and as necessity in the determination of real. No. Thus.) PD 1892 . It is legitimate only in the last resort. Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies. the petitioners may have locus standi as taxpayers. These laws were issued pursuant to Amendment No. taxpayers and businessmen who claim to be adversely affected by the enforcement and continued implementation of the said decrees: 1. Petitioners merely complied with the third requisite. such that he has sustained or will sustain. MENDOZA.) 2. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. ENRIQUE ANGELES. unfair competition with Philippine nationals.) 3. There must be a Bona fide suit. 6 of the 1973 Constitution and are valid and not unconstitutional. and the HONORABLE GREGORIO G. On personality to sue: must have a right that is directly prejudiced or will be prejudiced and the positive action would grant relief. ALFREDO DE LEON AND GEORGE SIBAL. which implements the plan dated April 10. as he contends that such nomination was violative of Section 23 of the Republic Act No. the mandatory retirement age of all officers and employees of the DFA is at 65 years old.1984 had any direct bearing on them. ET AL. The Solicitor General. 67752 April 10. Among those he enacted are: 1. petitioners. dated Jan. identified themselves as citizens of the Philippines. 1983 The Petitioners. JULIO LOGARTA. such as considerable rise in unemployment. he is disqualified to be a permanent representative of the DFA. 1983 to December 4. was already 70 years of age. 7157 or the Philippine Foreign Services Act of 1991. Former Chief Justice Hilario G. rebellion or imminent danger thereof. In this case. The following requisites of a judicial inquiry of a constitutional question must be present: (1) the existence of an appropriate case. at the time of the nomination. ALAN PAGUIA vs OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. 2016 2. hypothetical issue which is in effect a petition for an advisory opinion from this Court. according to petitioner. The laws are also not appropriation measures which may constitute misappropriation of public funds. Petitioner Alan F. Davide. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugned the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case. 1981 3. 29 G. in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry and Chairman of the Board of Investments.) They argue that PD 1982 is violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution and is repugnant to the nationalistic and conserving spirit of the Constitution. (This was issued before the President lifted Martial Law. He theorizes that the the mandatory retirement age rule is applicable to all DFA employees. THE HONORABLE ROBERTO V. NEPA.

Taxpayers’ contributions to the state’s coffers entitle them to question appropriations for expenditures which are claimed to be unconstitutional or illegal. Romulo. However. ISSUE: WON Petitioner has locus standi (legal standing/legal personality) to file the case? HELD: Yes. Petitioner’s citizenship does not clothe him with standing to bring this suit.) the character of funds or assets involved in the controversy. They sought for the E. Section 3. 83284. Section 3. Petitioners are now before this Court contending that Article 2.1 of EO 156 constitutes an unlawful usurpation of legislative power vested by the Constitution with Congress. 2. (ASSOCIATION) all engaged in the business of. include: A vehicle that is owned and for the personal use of a returning resident or immigrant and covered by an authority to import issued under the No-dollar Importation Program. (SOUTHWING).Tepman).O. SP.O 156 prohibits the importation into the country. 30 Defendants. Branch 72. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. among others. 2004. . Such vehicles cannot be resold for at least three (3) years. be declared unconstitutional. 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Monsod. subject to a few exceptions (Among those listed. in Civil Case No. and the February 14." 3. Inc. They first contend that since Paguia is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest to bring the suit.) a clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition and. 20-0-04 and Civil Case No.. of used motor vehicles. The trial court further held that the proviso is contrary to the mandate of Republic Act No. They assail Procedural and Substantive Issues. training and experience. 156 (EO 156) unconstitutional. implicit in a petition seeking a judicial interpretation of a statutory provision on the retirement of government personnel occasioned by its seemingly ambiguous crafting is the admission that a "clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition" is absent. in or out of court. which requires the application of law. the salaries and benefits respondent Davide received were fixed by law under the Annual General Appropriations Act. inclusive of the Special Economic and Freeport Zone or the Subic Bay Freeport (SBF or Freeport). Section 3. Vs Southwing Heavy Industries 482 SCRA 673 The instant consolidated petitions seek to annul and set aside the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City. just in case you want to read it . including the Freeeport. petitioner did not have legal personality to file the suit because: 1. then he cannot properly file this case. Inc. Subic Integrated Macro Ventures Corporation (MACRO VENTURES). in response to Paguia. that neither his citizenship nor his taxpayer status vests him with standing to question respondent Davide’s appointment because such nomination does not involve the taxing power of the state or the illegal disbursement of public funds and would therefore not affect him. which declared Article 2. None of petitioner’s allegations comes close to any of these parameters. question his legal standing or locus standi to bring this suit on two grounds. knowledge. Executive Secretary et al.1 of Executive Order No. funeral hearse/coaches. 2002. E. Second. Buses.R. both dated May 24. Petitioner’s suspension from the practice of law bars him from performing "any activity. Special purpose vehicles: fire trucks. 2. and Motor Vehicle Importers Association of Subic Bay Freeport. No. importing and/or trading used motor vehicles filed separate actions for declaratory relief. Trucks excluding pickup trucks. The same conclusion holds true for petitioner’s invocation of his taxpayer status. 3. Indeed. legal procedure. entitled PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND ITS IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES. Three factors are relevant in the determination to allow third party suits so [the court] can reach and resolve the merits of the crucial issues raised: 1. A vehicle for the use of an official of the Diplomatic Corps and authorized to be imported by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The RTC declared that Article 2. 7227 (RA 7227) or the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 which allows the free flow of goods and capital within the Freeport. through Executive Secretary Alberto G.1 of EO 156 is valid and applicable to the entire country. ambulances. 22-0-04. negating petitioner’s claim of "illegal expenditure of scarce public funds. etc) Southwing Heavy Industries. FACTS: On December 12. issued EO 156." Preparing a petition raising carefully crafted arguments on equal protection grounds and employing highly legalistic rules of statutory construction to parse Section 23 of RA 7157 falls within the proscribed conduct (Take note: the definition of the practice of law as enunciated in Cayetano v.

particularly the prohibition on importation under Article 2. RA 7227 was enacted providing for. HELD: The established rule that the constitutionality of a law or administrative issuance can be challenged by one who will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement has been satisfied in the instant case. reasonable and within the scope provided by law. In issuing EO 156. EO 156 actually satisfied the first requisite of a valid administrative order. that it was issued within the scope of authority given by the legislature and that it is reasonable. including the barangay. Undoubtedly. or the Subic Bay Freeport. the Omnibus Investment Code of the Philippines and that its application should be extended to the Freeport because the guarantee of RA 7227 on the free flow of goods into the said zone is merely an exemption from customs duties and taxes on items brought into the Freeport and not an open floodgate for all kinds of goods and materials without restriction. EO 156 is obviously a legislative rule as it seeks to implement or execute primary legislative enactments intended to protect the domestic industry by imposing a ban on the importation of a specified product not previously subject to such prohibition. even assuming the procedural flaws raised by petitioners truly exist. Respondents would definitely suffer a direct injury from the implementation of EO 156 because their certificate of registration and tax exemption authorize them to trade and/or import new and used motor vehicles and spare parts. the President envisioned to . safety.[16] Such delegation confers upon the President quasi-legislative power which may be defined as the authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of the law and implement legislative policy. It is lodged primarily with the legislature. It has both constitutional and statutory bases. among other things. (2) Partly Police power is inherent in a government to enact laws. as well as the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels.1 of EO 156. the Court is not precluded from brushing aside these technicalities and taking cognizance of the action filed by respondents considering its importance to the public and in keeping with the duty to determine whether the other branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution. Substantive issues: (1) whether there is statutory basis for the issuance of EO 156. At any rate. Section 3. Delegation of legislative powers to the President is permitted in Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution. must comply with the following requisites: (1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature. health. an administrative issuance. acts of the other branches of the government are presumed to be valid. To determine whether EO 156 has complied with the third and fourth requisites of a valid administrative issuance. an examination of the nature of a Freeport under RA 7227 and the primordial purpose of the importation ban under the questioned EO is necessary. in order to promote the economic and social development of Central Luzon in particular and the country in general. the presumption is that said executive issuance duly complied with the procedures and limitations imposed by law. (2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure. (3) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature. to wit. and (4) It must be reasonable. respondents have the legal standing to assail the validity of EO 156. such as an executive order. To be valid. within constitutional limits. the sound and balanced conversion of the Clark and Subic military reservations and their extensions into alternative productive uses in the form of Special Economic and Freeport Zone. Section 3. and (2) if the answer is in the affirmative. (1) Yes The main thrust of the petition is that EO 156 is constitutional because it was issued pursuant to EO 226. Considering the settled principle that in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. to promote the order. except used cars. and general welfare of society. morals.1. By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power. it may also be exercised by the President and administrative boards. Other types of motor vehicles imported and/or traded by respondents and not falling within the category of used cars would thus be subjected to the ban to the prejudice of their business. and there being no objection from the respondents as to the procedure in the promulgation of EO 156. Anent the second requisite. The broad subject of the prohibited importation is all types of used motor vehicles. whether the application of Article 2. 31 Procedural issues: W the respondents lack locus standi to question the validity of EO 156 Petitioners argue that respondents will not be affected by the importation ban considering that their certificate of registration and tax exemption do not authorize them to engage in the importation and/or trading of used cars.

exceeded the scope of its application by extending the prohibition on the importation of used cars to the Freeport. It must not supplant or modify the Constitution. however. a foreign territory. for such is the sole function of the legislature which the other branches of the government cannot usurp. Section 3. when the application of an administrative issuance modifies existing laws or exceeds the intended scope. which RA 7227. In the instant case. Pursuant to the separability clause of EO 156. In sum. President Fidel V. 1993.1 of E. the subject matter of the laws authorizing the President to regulate or forbid importation of used motor vehicles. Article 2 Section 3. used motor vehicles that come into the Philippine territory via the secured fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area may be stored. The proscription in the importation of used motor vehicles should be operative only outside the Freeport and the inclusion of said zone within the ambit of the prohibition is an invalid modification of RA 7227.1 of EO 97-A. The importation ban runs afoul the third requisite for a valid administrative order. the issuance becomes void. not only for being ultra vires. but also for being unreasonable. The President issued the questioned EO to prevent further erosion of the already depressed market base of the local motor vehicle industry and to curtail the harmful effects of the increase in the importation of used motor vehicles. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 32 rationalize the importation of used motor vehicles and to enhance the capabilities of the Philippine motor manufacturing firms to be globally competitive producers of completely build-up units and their parts and components for the local and export markets. but they cannot be imported into the Philippine territory outside of the secured fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area. considers to some extent. the solution is not to forbid entry of these vehicles into the Freeport. Hence. Section 3. Indeed. as in the instant case. but to intensify governmental campaign and measures to thwart illegal ingress of used motor vehicles into the customs territory. Further Clarifying The Tax And Duty- Free Privilege Within The Subic Special Economic And Free Port Zone.1 of EO 97-A.1 is declared valid insofar as it applies to the customs territory or the Philippine territory outside the presently secured fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area as stated in Section 1. If the aim of the EO is to prevent the entry of used motor vehicles from the Freeport to the customs territory. . its enabling statute and other existing laws. 156 is declared VALID insofar as it applies to the Philippine territory outside the presently fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area and VOID with respect to its application to the secured fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area.O.1 of EO 156 is void insofar as it is made applicable to the presently secured fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area as stated in Section 1. an administrative issuance must not be ultra vires or beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It must be mentioned that on June 19. is the domestic industry. the Court finds that Article 2. or exported out of the Philippine territory. To be valid. used or traded therein. The importation ban in this case should be declared void for its too sweeping and unnecessary application to the Freeport which has no bearing on the objective of the prohibition. EO 156. 97-A.

it was ruled that the validity of the statute depends on the powers of Congress at the time the statute was passed or approved. Does the president have authority to propose amendments to the Constitution? 3.R. the referendum plebiscite has no legal basis. 1954. not upon events occurring or acts performed subsequently. ROMEO B. 000 was sought for private purpose and hence should be declared null and void. Zulueta contends that Pascual had “no legal capacity to sue” and that the petition did not state a cause of action. extension and improvement” of Pasig feeder road terminals. 1953 and contained in such act is the item of Php 85. December 29. not yet constructed and that projected feeders do not connect any government property or any important premises to the highway. was passed by Congress or when the bill was approved by the President and the disbursement of the said sum became effective. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS . 1031. the Supreme Court ruled that since Zulueta owned the land where the projected feeder roads will be constructed. HELD: It is well stated that the validity of a statute maybe contested only by one who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. RA 920. as well as PD. No. the legality thereof depended upon whether the said roads were public or private property when the bill. 000 for the “construction. Is the case at bar justiciable? 2. He further contends that it should not be the governor who will represent the province of Rizal in such matter. In American jurisprudence. 1976. In the case. is not too short especially since the questions are issues of the day and the people have been living with them since the proclamation of martial law. In this case. 000 php appropriation for the projected feeder roads in question. 1960 On August 31. The president has the authority to propose amendments as the governmental powers are generally concentrated to the president in times of crisis. Pablo Sanidad and Pablito Sanidad petitioned for prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. Sanidad vs COMELEC FACTS: On September 27. have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditures of public moneys. 991 and 1033. Petitioners contend that the president has no power to propose amendments to the new constitution. it also follows that not only persons individually affected but also taxpayers. Winceslao Pascual filed a petition to declare RA 920 null and void. and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN. L – 10405. ISSUE: Pascual contends that the donation violated the provision of our fundamental law prohibiting Members of the Congress from being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with the government and that he projected feeder roads in question to be constructed with public funds will greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision of Zulueta. G. 33 PASCUAL VS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS G. No. repair. as such. who at that time of the passage and approval of RA 920 was a Senator. instead it should be the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal in consonance with Sec 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code.R. It was further contended that the parcel of land where the roads will be constructed are owned by Jose Zulueta. IGOT. which later on became RA 920. L-52245 January 22. the appropriation of 85. JR. An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works approved on June 20. ISSUE: 1. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed sufficient and proper submission? HELD: The issue of whether the President can assume the power of a constituent assembly is a justiciable question since it is not the wisdom but the constitutional authority of the president to perform such act is in question. Pascual contends that the feeder roads were “nothing but projected and planned subdivision (Antonio Subdivision) roads. 1980 PATRICIO DUMLAO. The time for deliberation of the referendum-plebiscite questions. Referring to the 85. vs. Take note that Zulueta offered to donate it to the municipality and that the municipality accepted it. to declare without force and effect PD Nos. 3 weeks.

4. In this case. and Salapantan have a cause of action. BP 52. Furthermore. Whether or not petitioners are the proper party to submit the petition. They have different issues. His petition was joined by Atty. namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case. (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity. The suits of Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayer’s suit assailing the other provisions of BP 52 regarding the term of office of the elected officials. and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case. Dumlao's issue is different from Igot and Salapantan. 4. FACTS: Patricio Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. . HELD: It is basic that the power of judicial review is limited to the determination of actual cases and controversies The Supreme Court pointed out the procedural lapses of this case for the latter should have never been merged. Without a litigate interest. Igot. seeking to enjoin respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from implementing certain provisions of Batas Pambansa Big. the length of the campaign. The Supreme Court held that Sec. that retirees from public office like Dumlao are disqualified to run for office. Dumlao invoked equal protection in the eye of the law. and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. the strict procedure for judicial relaxed. He has already retired from his office and he has been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. Batas Pambansa Blg. he filed for reelection to the same office. neither of them has been called to have been adversely affected by the operation of the statutory provisions they assail as unconstitutional. 2 Any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State […] shall not be qualified to be a candidate for any of the offices covered by this Act […] provided that a judgment of conviction for any of the aforementioned crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact. Meanwhile. What they have is only generated grievance as contrasted to a direct injury creating a substantial interest in the case. As for Igot and Salapantan. The question he poses is in the abstract and a hypothetical issue. 4 of BP 51 was not discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Further. Jr. These two however have different issues. they cannot claim any locus standi. and the provision which bars persons charged for crimes from running for public office as well as the provision that provides that the mere filing of complaints against them after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office. Sec. (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question. they assail the validity of BP 52. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners fell short of the necessity that the case bean actual controversy. the Supreme Court held in the case of Igot and Salapatan. only the 3rd requisite was met. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of BP52 nor is any party seeking for his disqualification. sec. due to the impelling public interest involved and the proximity of the elections. 34 This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order filed by petitioners. Dumlao assailed the law averring that it is class legislation hence unconstitutional. It only proscribes arbitrary and unreasonable classification. among others. In 1980. ISSUE: Whether or not the filed petition is actual case or controversy filed for judicial review. par. The equal protection clause of the constitution does not forbid all legal classification. par 1 Any retired elective provincial city or municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law. However. Whether or not Dumlao. it should be emphasized the purpose of such classification was to allow emergence of younger blood in local governments. this case(Dumlao) does not meet all requisites to be eligible for judicial review. Romeo Igot and Alfredo Salapantan. 52 for being unconstitutional. 52 was enacted. In general. This law provides.

President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. and as necessity in the determination of real. 21. a hypothetical threat being insufficient. Upon the expiration of lease. 30% of the net receipts is allotted to charity. There must be a bona fide suit. Petitioners seek to further their moral crusade. No actual conflict has been alleged wherein NEPA could validly and possibly say that the increase in foreign equity participation in non-pioneer areas of investment from the period of Dec 2.3% of the gross amount of ticket or at least P35. The said PD was issued in order to suspend for one year the requirement that in order for companies to validly operate in the country it must be composed of at least 60% Filipino. HELD: No. 35 Regarding the accreditation of COMELEC in pursuance to BP 52.000 per terminal annually).. as being violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 1973 Constitution as well as Secs 8 & 9 of Article 14 thereof. It is violative of the law regarding public bidding. It violates Sec.. There is no bidding required. then the Minister (Secretary) of Trade and Industry. NEPA vs Ongpin FACTS: After the lifting of martial law in 1981. It is legitimate only in the last resort. NEPA et al advance an abstract. 2(2) of Art. ISSUE: Whether or not the requisites for judicial review are met. 1984 had any direct bearing on them. and seek to prohibit Ongpin from implementing said laws. Therefore. real increase in foreign investment. PCSO is to employ its own personnel and responsible for the facilities. Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies. LAW OF THE CASE cannot also apply. and vital controversy between litigants. the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 1st paragraph of Sec. 1995. 25. unfair competition with Philippine nationals. Kilosbayan vs Morato FACTS: In Jan. (Rental of 4. Term of lease is for 8 years. Feb. They sought to enjoin Roberto Ongpin. 4 of BP 52 as null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to the accused. The parties are the same but the cases are not. from enforcing the said law. 1983 to Dec 4. an association of local businessmen. 1995. PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) wherein PGMC leased online lottery equipment and accessories to PCSO. Jr. It is still violative of PCSO's charter. 4 of BP52 while the 2nd paragraph of Sec. Guingona. Yet. A petition was filed to declare ELA invalid because it is the same as the Contract of Lease Petitioner's Contention: ELA was same to the Contract of Lease. 1789 and some other PDs. not even one of the petitioners has been adversely affected by the application of those provisions. assailed the said PD averring that as taxpayers and Filipinos they will be greatly adversed by such PD. RULE ON CONCLUSIVENESS cannot still apply. earnest. NEPA et al question the constitutionality of Secs 1 and 3 of PD 1892 in relation to PD 1789. such as considerable rise in unemployment. STARE DECISIS cannot apply. it was held that charges for committing any act of disloyalty to the state should not be a basis to disqualify a candidate. exploitation of the country’s natural resources by foreign investors under the decrees. The power to determine if ELA is advantageous is vested in the Board of Directors of PCSO. Standing can no longer be questioned because it has become the law of the case Respondent's reply: ELA is different from the Contract of Lease. The Sol-Gen commented that NEPA et al have no personality and standing to sue in the absence of an actual controversy concerning the enforcement of the PD in question – that they were not actually adversely affected by said PD. An issue actually and directly passed upon and determine in a former suit cannot again be drawn in question in any future action . Since the present case is not the same one litigated by theparties before in Kilosbayan vs. The power of courts to declare a law unconstitutional arises only when the interests of litigants require the use of that judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. PCSO does not have funds. The previous ruling sustaining the standing of the petitioners is a departure from the settled rulings on real parties in interest because no constitutional issues were actually involved. The authority to pass on the validity of statutes is incidental to the decision of such cases where conflicting claims under the Constitution and under a legislative act assailed as contrary to the Constitution are raised. NEPA (National Economic Protectionism Association). the ruling cannot be in any sense be regarded as the law of this case. An accusation is not synonymous with guilt. 9-D of the 1987 Constitution. the 1981 Investment Priorities Plan and EO 676. PCSO may purchase the equipment for P25 million. Petitioners do not have a legal standing because they were not parties to the contract ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioners have standing? HELD: NO. hypothetical issue which is in effect a petition for an advisory opinion from the SC.

JOHN H. JR. proposing to construct the EDSA LRT III on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. p. 1991 and March 14. STANDING is a concept in constitutional law and here no constitutional question is actually involved. the previous decision does not preclude determination of the petitioner's standing. 1990. 1991: The Committee (BOT Law) approved the same. 1989: DOTC planned to construct a light railway transit line along EDSA. on. the PBAC issued a Resolution on May 9. 1993. (b) Management/Organizational capability — 30 percent. 6957 and to set the EDSA LRT III project underway. Cebu 4. Mandaluyong and Makati will be known as EDSA Light Rail Transit III (EDSA LRT III). March 15: Secretary Orbos invited Levin to send a technical team to discuss the project with DOTC. Mitsui & Co. GARCIA. it took effect on October 9. JESUS B. The criteria totaling 100 percent. January 22. When the second proceeding involves an instrument or transaction identical with. issued Department Orders Nos. April 3. BIAZON
vs. Mansteel International of Mandaue. later extended to April 1. and (c) Financial capability — 30 percent. Inc. and EDSA LRT CORPORATION. Cory signed: BOT Law): Republic Act No. 1991. ABB Trazione of Italy. but in a form separable from the one dealt with in the first proceeding. · deadline set for submission: March 21. issued a directive to proceed with the negotiations July 16: The EDSA LRT Consortium submitted its bid proposal to DOTC. advertising the prequalification of bidders... DOTC. and obtaining an over-all passing mark of at least 82 points. EDSA LRT Consortium On the last day for submission the prequalification criteria proposed by the Technical Committee were adopted by the PBAC. The more appropriate issue is whether the petitioners are REAL PARTIES in INTEREST FRANCISCO S. 1991 declaring that out of five only the EDSA LRT Consortium “met the requirements (21 points per criteria. 6957 entitled “An Act Authorizing the Financing. No.
HON. are (a) Legal aspects — 10 percent. was published in three newspapers of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks starting February 21. July 9 ( Pres. The schemes are as follows (1) Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) (2)Build-Transfer (BT). March 3. OSMEÑA and RODOLFO G. Hopewell Holdings Ltd.A. except for Legal Aspects. Quezon. from Pasay. of Japan 5. in his capacity as the Secretary of the DOTC. Operation and Maintenance of Referred to as the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law. 1992 and the “Supplemental Agreement to the 22 April 1992 Revised and Restated Agreement To Build. 1991. Since ELA is a different contract. 1991. LTD. 1991: In accordance with the provisions of R. 91-494 and 91-496 (Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) and the Technical Committee) · issued guidelines for the prequalification of contractors for the financing and implementation of the project · The notice. TATAD. This is a petition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to prohibit respondents from further implementing and enforcing the “Revised and Restated Agreement to Build. But the rule does not apply to issues of law at least when substantially unrelated claims are involved. represented by Elijahu Levin to DOTC Secretary Oscar Orbos. 122). the EDSA LRT Consortium July 1991: Executive Secretary Orbos. After evaluating the prequalification. Construction. 2. Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA” dated May 6. the Court is free in the second proceeding to make an independent examination of the legal matters at issue. Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA” dated April 22.. of Hongkong 3. 1990: A letter of intent was sent by the Eli Levin Enterprises. 36 between the same parties involving a different cause of action. and (d) Technical capability — 30 percent (Rollo. Secretary Orbos was appointed Executive Secretary then replaced by Secretary Pete Nicomedes Prado: to award of the EDSA LRT III project to the sole complying bidder. Ltd.: . · Five groups responded to the invitation: 1.

S. Harrison. Quezon City. (2) that the law authorized public bidding as the only mode to award BOT projects. and (4) that congressional approval of the list of priority projects under the BOT or BT Scheme provided in the law had not yet been granted at the time the contract was awarded. site works. 1992. 11. March 13. Executive Secretary Drilon. Secretary Prado requested presidential approval of the contract. The rentals shall be determined by an independent and internationally accredited inspection firm to be appointed by the parties. 1993.8 kilometers from F. ownership of the project shall be transferred to the latter for a consideration of only U. (3) that Item 14 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the BOT Law which authorized negotiated award of contract in addition to public bidding was of doubtful legality. of the Philippines for his approval Secretary Garcia submitted the two Agreements to President Fidel V. 1992: the parties entered into a “Revised and Restated Agreement to Build. After 25 years and DOTC shall have completed payment of the rentals. or 150 million a year to be achieved-through 54 such vehicles operating simultaneously.080 days or approximately three years from the implementation date of the contract inclusive of mobilization. Private respondents shall undertake and finance the entire project required for a complete operational light rail transit system 7. As agreed upon.B. Pasay City to North Avenue. approved the said Agreements) Agreements: 1. or street level. private respondent’s capital shall be recovered from the rentals to be paid by the DOTC which. will run at grade. 1991 which necessitate[d] the revision of the Agreement” On May 6. 1992: Executive Secretary Franklin Drilon (replaced Executive Secretary Orbos) informed Secretary Prado that the President could not grant the requested approval because (1) that DOTC failed to conduct actual public bidding in compliance with Section 5 of the BOT Law. shall come from the earnings of the EDSA LRT III. April 22. The system will have its own power facility 5. represented by Secretary Jesus Garcia vice Secretary Prado. DOTC. and the prequalification proceedings was not the public bidding contemplated under the law. the EDSA LRT III will use light rail vehicles from the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics 2. Upon full or partial completion and viability thereof. Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA” so as to “clarify their respective rights and responsibilities” and to submit [the] Supplemental Agreement to the President.00 . on the mid-section of EDSA for a distance of 17. private respondent shall deliver the use and possession of the completed portion to DOTC which shall operate the same 9. initial and final testing of the system 8. 3. 37 DOTC and respondent EDSA LRT Corporation entered into an “Agreement to Build. Lease and Transfer Light Rail Transit System for EDSA inasmuch as “the parties [are] cognizant of the fact that DOTC has full authority to sign the Agreement without need of approval by the President pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No. DOTC shall pay private respondent rentals on a monthly basis through an Irrevocable Letter of Credit. 4. 10. Lease and Transfer a Light Rail Transit System for EDSA” under the terms of the BOT Law. Target completion date is 1. in turn. will have a maximum carrying capacity of 450.000 passengers a day. $1. and private respondent entered into a “Supplemental Agreement to the 22 April 1992 Revised and Restated Agreement to Build. Ramos for his consideration and approval (Memorandum to Secretary Garcia on May 6. 380 and that certain events [had] supervened since November 7. the DOTC and private respondents re-negotiated the agreement. It will also have thirteen (13) passenger stations and one depot in 16-hectare government property at North Avenue 6.

A. as amended by the Supplemental Agreement. private respondent and DOTC agreed that on completion date. private respondent will immediately deliver possession of the LRT system by of lease for 25 years. LARON Judge of Court of the Court of First Instance (RTC). during which period DOTC shall operate the same as a common carrier and private respondent shall provide technical maintenance and repair services to DOTC. terminals and the power plant. not foreign corporations like private respondent. violates the constitution. one may operate a public utility without owning the facilities used to serve the public..A. The devotion of property to serve the public may be done by the owner or by the person in control thereof who may not necessarily be the owner thereof. 1978. FACTS: March 3. · September 26. No. a foreign corporation. What private respondent owns are the rail tracks. In view of this incapacity. it shall assume all the obligations and liabilities of a common carrier. P and M AGRO-DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and REGINO RAVANZO. Ltd. It will have no dealings with the public and the public will have no right to demand any services from it. 1994. an “Act Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act No. DOTC shall indemnify and hold harmless private respondent from any losses. 7718: The law expressly recognizes BLT scheme and allows direct negotiation of BLT contracts PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION: The agreement. damages. LTD. a writ of execution was issued ordering the immediate delivery of the possession of the premises of the movant city . ISSUE:
Can respondent EDSA LRT Corporation. a foreign corporation own EDSA LRT III. a public utility. 6957. damages. and hence..The city of Dagupan (City) awarded a lease contract in favour of P and M Agro-Development Corporation (P and M) over a city lot called the Magsaysay Market Area with and approximate are of 3. · January 16.the case was decided in favour of the City on the basis of a “joint Manifestation” of both parties. they do not by themselves constitute a public utility. and the ownership and operation thereof is limited by the Constitution to Filipino citizens and domestic corporations. Private respondent will not run the light rail vehicles and collect fees from the riding public. 1994.upon motion of the City. 1985. except losses. · May 25. (published in two newspapers of general circulation on May 12. Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector. No. One can own said facilities without operating them as a public utility. or conversely. Since DOTC shall operate the EDSA LRT III. The right to operate a public utility may exist independently and separately from the ownership of the facilities thereof.The City filed an action to rescind the lease contract with P and M for the latter’s failure to comply with the conditions of the contract. They contend that the EDSA LRT III is a public utility. the ownership of EDSA LRT III. HON. it admits that it is not enfranchised to operate a public utility as per requirement of Section 11 of Article XII of the Constitution. rail stations. a public utility? HELD: YES. and took effect 15 days thereafter or on May 28. 1994: R. 7718. JR. is unconstitutional. R. Construction. 1985. For this purpose. Branch 44. not a public utility. While private respondent is the owner of the facilities necessary to operate the EDSA LRT III. Dagupan City. and for Other Purposes” was signed into law by the President. 1982. 38 May 5. CRISPN C. Entitled “An Act Authorizing the Financing. BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELEOPMENT CORPORATION VS. rolling stocks like the coaches. What constitutes a public utility is not their ownership but their use to serve the public. While a franchise is needed to operate these facilities to serve the public. in so far as it grants EDSA LRT CORPORTATION.692 square meters. injury or death due to defects in the EDSA LRT III on account of the defective condition of equipment or facilities or the defective maintenance of such equipment facilities. injuries or death which may be claimed in the operation or implementation of the system.

Sr. were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedes bond of P12. 1. 1984. 1987 FACTS: On January 13. Orthodox view. the petitioner has no personality to sue. The supreme court said that The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing the Supreme Court do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter. the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander. 626-A unconstitutional? HELD: The Respondent contends that it is a valid exercise of police power to justify EO 626-A amending EO 626 in asic rule prohibiting the slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions. ISSUE: Is E. inoperative. In this cases was no disbursement of public funds involved. considering that they can be killed anywhere.O. manage. with no less difficulty in one province than in another. Iloilo for the violation of E. The essence of a taxpayer's right to institute such an action hinges on the existence of that requisite pecuniary or monetary interest and only when the act complained of directly involves an illegal disbursement of public funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. Not only the parties but all persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality. which means that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court but it also upheld the ruling of RTC. to Enter Into a Contract of Lease with Bugnay Construction and Development Corporation” Regino Ravanzo then filed a case questioning the validity of the lease contract between the City and the Bugnay Construction. Norton v Shelby County/ Sheppard v Barren There are two views on the effects of a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute. The executive act defined the prohibition. d. Due process was not properly observed. · April 20.00) per square meter. . It is. Shelby. in other words. and that the petitioner is not directly injured by the said contract which does not involve the disbursement of public funds. control and supervise a commercial center and a modern public market building. a total nullity. He filed the suit in the guise of being a taxpayer in the City and as he was the counsel for P & M in the earlier case. 626-A. 1987-during the pendency of the resolution on the motion for reconsideration filed by P and M. paying a monthly rental of eight pesos (P8. it affords no protection. as if it had not been passed. it confers no right. 626-A unconstitutional. After considering the merits of the case.P and M filed a motion for the reconsideration of the aforesaid decision. ISSUE: Whether the respondent is the real party in interest HELD: No. However. the petitioner transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo when the same was confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo. Obviously. for a period of twenty (20) years. Honorable Liberate Ll. March 20. 1985. any more than moving them to another province will make it easier to kill them there The Supreme Court found E.O. A case was filed by the petitioner questioning the constitutionality of executive order and the recovery of the carabaos.00. three views on the effects of declaration of unconstitutionality of a law Ynot vs IAC. The contract of lease entered into by Bugnay Construction with the City expressly state that the former will FINANCE. it was only on August 17. in legal contemplation. Reyna. establish. *If the contract is for local consumption only. In the instant case.1987 when the incident was resolved by the court which set aside the decision previously rendered on the ground that the joint manifestation on which it was based is not in the nature of a compromise agreement. as announced in Norton v. which was carried out forthright. Under this rule. retaining the carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter there. The measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a chance to be heard. maintain.000. it imposes no duties.. develop. It is therefore stricken from the statute books and considered never to have existed at all.O. it creates no office. it is. an unconstitutional act is not a law. thus denying due process. Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Dagupan adopted a resolution "Authorizing the City Mayor. the confiscation was sustained and the court declined to rule on the constitutionality issue. construct. 39 · November 5. operate.

1939––De Agbayani obtained a loan (P450) from PNB. It does not admit that prior to the declaration of nullity. the balance due (unpaid) on said loan was P1. The lapsed period would not be 15 years. it does not repeal. At the time of the enactment. 1959. the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. nor can it justify any official act taken under it. World War II broke out.294. the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. was enacted which extended the suspension of debt payments for a period of 8 years (until 1956) in order to give the prewar debtors an "opportunity to rehabilitate themselves". its having been operative prior to its being nullified is a fact that is not devoid of legal consequences. but the decision affects the parties only and there is no judgment against the statute. the debt moratorium legislation. supersede. 1945––EO 32 was issued by President Osmeña. Under this view. businesses were at a standstill and the economy laid prostrate. 40 2. Having just been freed from Japanese forces in 1945. providing that "when the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution. The court may give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the law. It ended on September 2. creating no rights and imposing no duties. revoke. 1971) FACTS: July 19. As of November 27. the lower court manifested a tenacious adherence to the inflexible view that an unconstitutional act is not a law. Modern view (less stringent). because the prescriptive period had lapsed. seeking to recover the unpaid amount. therefore. because the Constitution is supreme and paramount. the Court explicitly held in a case (Rutter v Esteban) that RA 342 was unconstitutional. temporarily suspending the enforcement of payment of all debts and other monetary obligations payable by war sufferers. 38 SCRA 429 (April 29. orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution. 1959––De Agbayani filed a suit to counter PNB's claim. an act or law declared as unconstitutional cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties. July 12. there was a factual justification for the moratorium. and thus as inoperative as if it had never been. 1953––However. such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. so the foreclosure of the land mortgaged to PNB should no longer be enforceable. PNB contends that if the period where RA 342 was operative were to be deducted from/not included in the computation of the prescription period. HOWEVER. Going back to De Agbayani's suit." Under the orthodox view. and should not be prolonged a minute longer. but it does not strike the statute from the statute books. the orthodox view may not be sufficiently realistic. the court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. which was to mature on July 19. 1939." Understandably and logically so. ~History~ September 1. 1948––RA 342. and. The Civil Code says that "When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution. the right of PNB to foreclose the mortgage should still subsist. March 10. The right to non-impairment of contractual obligations (creditors' claims) must prevail over the assertion of community power to remedy an existing evil (suspension of debt payment because war sufferers needed rehabilitation after the war). The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage (on a land in Pangasinan). The parties to the suit are concluded by the judgment. It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence. Administrative or executive acts. The orthodox view is expressed in Article 7 of the Civil Code. Her main allegation was: 15 years had already lapsed since the maturity of the loan. or annul the statute. July 26. 1944. and any law contrary to it cannot survive. The lower court did not find PNB's contention persuasive and decided in favor of De Agbayani. The opinion or reasons of the court may operate as a precedent for the determination of other similar cases. 1959––PNB instituted extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings in the office of the Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan. August 10. ISSUE: Did the lower court err in granting De Agbayani's suit and dismissing PNB's contention? HELD: Yes. the same should be declared null and void and without effect". De Agbayani v PNB. "In arriving at such a conclusion. declaring it "unreasonable and oppressive. . It was oblivious to the force of the principle adopted by this Court that while a statute's repugnancy to the fundamental law deprives it of its character as a juridical norm. but no one else is bound. 1945. but only 7 years.

00 payable on June 10. appellee explains that the said moratorium laws were declared unconstitutional only on May 18.1994. on June 8. 1963.1953 which will therefore prescribe on May 19. the ten-year period within which to bring the action on May 19. individual and corporate.for the amount of P 750. the action has not yet prescribed. on June 10. 1994. et al. 1944. All the promissory notes bear interest at the rate of 6% per year compounded quarterly. Appellee’s cause will therefore prescribe only on May 19. defendant issued again another promissory for the amount of P 280. 1533. as unconstitutional and as an impermissible encroachment of judicial prerogatives. Dulay. defendant issued again another promissory note for the same amount payable on June 8. 1963. the defendant executed two real state mortgages affecting six parcels of land registered in Negros Occidental. ISSUE: Whether the said laws are applicable to the loans at bar HELD: YES. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The contract further provides that upon failure of the mortgagor to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract.00 payable on May 10. as amended. Trial Court ruled for the private respondents.. including Presidential Decree No. Republic of the Philippines vs. defendant failed and refused to pay the above-mentioned amount. >The Regional. the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. This implies that the defendant is now responsible to pay the said amount to the Republic of the Philippines. Ltd. 76. however. therefore. private and official. as well as related decrees. the instant petition by the Republic. Julio Herida FACTS: From May 10. On the other hand. the plaintiff (Republic of the Philippines) addressed a letter to the defendant demanding the payment of his amount due. 1943. >Hence. created under EO 372. The complaint in the case was filed on November 27. In Export Processing Zone Authority ("EPZA") vs. defendant Julio Herida issued a promissory note in favor of the Bank of Taiwan. 1 this Court held the determination of just compensation in eminent domain to be a judicial function and it thereby declared Presidential Decree No. Republic v CFI FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines has sought the expropriation of certain portions of land owned by the private respondents for the widening and concreting of the Nabua-Bato-Agos Section. The plaintiff then raised the argument that due to a Transfer Agreement. Philippine-Japan Highway Loan (PJHL) road. 1954. etc. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects. 1953. While the right of the Republic is not now disputed. > When elevated to it. demand that the just compensation for the property should be based on fair market value and not that set by Presidential Decree No. such as EO 25 and EO 32 are not applicable to the loans at bar.” Ruling: The SC reversed the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of PNB. dated June 15. the loans secured by said mortgages is now administered by the Board of Liquidators. prior to such a determination [of unconstitutionality]. with respect to particular relations. to the contrary extent. defendant will pay 10% of the total indebtedness but not less than P200. 1943. 1957. which is within the 10-year period and. The ten-year period within which to institute the action began the day after the moratorium laws were declared unconstitutional." Principle: “the existence of a statute or executive order prior to its being adjudged void is an operative fact to which legal consequences are attached. 2 ISSUES: . a government agency under the Office of the President. 1961.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs. The complaint in this case was filed in November 1961. 41 "The actual existence of a statute. the ten year period has not yet prescribed. which fixes payment on the basis of the assessment by the assessor or the declared valuation by the owner. 76. To secure their full payment. In response. 1943. On September 22. Consequently. Despite the said demand. and particular conduct. The ruling. the private respondents. the defendant contended that such right of the Republic of the Philippines to bring the present action against the defendant has already prescribed and that the moratorium laws. whichever is lower. now conceded by the Republic was reiterated in subsequent cases. is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.

the Secretary of Justice further issued Administrative Order No. ETC. Three days after. did then and there willfully. in our decisions on the moratorium laws. authorizing the Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court of the Second Judicial District to hold a special in Ilocos Sur. APRIL 29. 3. its retroactive application may be so declared invalid as impairing the obligations of contracts. 6. The fact of the matter is that the expropriation cases. of course. 5. were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. which resulted to the destruction of various houses and resulted in the death of an old woman.R. knowing the said houses to be occupied. The prosecution moved the respondent Judge for a transfer of said cases to the Circuit Criminal Court. 7. let alone to be unsettled by a subsequent declaration of nullity of a governing statute. may not necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act occurring prior to such a declaration.. 1987) DECLARING PD 1533 UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID. conspiring. and it is deemed as if had never existed. NO. a situation that may aptly be described as fait accompli may no longer be open for further inquiry. constabulating and helping one another. Two informations were filed in the Court of First Instance (one for arson with homicide and the other for arson). 5179 the same should have been done right at the very inception of these cases. “confederating. that if the objective of the proposed transfer was to subsequently obtain a change of venue from the Supreme Court under Sec. it is also true. e. involved in this instance. but invalid in its application to certain factual situations. authorizing respondent Judge to transfer the criminal cases to the Circuit Criminal Court. To this day. . however. together with 82 other unidentified persons.) EFFECT OF JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PD 1533 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID. 2. were still pending appeal when the EPZA ruling was rendered and forthwith invoked by said parties. Transfer of venue in criminal cases PEOPLE vs. 4 of RA No. The strict view considers a legislative enactment which is declared unconstitutional as being. DULAY. To exemplify. but there we have likewise been unable to simply ignore strong considerations of equity and fair play. in pertinent cases. 221. even as a practical matter. a total nullity. and in the cases involved the accused had already pleaded. when it vitiates contractually vested rights. partly attributable to the instant petition that has prevented the finality of the decision appealed from.) WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN EPZA VS. Bantay. 6 we have been constrained to recognize the interim effects of said laws prior to their declaration of unconstitutionality. for all legal intents and purposes. 8. The instant controversy. The accused opposed such transfer and the respondent Judge declined the transfer sought on the ground that said Administrative Order only provided for transfer of cases to the Circuit Criminal Court where the interest of justice required it for more expeditious disposal of the cases. UP TO WHEN RETROACTIVELY. On the afternoon of the same day. It is not always the case. we refer to the law itself being per se repugnant to the Constitution. Ilocos Sur. So also. the controversy between the petitioner and the private respondents on the issue of just compensation is still unresolved. 42 1. GUTIERREZ FACTS: 1. (G. unlawfully and feloniously burn or caused to be burned several residential houses. Here. 1970. 226. A judicial declaration of invalidity. several residential houses were likewise burned in barrio Ora Este of the same municipality and province. The Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 2. To that extent. 59603. BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. Two of the accused furnished bail and voluntarily appeared before respondent Judge. an otherwise valid law may be held unconstitutional only insofar as it is allowed to operate retrospectively such as. EFFECT ON A PENDING APPEALED CASE WHERE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PD 1533 NOT ASSAILED BEFORE COURT A QUO. Thus. Thus. In the morning of May 22. HELD: No error in the appealed decision.” 4. invoking the above-mentioned administrative Orders and calling attention to the circumstance that they were issued at the instance of the witnesses for reason of security and personal safety. it may well be valid in its general import. charging the 17 private respondents. a group of armed persons set fire to various inhabited houses in barrio Ora Centro. is too far distant away from any of the above exceptional cases. ET AL. that a law is constitutionally faulty per se. HON. however.

and such inferior courts as may be established by law. 226 as permissive and not mandatory. 1980. or of preventing a miscarriage of justice. thus. Ricardo Garcia. 2. and to accelerate the disposition of criminal cases pending or to be filed therein. the PC provincial commander of Negros Occidental filed seven (7) separate complaints for murder against the accused Pablo Sola.e said criminal cases of the CFI of Ilocos Sur to the Circuit Criminal Court of the Second Judicial District. elements of the 332nd PC/INP Company proceeded to the place of Sola. . SUMMARY 1. The Constitution has vested the Judicial Power in the SC. but nowhere indicates an intent to permit the transfer of preselected individual cases to the circuit courts. On September 16. the prosecution resorted to the SC for writs of certiorari and mandamus. On September 23 and October 1. In view of the lower court’s denial of the motion to transfer the cases to the Criminal Court. and such judicial power connotes certain incidental and inherent attributes reasonably necessary for an effective administration of justice. 2. HOWEVER. possesses inherent power and jurisdiction to decree that the trial and disposition of a case pending in a CFI be transferred to another CFI within the same district whenever the interest of justice and truth so demand. Negros Occidental. in the exercise of the Judicial Power vested by the Constitution upon it and other statutory Courts. The courts “can by appropriate means do all things necessary to preserve and maintain every quality needful to make the judiciary an effective institution of government”. without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. and does not. One of these incidental and inherent powers of courts is that of transferring the trial of cases from one court to another of equal rank in a neighboring site. ISSUE: Whether the lower court committed abuse of discretion in denying to transfer cases to the Circuit Criminal Court. That the SC. in the interest of truth and justice People vs. if the cases are to be judicially inquired into conformably to the interest of truth and justice and the State is to be given a fair chance to present its side of the case. whenever the imperative of securing a fair and impartial trial. Custodio Juanica. It. in refusing to consider Department AO No. the Court of First Instance of that province issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of seven persons believed to be in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda at Sta. the municipal court found probable cause against the accused. Diggings made in a cane field yielded two common graves containing the bodies of Fernando Fernandez. After due preliminary examination of the complainant's witnesses and his other evidence. 1. Florendo Baliscao and fourteen (14) other persons of unknown names. Jose Bethoven Cabral. 1980. charging abuse of discretion and praying to set aside the order of denial of transfer and to compel the CFI to remand the cases to the Circuit Criminal Court of the Secondary Judicial District. Alfredo Perez. Negros Occidental. armed with the above warrant. et al 103 SCRA 393 FACTS: On September 15. Arsolo Juanica. Rollie Callet and Bienvenido Emperado. Francisco Garcia. Kabankalan. Isabel. That in the present case there are sufficient and adequate reasons for the transfer of the hearing of th. Francisco Garcia. issued an order for their arrest. HELD: YES. However. acting on the evidence presented by the Philippine Constabulary commander at Hinigaran. so demands. 1980. Respondent Judge. in construing Administrative Order No. but did not require or command it. Respondents in their answer denied any abuse of discretion in view of the fact that the Administrative Order merely authorized the court below. 43 RA 5179 created the Criminal Circuit Courts for the purpose of alleviating the burden of the CFI. 3. This refusal by the witnesses to testify due to security and safety manifest the imperious necessity of transferring the place of trial to a site outside of Ilocos Sur. and Jose Bethoven Cabral availed themselves of this right and have since been released from detention. respondent Judge failed to act upon the contention of the prosecuting officers that the cases should be transferred to the Criminal Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District because a miscarriage of justice was impending. 226 of the Secretary of Justice as mandatory. 5179 creating the Circuit Criminal Courts did not. acted within the limits of his discretion and violated neither the law nor the EOs mentioned. That RA No. Mayor Pablo Sola. The accused Pablo Sola. Mateo Olimpos. the court granted them the right to post bail for their temporary release. authorize the Secretary of Justice to transfer thereto specified and individual cases. and there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the court that originally had jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and impartial trial and lead to a miscarriage of justice. in view of the prosecution witnesses to testify in the court where they felt their lives would be endangered.

is charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. The motion was denied and that denial is the . the witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the Court of First Instance branch in Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan. their safety could be jeopardized. 65 SCRA 433 FACTS: Vincent Crisologo through counsel filed a verified motion praying for the transfer to the New Bilibid Prisons or. as asserted herein. BUSTOS VS. and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established. Dispositive The municipal court of Vigan is directed to transfer the record of Crisologo’s Criminal Case to the city court of Quezon City where it should be redocketed and raffled to any Judge. Indeed. alternatively. What is involved in the case at bar is not merely a miscarriage of justice but the personal safety of Crisologo. People vs Pilotin. within a reasonable time. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. 3949 of the municipal court of Vigan. there have been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses. LUCERO. as sole defendant. 2. At least two of the accused are officials with power and have influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. most of the accused remained at large. as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action. Aguinaldo or Olivas. It would be absurd to compel him to undergo trial in a place where his life would be imperiled. ISSUES: 1. praying that the record of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol. to Camps Crame. Ilocos Sur. Because of this fear. The bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing. Contention of Crisologo: His life would be in jeopardy if he were to be confined in the Vigan municipal jail during the trial because there are many political enemies of the Crisologo family in that vicinity. We are to keep the balance true. F. In addition. HELD: 1. It does not suffice. The witnesses in the case are fearful of their lives. the court of origin. wherein he. the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity. all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga after he had been bound over to that court for trial. note the limitation DOMINADOR B. WON the plea for a change of venue for trial is justified. WON the cancellation of bail bonds are justified. there would be a violation of procedural due process. the case proceeds with this discussion: To compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process. of the place of trial of Criminal Case No. This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt. the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present. Rule Making Power. and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Justice. 2. on the strength of which warrant was issued for the arrest of the accused. in order that the petitioner might cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses in connection with their testimony. Judge of First Instance of Pampanga The petitioner herein. The case may be tried at Camp Crame. an accused in a criminal case. that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. ANTONIO G. 44 In a parallel development. If. though due to the accused. The usual precautions and security measures should be adopted in bringing Crisologo to Crame on the occasion of the hearing. is due to the accuser also. However. they may either refuse to testify or testify falsely to save their lives. HELD: The Constitution expressly empowers the Court to “order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice”. Whether WON the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial. Change of venue has become moot and academic with the transfer of the case to Bacolod City. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament.

Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition It is the claim of petitioner that Presidential Decree No. those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion. and by reason of that waiver he was committed to the corresponding court for trial. creating the respondent Court is violative of the due process. It is fundamentally a procedural law. the justice of the peace informed him of the charges and asked him if he pleaded guilty or not guilty. there is nothing in it or any other law restricting the authority. upon being arraigned. in several cases. There was a motion for reconsideration filed the next day. The unconstitutionality of such Decree cannot be adjudged. equal protection and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. 1486 violative of the due process. preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial. or at the very least. and the objection was sustained. Leaving aside the question whether the accused. "In view thereof. inherent in a court of justice. The petition then cannot be granted. he filed a motion to quash on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. far from being inspired by the attainment of the common weal was prompted by the spirit of hostility. The Supreme Court that section 11 of rule 108 does not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of the peace on the matter. after renouncing his right to present evidence. upon which he entered the plea of not guilty. Said section defines the bounds of the defendant his right in the preliminary investigation. 45 subject matter of this proceeding. compel the complaint and his witnesses to repeat in his presence what they had said at the preliminary examination before the issuance of the order of arrest. if not Identical. 1486. Thereafter. on May 15 of that year. FACTS: The accused. ISSUE: Whether or not the justice of the Peace court of Masantol committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the accused his motion to return the record. Nunez vs SandiganBayan FACTS: Petitioner in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding assails the validity of the Presidential Decree creating the Sandiganbayan. equal protection. ISSUE: Is Presidential Decree No. Petition is dismissed. assisted by counsel. the accused's counsel announced his intention to renounce his right to present evidence. Those adversely affected may under such circumstances invoke the equal protection clause only if they can show that the governmental act assailed. as amended. Evidence is the mode and manner of proving competent facts and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings. . and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. appeared at the preliminary investigation." The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected." As a matter of fact. as a matter of right. all public officials. it met the same fate. to pursue a course of action reasonably calculated to bring out the truth. thus declaring it unconstitutional? HELD: No. 1979. The foregoing decision was rendered by a divided court. invoking section 11 of rule 108. The information were filed respectively on February 21 and March 26." and the justice of the peace forwarded the case to the court of first instance. If law be looked upon in term of burden or charges." We called attention to the fact that "the constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him does not apply to preliminary hearings' nor will the absence of a preliminary examination be an infringement of his right to confront witnesses. whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest. is estopped. HELD: NO. In that investigation. But we made it clear that the "defendant cannot. are analogous. A week later respondent Court denied such motion. He was accused before such respondent Court of estafa through falsification of public and commercial document committed in connivance with his other co-accused. The minority went farther than the majority and denied even any discretion on the part of the justice of the peace or judge holding the preliminary investigation to compel the complainant and his witnesses to testify a new. Then his counsel moved that the complainant present her evidence so that she and her witnesses could be examined and cross-examined in the manner and form provided by law. we are of the opinion that the respondent judge did not act in excess of his jurisdiction or in abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the accused's motion to return the record for the purpose set out therein. discrimination that finds no support in reason For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances which.

necessarily implying that the justices of this Court betrayed their oath of office. and.” Even the most careful scrutiny of the above definition fails to sustain the claim of petitioner. 1606. was no longer vested with power and authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft and corruption against public officials and employees. and for issuing contemptuous statements to the media in relation with the proceedings of the case published in the Philippine Daily Globe saying. a complaint the centerpiece of which is a repetition of the appalling claim of respondent that this Court deliberately rendered a wrong decision as an act of reprisal against the respondent. Nos. claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution FACTS: Petitioner Zaldivar. (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. WON the SC has the power and right to discipline the members of the Bar HELD: 1. Respondent's statements. and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission to regulate civil rights and remedies only. upon notice to him. 79690-707 October 7. the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order ordering respondent Sandiganbayan to CEASE and DESIST from hearing and trying Criminal Cases insofar as petitioner Enrique Zaldivar is concerned . or makes it greater than it was. through the Court. as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman and under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution.On 10 September 1987. WON Gonzalez is subject to contempt 2. and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. This court has had frequent occasion to consider the requirements of due process of law as applied to criminal procedure. it may be said that if an accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction. Governor of Antique is accused of having violated the Anti-graft and corrupt practices act as preliminarily investigated by Gonzalez . petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a Motion to Cite in Contempt against Gonzalez. Therefore. it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course”. GONZALEZ. 1486 as amended by Presidential Decree No. and only punished after inquiry and investigation. “What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that while rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court. and a judgment awarded within the authority of a constitutional law. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M.” This Court holds that petitioner has been unable to make a case calling for a declaration of unconstitutionality of Presidential Decree No. . constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Court. G. in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. He also invokes the related doctrines of qualified privileged communications and fair criticism in the public interest.On 9 February 1988.R. Petition dismissed. The principal defense of respondent Gonzalez is that he was merely exercising his constitutional right of free speech. petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari. generally speaking. for investigating and filing information before the Sandiganbayan about the petitioner’s case. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and. then he has had due process of law. vs.On 11 September 1987. is clearly demonstrated by the filing of a complaint for impeachment of thirteen (13) out of the then fourteen (14) incumbent members of this Court. especially the charge that the Court deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust decision in the Consolidated Petitions. That respondent's baseless charges have had some impact outside the internal world of subjective intent. and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law.The petitioner alleged that respondent Gonzalez. when committed. The Court is compelled to hold that the statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. or a proclamation of amnesty. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. ISSUES: 1. with an opportunity to be heard. 46 An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done. and punishes such an act. No costs. the informations filed with respect to the case are null and void . (2) aggravates a crime. (4) alters the legal rules of evidences. 1988 ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR ( Zaldevar). merely to wreak vengeance upon the respondent here. Prohibition and mandamus of the informations filed by Gonzales in the Sandiganbayan alleging him of the said case . the entire system of administration of justice in the country.

Edillon disbarred. This is still resolved by the principle of police power of the State. default in the payment of annual dues for t6 months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar. Disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers are recognized as inherent judicial functions and not responsibilities. Yes. ANDAL . 84 SCRA 554 FACTS: Re IBP membership dues delinquency… Lawyers are therefore subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar. If he did not want to submit himself to such reasonable interference and regulation. a lwayer must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities. Imposing of fess is a regulatory measure. HELD: Provisions of Rules of Court 139-A of the IBP and of the By-Laws of the IB are constitutional and legal. Practice of law is not a property right but merely a privilege. When Respondent Edillon entered the legal profession he has to conform to such regulation. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct. the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ROC 139-A. like all constitutional freedoms. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. Compelling him to become a member of the IBP violates his right of freedom to or/and not to associate. he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court. is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. 3. including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of the purpose of the bar. 10 – Effect of non-payment of dues Subject to the provisions of Sec 12 of this rule. It is also deemed as a police power of the State. the suspension to take effect immediately. He became a member of the Bar when passed the Bar Examinations. and default ins such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys Sec. ACCORDINGLY. Sec. or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him. Sec. :) In Re Atty Marcial Edillon. IBP does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. Payment of membership fee is void. The fees are cost of improving the profession. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of disciplinary authority of the Court over lawyers. 6: The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such. in other words. Raul M. Enforcement of penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of property without due process. pervert. Objections of Edillon 1. of viable independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general community The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. RA 6397 – gives authority to the Supreme Court to adopt rules of court to effect the IBP under such conditions as it shall see fit. No one seeks to deny him that right. ROC 139-A. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar. he should not have clothed the public with an interest in his concerns – becoming a lawyer. 9 – Membership Dues Every member of the IBP shall pay such annual dues as to board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. There are no prohibitions in the constitution regarding the matter. 47 Respondent Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. 2. and as such. least of all this Court. and contumacious conduct warranting application of the contempt power. For the protection and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be secured only within the context of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice. The only compulsion is the payment of annual dues. What respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression. within the context. The national organization integrates unorganized and incohesive group of lawyers. HERMINIGILDO L. 2.

48

FACTS: Herminigildo L. Andal holds the position of Security Guard II in the Sandiganbayan. On 24 January 2000, he filed an
application to take the Career Service Professional Examination-Computer Assisted Test (CSPE-CAT) and was admitted to take the
examination. The examination results showed that respondent passed the examination with a rating of 81.03%.
On 25 January 2000, Arlene S. Vito (Vito), claiming to have been authorized by Andal to secure the results of the examination,
presented a handwritten authorization allegedly signed by Andal. Upon verification and comparison of the pictures attached to the
Picture Seat Plan and the identification card of respondent which Vito presented, there appeared a dissimilarity in the facial features.
Bella A. Mitra, then Officer-in-Charge of the Examination, Placement and Services Division (EPSD) of the Civil Service Commission-
National Capital Region (CSC-NCR), issued a Memorandum on the alleged impersonation of respondent and the matter was referred
to the Legal Affairs Division to conduct a fact-finding investigation. On 29 November 2000, the CSC-NCR formally charged Andal with
dishonesty.
A formal investigation of the case was scheduled on 4 June 2001, 21 November 2001, 5 February 2002, and 10 July 2002.
Notices were sent to respondents last known address as indicated in his Application Form but respondent failed to appear on the
scheduled hearings. Respondent was deemed to have waived his right to appear at the formal investigation and the case proceeded
ex parte.

On 5 August 2005, the CSC-NCR rendered judgment finding respondent guilty of dishonesty and imposing upon him the penalty of
dismissal from the service.

Andal moved for a reconsideration of the CSC judgment but the motion was denied. He elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on
a petition for review, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of Andal.
The CSC filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has disciplinary jurisdiction to try and decide administrative cases against court
personnel.

HELD: In taking cognizance of the administrative case for dishonesty against respondent, the CSC invoked Section 28, Rule XIV of the
Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations which provides that the CSC shall have original disciplinary jurisdiction over all its
officials and employees and over all cases involving civil service examination anomalies or irregularities. The CSC further contends
that administrative cases of dishonesty in connection with duties and responsibilities under Section 47, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I,
Book V of the Revised Administrative Code are different from cases of dishonesty in connection with cheating incidents in Civil
Service examinations administered by the CSC. In the latter case, the CSC assumes jurisdiction as an integral part of its duty,
authority and power to administer the civil service system and protect its integrity, citing the case of Civil Service Commission v.
Albao.
The CSC argues that one of the powers of the CSC is the administration of the civil service examinations. The CSC made a
careful study and comparison of the facial features of the person appearing on the photographs attached to the Application Form and
the Personal Data Sheet (PDS), and the photograph attached to the Picture Seat Plan. Resemblance of the pictures purporting to be
respondents was clearly wanting. The signatures appearing on the face of the documents also revealed discrepancies in the structure,
strokes, form and general appearance.

We agree with the Court of Appeals and accordingly, deny the present petition.
The Court recognizes the CSCs administrative jurisdiction over the civil service. Section 3, Article IX-B of the Constitution declares the
CSC as the central personnel agency of the Government, thus:

Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career
service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy
in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development
programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It
shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.
Section 12, Title 1 (A), Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (EO 292) likewise enumerates the powers and functions of the CSC, one of
which is its quasi-judicial function under paragraph 11, which states:
Section 12. Powers and Functions The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal,
including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies
attached to it
And, Section 47, Title 1 (A), Book V of EO 292 provides for the CSCs disciplinary jurisdiction, as follows:
SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. (1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases
involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty
days salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly

49

with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and
decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the
investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the
penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The CSCs authority and power to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases are not in dispute. The question is whether the
CSCs disciplinary jurisdiction extends to court personnel in view of Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
The Albao case cited by the CSC is not in point as Albao was not a court employee but a contractual employee of the Office
of the Vice President. The Albao case merely affirmed the authority of the CSC to take cognizance of any irregularity or anomaly
connected with the civil service examinations.
One case in point is Bartolata v. Julaton[8] wherein a letter-complaint was sent to the CSC Regional Office in Davao City
denouncing the acts of Felicia Julaton (Julaton), Clerk of Court, and Juanita Tapic (Tapic), Court Interpreter II, both of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Davao City, Branch 3. The CSC Regional Office in Davao City discovered that a certain Julaton submitted her
application to take the Civil Service Professional Examination in 1989 but the picture on the application form and on the Picture Seat
Plan did not resemble the picture appearing on the appointment of Julaton. The signature of Julaton affixed to the examination
documents did not match the signature on her PDS. The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator which
recommended that Julaton and Tapic be held liable as charged. This Court dismissed Julaton from the service, with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits while Tapic, who had resigned, was fined P25,000 and his retirement benefits were ordered forfeited.
Likewise, in Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana,[9] the CSC formally charged Zenaida Sta. Ana (Sta. Ana), Court Stenographer
I of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service for misrepresenting that she took and passed the CSPE-CAT when in truth and in fact, someone else took
the examinations for her. The CSC found that the picture and signature in Sta. Anas PDS were different from those appearing in her
application form and in the Picture Seat Plan. Upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, this Court found
Sta. Ana guilty of dishonesty and dismissed her from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits.
In the Julaton and Sta. Ana cases, the CSC recognized the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over court personnel.
This is consonant with Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vesting in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof, thus:
Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnels administrative compliance with
all laws, rules and regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers. This we have ruled in Maceda v. Vasquez[10] and have reiterated in the case of Ampong v. Civil Service
Commission.[11] In Ampong, we also emphasized that in case of violation of the Civil Service Law by a court personnel, the standard
procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial employee before the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme
Court.
The CSC contends that respondent is now estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the CSC when he voluntarily submitted
himself to the CSC-NCR and was accorded due process, citing the Ampong case.
We disagree.
In Ampong, petitioner in that case admitted her guilt. She voluntarily went to the CSC regional office, admitted to the charges
leveled against her and waived her right to the assistance of counsel. She was given ample opportunity to present her side and adduce
evidence in her defense before the CSC. She filed her answer to the charges against her and even moved for a reconsideration of the
adverse ruling of the CSC. In short, Ampong did not question the authority of the CSC and, in fact, actively participated in the
proceedings before it.
In the present case, while respondent may have filed his Answer to the formal charge of dishonesty after having been directed
to do so, he denied having taken the civil service examination and did not even appear at the formal investigation conducted by the
CSC-NCR.[12] He appealed to the CSC after the adverse decision of the CSC-NCR was rendered but raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction
over his person. He argued that as an employee in the Judiciary, the jurisdiction to hear disciplinary action against him vests with the
Sandiganbayan or the Supreme Court.[13] It cannot therefore be said that he was estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the CSC.
This notwithstanding, we reiterate that we will not and cannot tolerate dishonesty for the judiciary expects the highest
standard of integrity from all its employees. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden or responsibility. The Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision dated 22 September 2008 and the Resolution dated 2 December 2008 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100452. Accordingly, we DENY the instant petition. Nonetheless, we ORDER the Civil Service Commission to
refer the case of respondent Herminigildo L. Andal to the Office of the Court Administrator, for the filing of the appropriate
administrative case against him.

Judge Maceda vs Ombudsman Vasquez
FACTS: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner RTC Judge
Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of service by certifying that all

50

civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or
before January 31, 1989, when in truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10
criminal cases that have been submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of
service for 17 months.

ISSUE: Whether or not the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SC’s constitutional duty of
supervision over all inferior courts

HELD: A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and under Sec. 1, Rule
140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.
In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts
and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel,
from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that can
oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they
commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the SC for determination whether said judge or court
employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.

De Guzman vs People 119 SCRA 337
FACTS: Petitioner De Guzman work as Traveling collector. He collected the total amount of P 204,349.32 from various agencies but
remitted to the General Teller, Cash Division Department of Finance, only P 127, 797.95, thus resulting in a shortage of P76,521.37.
Petitioner contends that his accountability was not proven considering that the audit examination was conducted in his absence and
after he signed the Report of Examination in blank presented to him by Auditing Examiner Maximo Pielago, thus making the
procedure irregular. Auditing Examiner Pielago candidly admitted that he made the accused sign the Report of Examination in blank
even before any examination could be conducted because upon his first demand to the Petitioner for the production of his cash and
cash items the latter told him that he had nothing to account for anyone since he ceased making collection. Pielago proceeded with
the audit examination of Petitioner’s accountability from the official records. He was found guilty for Malversation of public funds.
Petitioner contends that his accountability was not established as the Report of Examination was denominated by Pielago as
“preliminary”.

ISSUE: Can the Petitioner be held guilty of malversation based on a “preliminary” audit report?

HELD: Yes. In malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant received in his possession public funds, that he could
not account for them and did not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same. An accountable public officer may be
convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in
his account which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. In the case at bar, True, the report of the audit aforesaid was
denominated as “preliminary”. But, this does not imply that the same may not be taken as basis for the date of said audit. If there
was anything tentative about the finding made, it was only because collections of the accused under official receipts known to be
still in his possessions and the stubs of which had not yet been submitted, were not yet accounted for. Hence, the only meaning that
the term “preliminary” had in the premises was that the amount of shortage could still be increased if all receipts are eventually
found and taken into account. But, on the basis of the records available to the auditor, the amount of shortage established could not
but be considered final.

Sec. 7: (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or
more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

Sec. Such appointments need no confirmation. and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members. Sec. two hundred four thousand pesos each. of the Regional Trial Court. a representative of the Integrated Bar. a retired Member of the Supreme Court. shall be fixed by law. 9: The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. the President of the Senate. the retired Justice for two years. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating that during their . and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions. 51 (2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts. Chavez vs Judicial and Bar Council. (5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings. Nitafan vs Commissioner. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence. the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years. the Senators. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council. They submit that "any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers constitutes a decrease or diminution of their salaries. 152 SCRA 284 FACTS: Petitioners. and of judges of lower courts. For the lower courts. National Capital Judicial Region. a professor of law. and a representative of the private sector. probity. seek to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents. 19 and 53. not both. 10: The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. That the framers of the constitution only intended for one seat of the JBC to be allotted for the legislative. August 16. 17. one hundred eighty thousand pesos each. and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Financial Officer of the Supreme Court. the President shall receive an annual salary of three hundred thousand pesos. contrary to the provision of Section 10. and independence. Of the Members first appointed. from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. Sec. the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. XVIII: Until the Congress provides otherwise. Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution provides for the component of the JBC to be 7 members only with only one representative from congress. and that these two houses are permanent and mandatory components of “congress” as part of the bicameral system of legislature. respectively. and the representative of the private sector for one year. The motion was denied. 2012 that JBC’s action of allowing more than one member of the congress to represent the JBC to be unconstitutional Respondent contends that the phrase “ a representative of congress” refers that both houses of congress should have one representative each. Sec. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. 8: (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman. 2013 FACTS: The case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the JBC in a prior decision rendered July 17. ISSUE: W/N the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the House of Representatives to be unconstitutional as provided in Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution. the court held that the phrase “a representative of congress” should be construed as to having only one representative that would come from either house. the professor of law for three years. the Members of the House of Representatives. Art. two hundred forty thousand pesos each. the Secretary of Justice. their salary shall not be decreased. and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions. the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list. During their continuance in office. integrity. HELD: The practice is unconstitutional. the duly appointed and qualified Judges presiding over Branches 52. the Vice-President. (2) The regular Members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Both houses have their respective powers in performance of their duties. all with stations in Manila. but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

through the discussions and deliberations of their representatives. in adopting it. David must be declared discarded. on June 4. PERFECTO (Justice of the Supreme Court) VS MEER (Collector of Internal Revenue) FACTS: Justice Gregorio Perfecto was ordered by the CIR to pay income tax upon his salary as a member of the SC for 1946. in Perfecto vs. . Perfecto paid the income tax in protest and instituted an action for the refund of the amount he paid asserting that the assessment was illegal for violating the constitutional provision on non-diminution of the salaries of Judges. HELD: No. Stated otherwise. According to the US Congress. the petition for Prohibition is hereby dismissed. Thus. The ruling that "the imposition of income tax upon the salary of judges is a dimunition thereof. The debates. Justice Perfecto died but the SC went on to decide the case. The collection of tax was discontinued. In 1939. was to make the salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable. as the alter ego of the people. the legislature of US passed a law providing income tax for “the compensation of judges of the SC and the inferior courts of the US”. Gore came about in connection to this law and was decided by the SC saying that “the primary purpose of the prohibition against diminution was not to benefit the judges but to attract good and competent men to the bench and to promote that independence of action and judgement which is essential to the maintenance of the guarantees. it was reaffirmed by the Court en banc. of the 1987 Constitution that they have adopted. a law was passed. as affirmed in Endencia vs. The Chief Justice wrote an official communication to the Secretary of Treasury opposing such interpretation as it would diminish the salaries of judges in the name of tax at the pleasure of the legislature. 52 continuance in office. The ascertainment of that intent is but in keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect. In 1919. their salary shall not be decreased. we accord due respect to the intent of the people. Article VIII. The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. have expressed in clear and unmistakable terms the meaning and import of Section 10. The taxation of the salaries of the members of the judiciary is considered diminution thereof. early on. taxing salaries of “civil officers of the United States”. 1987. It may also be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly by the explanation offered by the framers. The Supreme Court premised their decision on American Jurisprudence where there have been three instances where the US Congress attempted to tax the salaries of members of the Judiciary. and so violates the Constitution". During the pendency of the appeal." even as it is anathema to the Ideal of an independent judiciary envisioned in and by said Constitution. in the spirit that all citizens should bear their aliquot part of the cost of maintaining the government and should share the burden of general income taxation equitably. ISSUE: Whether or not members of the Judiciary are exempt from income taxes. The case of Evans vs. This gave rise to the O’Malley decision where the US Supreme Court resolved that the issue of taxability of judges salaries as a question of policy. The framers of the fundamental law. Therefore. limitations and pervading principles of the constitution…” 3. In 1862. interpellations and opinions expressed regarding the constitutional provision in question until it was finally approved by the Commission disclosed that the true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. The CFI ruled in the favour of Justice Perfecto but the CIR appealed the decision. 1. ISSUE: Is the imposition of income tax upon the salaries of justices and judges (members of the judiciary) considered a diminution? DECISION: Yes. This would affect judges appointed after the law has been passed. another law was passed taxing the “gross income” of the judges. the Court had dealt with the matter administratively in response to representations that the Court shall direct its Finance Officer to discontinue the withholding of taxes from salaries of members of the Bench. Meer. this is not a diminution of the salaries of the judges but a guarantee that no one shall enjoy immunity from incidence of taxation to which everyone else within the defined classes of income is subjected. 2. which must be stated in a Congressional enactment. which was construed to include salaries of judges." It may be pointed out that.

SATURNINO DAVID FACTS: The Congress passed a law. Section 13 of the said law states: “SEC 13. in the matter of compensation and power and the need for security. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. Inc. which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 11: The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reached the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. 590 is unconstitutional. ENDENCIA and FERNANDO JUGO vs . Hence. the President needs political security and power. Herminio Andaya. in violation of the constitution since in effect there is a diminution of their salaries when taxes are imposed upon them. However.). or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Indeed. from Baguio City Loakan. when congress passed RA 590. This will result to judges toeing the line to earn the pleasure of the legislative or yielding to pressure by the two other departments when they have a pending case before the judge. it is unconstitutional. amend. However.roper to its plant site one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado. A month later. Republic Act No. fifteen thousand pesos. according to petitioners. Article VIII pertains to any diminution on the salaries of the members of the judiciary. a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner's driver. the Legislative Department may create. Article VIII of the Constitution.” The imposition of taxes is. and in effect encroached on the power of the judiciary. payment of which is hereby declared not to be dimunition of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law. they treated taxes not as a sort of diminution of the salaries of the members of the judiciary as discerned in Section 9. They shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law. Baguio City. Imposing taxes on their salaries would take an effect of diminution of their salaries. in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. or repeal laws as that is their prerogative under the constitution. the action could proceed independently of the criminal action. Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him. 9. The SC ruled that the Judiciary is not seated similarly as the President. Until the Congress shall provide otherwise. As a result of the accident. modify. They assail the constitutionality of Section 13 of RA No. By doing so. VIII of the 1935 Constitution. 590 unconstitutional? HELD: Section 13 of Republic Act No. the SC demonstrated that taxation may be used to retaliate against the Judiciary when the Executive or Legislative is displeased with the Judiciary. they gave their own interpretation of the Constitution. a civil case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner himself. and each Associate Justice. However. ISSUE: Is Section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 because they contend that it is inconsistent with Section 9. The CIR also asserts that the judiciary should act in the same way as the President who has subjected his salary to the Income Tax Law by virtue of an Executive Order. But the trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code. The complaint was assigned to Branch IV of the same court. 9. Art. Section 9. No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines shall be considered as exempt from the income tax. 590. PASTOR M. The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior. or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Sec.” Petitioners herein are Justices of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court respectively. Judge Ruben c. Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution which provides that : “SEC. According to the Supreme Court. 53 The CIR asserts that taxation will not imperil the independence of the Judiciary. ***Unlike the Judiciary. Ayson vs The RTC Judges of Baguio City HELD: Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. until they reach the age of seventy years. . the legislative argue that taxing the salary of a judicial officer is not a diminution of salary as discerned in Sec. citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall receive an annual compensation of sixteen thousand pesos. (Phils.

54 Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals. The complaint was assigned to Branch IV of the same court. in addition to the fact that the petitioner was not the accused in the criminal case. Petitioners filed a petition for declaratory relief/ mandamus to declare Sec. 3 of RA 1186 void and asked the court to declare that their offices and positions still exist. unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such act. seeking to enjoin the Minister of the Budget. et. the action could proceed independently of the criminal action. Herminio Andaya. properly and logically speaking there is no removal from office because removal implies that the office exists after the ouster. (In this case. RULING: What is involved in this case is not the removal or separation of the judges and justices from their services. The law has been subjected to several amendments. It includes Section 3 which provides for the abolishment of “the existing positions of Judges-at-large and Cadastral Judges”. It is the termination of their incumbency that for petitioners justify a suit of this character. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition which it held allowed a civil action for damages to be filed independently of the criminal action even though no reservation to file the same has been made. would be considered separated from the judiciary. 2176. private respondent may nonetheless bring an action for damages against petitioner under Art. citing the pendency of the criminal case against his driver. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition which it held allowed a civil action for damages to be filed independently of the criminal action even though no reservation to file the same has been made. without the President’s approval. ISSUE: The question is whether despite the absence of such reservation. the principle used is relative to the abolition of civil service positions. What is important is the validity of the abolition of their offices. filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or for Prohibition. Baguio City. Petitioner took the matter on certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals. 112 SCRA 294 FACTS: De La Llana. Only 7 out of 11 viewed the statute as unconstitutional. ISSUE: Whether or not the reorganization violate the security of tenure of justices and judges as provided for under the Constitution. with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. (Phils. a civil case for damages was filed by private respondent Boado against petitioner himself. except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the CTA. But the trial court denied petitioner's motion on the ground that pursuant to the Civil Code. 2180. 2177 of the Civil Code: HELD: Petitioner Ruben Maniago was the owner of shuttle buses which were used in transporting employees of the Texas Instruments. In such situation. al. majority (8) of the SC sitting en banc must vote against it) In the abolition of courts. including RA 1186 which took effect in June 30 1954. Petitioner moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him. the office ceased to exist since there is abolishment) De La Llana vs Alba. a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries was filed against petitioner's driver. Abolition of office is valid when done in good faith and not for political reasons. .). maintaining that the civil action could not proceed independently of the criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it separately had been made in the criminal case. Inc. A month later. and the Minister of Justice from taking any action implementing BP 129 which mandates that Justices and judges of inferior courts from the CA to MTCs.roper to its plant site one of his buses figured in a vehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned by private respondent Alfredo Boado. from Baguio City Loakan. it being alleged that thereby the security of tenure provision of the Constitution has been ignored and disregarded. the Judiciary Act was passed. maintaining that the civil action could not proceed independently of the criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it separately had been made in the criminal case. Ocampo vs Secretary of Justice FACTS: In 1948. ISSUE: WON Section 3 of RA 1186 is unconstitutional HELD: It was dismissed by the Supreme Court for insufficiency of votes needed to invalidate a challenged provision. the Chairman of the Commission on Audit. As a result of the accident. (NB: To hold a statute unconstitutional.

12: The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. The fundamental advantages and the necessity of the independence of said three departments from each other. When Macaraig realized that it would be some time before he could actually preside over his court. resulting in his forfeiting all the leave benefits he had earned beyond the maximum ten months allowed by the law). there is in law no occupant. 1970 to February 28. 39 SCRA 106 FACTS: Judge Catalino Macaraig. The court. Manila Electric vs Pasay Transportation. as the case may be. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law. none of these is to be taken as meaning that the Court looks with favor at the practice of long standing. Also questioned was the fact that a member of the judiciary is helping the the DOJ. the abolition must be made in good faith. . 57 Phil 60 FACTS: Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed a petition requesting the members of the Supreme Court. Removal is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of valid abolition of the office. Jr. however. like every lawyer who gets his first appointment to the bench. reversal. whenever he was not busy attending to the needs of his court. being one of the 112 newly created CFI branches. Macaraig was. Macaraig’s inability to perform his judicial duties under the circumstances mentioned above does not constitute incompetence. The Secretary of Justice. he had. have long been acknowledged as more paramount than the serving of any temporary or passing governmental conveniences or exigencies. Paz Garcia on the other hand filed a complaint alleging that Macaraig is incompetent. never gone on extended leave. HELD: No. dishonest and has acted in violation of his oath as a judge. 1971. a department of the executive oi charge of prosecution of cases. had to be organized from scratch. sitting as a board of arbitrators. Sec. Needless to say. There can be no tenure to a non- existent office. he applied for an extended leave (during the 16 years he had worked in the Department of Justice. of judges being detailed in the DOJ to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over the courts. 55 Well-settled is the rule that the abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that. by any authority other than the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not Macaraig has acted with incompetence and dishonesty as Judge. Macaraig was not able to assume the duties and functions of a judge due to the fact that his Court Room can not be properly established due to problems as to location and as to appropriations to make his Court up and running. After the abolition. worst still. without being extended a formal detail. eager to assume his judicial duties and rid himself of the stigma of being ‘a judge without a sala’. the Court feels very strongly that it is best that this practice is discontinued. lest the principle of separation of powers on which our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions in the interest of the public service. convinced Macaraig to forego his leave and instead to assist the Secretary. 1970. The line between what a judge may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the other great departments of the government must always be kept clear and jealously observed. 1446. Garcia said that Macaraig has not submitted the progress of his Courts as required by law. due to pressure of duties. in order to be valid. limited only by the specific constitutional precepts on check and balance between and among them. And that Macaraig has received salaries as a judge while he is fully aware that he has not been performing the duties of a judge. It is thus of grave importance to the judiciary under our present constitutional scheme of government that no judge of even the lowest court in this Republic should place himself in a position where his actuations on matters submitted to him for action or resolution would be subject to review and prior approval and. Garcia vs Macaraig. took his oath as Judge of the CFI of Laguna and San Pablo City on June 29. before they can have legal effect. to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig Bridge of the petitioner and the compensation to be paid to them by such transportation companies citing Sec 11 of Act No. to be sure. In case of removal. On the other hand. From July 1. but forces and circumstances beyond his control prevented him from discharging his judicial duties.

over portions of the lines and tracks of the grantee herein. Just as the Supreme Court. Commissioner's Court [1908]. Also. and qualifications of the president-elect and the Vice-president elect of the Philippines. Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. ISSUE: WON the members of the SC may be constituted a board of arbitrators and fix the terms and compensation asked by the petitioner HELD: No. 263. to act on the petition of the Manila Electric Company. It is judicial power and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Manila Electric Company was ordered to serve copies to the transportations companies (Pasay Transportation Company and ) and to the Attorney-General. and the compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such other person or corporation for said use. since the PET is composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten members of the SC any decision of the PET cannot be validly appealed before the SC or that there may be conflict that may arise once a PET decision is appealed before the SC. The PET was created by RA 1793. and it cannot be required or authorized to exercise any other. except. the decision of a majority of whom shall be final. It was there held that an Act of a state legislature authorizing the commissioners' court of a certain county to regulate and fix the rate of toll to be charged by the owners of a bridge is not unconstitutional as delegating legislative power to the courts. the decision of a majority of whom shall be final. sitting as board of arbitrators. the terms on which said other person or corporation shall use such right of way. Co. 56 Sec 11 of Act No. so much as the Constitution confers upon some other agency. In coming up with the PET. so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. shall be fixed by the members of the Supreme Court. Section 11 of Act No. According to the CJ Taney. who disclaimed any interest in the proceedings. and a petition by a number of public operators opposing Manila Electric Company’s petition. not merely some specified or limited judicial power. Lopez averred that the PET is unconstitutional for it was not provided for in the constitution. It is provided in the law that: “There shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal . . 1446 provides: Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to any other person or corporation. HELD: Yes. which is vested by the fundamental law solely in the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal. the entirety or “all” of said power. Counsel for the petitioner rely principally on the case of Tallassee Falls Mfg. respectively. a losing candidate would have the right to appeal his loss. 17 SCRA 756 FACTS: Fernando Lopez and Gerardo Roxas were the candidates for Vice President in the 1965 elections. which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. the Constitution allowed Congress to determine which body should decide controversies relating to the election of the President or the Vice President. Lopez won the election. such as the power to “judge all contests relating to the election. and. returns and qualifications” of members of the Senate and those of the House of Representatives. only. Lopez assailed the law and he sought to enjoin Roxas and the PET from proceeding with the case. or the members of the Supreme Court. 158 Ala. Roxas appealed his loss before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Such is within its power. returns. ISSUE: Whether or not the PET is a valid body. the power conferred to the SC is exclusively judicial. The proper exercise of said authority . the Congress merely conferred a new function to the Supreme Court. as the guardian of constitutional rights.. sitting as a board of arbitrators. sitting as a board of arbitrators." Upon filing the petition. accordingly. now or hereafter in existence. RA 1793 did not create another court within the SC for pursuant to the Constitution. “the Judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such inferior courts as may be established by law” The Supreme Court went on to emphasize that the fundamental law vests in the judicial branch of the government.” In effect. the members of the Supreme Court is facing the dilemma whether sitting as a board of arbitrators. should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government. but “the” judicial power under our political system. In the case at bar. . vs. and that it would be improper and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. exercise administrative or quasi judicial functions. exercise judicial functions. 1446 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a democratic government constitutionally established. Lopez vs Roxas.

57 requires legislative action: (1) defining such enforceable and demandable rights and/or prescribing remedies for violations thereof. determinations. 1987 Constitution). the functions of the PET. Its work is purely advisory.12. He petitioned that his membership in the Committee will not in any way amount to an abandonment to his present position as Executive Judge of Branch XIX. “Administrative functions” as used in Sec. prescribe. or dissented. There is an element of positive action. In Re: Judge Rodolfo Manzano FACTS: Judge Manzano filed a petition allowing him to accept the appointment by Ilocos Sur Governor Rodolfo Farinas as the member of Ilocos Norte provincial Committee on Justice created pursuant to a Presidential Order. 14: No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. pools the expertise and experiences of the members. Any Member who took no part.VIII. Quasi-Judicial has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from participating in the work of any Administrative Agency which adjudicates disputes & controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction. 12 refers to the Government’s executive machinery and its performance of governmental acts. and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts”. ISSUE: What is an administrative agency? Where does it draw the line insofar as administrative functions are concerned? HELD: The petition is denied. For this reason. 1st Judicial region and as a member of judiciary. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct & affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the Legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. the Constitution ordains that “Congress shall have the power to define. A member of the judiciary joining any study group which concentrates on the administration of justice as long as the group merely deliberates on problems involving the speedy disposition of cases particularly those involving the poor and needy litigants-or detainees.. 13: The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. RA 1793 merely added the court’s jurisdiction and such can be validly legislated by Congress. subject to the limitations set forth in the fundamental law. RTC. It merely conferred upon the SC additional functions i. Sec. This is valid because the determining of election contests is essentially judicial. In the dissenting opinion of Justice Gutierrez: Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence “we can readily see that membership in the Provincial or City Committee on Justice would not involve any regulation or control over the conduct and affairs of individuals. It refers to the management actions. and limits itself to recommendations which may be adopted or rejected by those who have the power to legislate or administer the particular function involved in their implementation. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts. . A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. and orders of executive officials as they administer the laws and try to make government effective. in the first instance and/or on appeal. The SC ruled that the PET is not in conflict with the constitution. or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. and (2) determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide said controversies or disputes. Art. Sec. The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the Judiciary to any agency performing Quasi-Judicial or Administrative functions (Sec.e. of supervision or control. Neither will the Committee on Justice promulgate rules and regulations nor exercise any quasi-legislative functions.

a 1st class round trip ticket from Manila . Section 9 of the 1973 Constitution. 18 SCRA 155 FACTS: Air France issued to Carrascoso. whether or not he was entitled to the damages awarded. They are entitled to be protected against personal is conduct. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. it continued thereafter after he was duly arraigned. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness. Pampanga." The proceeding in a military commission terminates with a guilty or not guilty verdict. a civil engineer. v. and was accused in two criminal cases: (1) violation of R. Buscayno avers that a judgment of respondent Military Commission would be violative of Article X. 102 SCRA7 FACTS: Bernabe Buscayno was arrested in Barrio Sto. He was a political detainee during Martial Law. Military Commision. It received the corresponding amount in payment of the tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. 58 Air France vs CARRASCOSO. It can be said of course that a military commission is not a court . he filed a suit against Air France where the CFI Manila granted him moral and exemplary damages. "We cannot understand how a reputable firm like Air France could have the indiscretion to give out tickets it never meant to honor at all. adherence to the ticket issued is desirable. Military Courts may try civilians during Martial Law. Rosario. Quoting the court. He forcibly ejected him from his seat. CFI. reckless. his trial before respondent Military Commission had started. copied directly from the full text: This provision requires that a decision of a court of record "shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. (This has already been answered in Aquino Jr. HELD: Yes to both. the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) or the New People's Army (NPA). During the stopover at Bangkok. These are both pending with respondent Military Commission No. 1.Rome. is the founder of the New People’s Army. 1700 or Anti-Subversion Act and (2) murder. ISSUE: Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and consequently. To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and air carrier. ISSUE: Can Military Tribunals try individuals who are not members of the Armed Forces? (This has been the decisive issue posed in this habeas corpus and prohibition proceeding. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of business that the company should know whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not. Exemplary damages were also awarded. There is also no evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man. 2. the Manager of Air France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st class seat because there was a "white man" who had better right to the seat. Mexico. He is likewise an accused in the MV Karagatan case for rebellion before Military Commission No. In matters regarding Article X. respect. The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a 1st class seat. No. this is bad faith. now Article VIII.state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose VDA De Espiritu vs. **Bernabe Buscayno.) This Court once again sustained the power of the President to create military commissions or courts martial to try not only members of the armed forces but also civilian offenders. and was freed during the Aquino Administration. Hence this objection. injurious language. The manner of ejectment fits into the condition for exemplary damages that defendant acted in a wanton. As a result. oppressive or malevolent manner. courtesy and due consideration. Certainly. the military wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines.) HELD: The petition was dismissed. In the case. also called Kumander Dante. Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution. Any discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. it could have been easy for Air France to present its manager to testify at the trial or secure his deposition but defendant did neither. *Bad Faith . Section 9. made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to tourist class just to give way to another passenger whose right was not established. as ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). 47 SCRA 354 Buscayno vs Enrile.A. Prior to his arrest. indignities and abuse from such employees. worse he imposed his arbitrary will." Evidence of bad faith was presented without objection on the part of the Carrascoso. fraudulent.

Art. Rule XV of COMELEC Resolution No. that is not the case. which established such board. 1450 dated February 26. L- 31558. Mangca vs COMELEC. No decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The Constitution remained supreme. May 29. Supreme Court said that Rep. That would remove any taint of unconstitutionality. resolution is null and void for being violative of Sec. 59 of record within the meaning of this Articles on the judiciary. with the fundamental principle of civilian supremacy upheld. Hence any imputation of arbitrariness sought to be avoided by the above provision would not be warranted. X of the Constitution and Sec 26. Regional Election Director for Region XII. they are not required to hire stenographers or clerks to do such a job. Rule XV of COMELEC Resolution No. does not provide that they shall also be a board of records and as such. I thereof. Ibea was dismissed from police service pursuant to a decision of the Police Commission finding him guilty of serious irregularity in the performance of duty on the complaint of one Jose Lee. 121 SCRA 205 NAPOLCOM vs Lood. Military Commission. X of the Constitution of the Philippines. both cited provisions are inapplicable to the case at bar since the constitutional requirement applies only to courts of justice which the COMELEC is not (Lucman vs. Ibea filed a complaint with respondent court seeking his reinstatement. On the issue of the lack of records and stenographic notes during the hearing of the NPC Board of Investigators. It may be stated further that the record of the proceedings are available to the reviewing authorities. ISSUE: Whether the decision rendered by Judge Lood was correct and should be sustained? HELD: The Judge erred in deciding the case on those merits. 1450. Section 9 because the procedures as provided by the Constitution are followed. the decisions of the Supreme Court seemingly being in favor of the military dictatorship. Act 4864." Respondent court ruled that the decision of petitioner commission was based on incomplete records as there was no transcript of the testimonies of witnesses or minutes of the proceedings before the Board of Investigators and that the commission's conclusion was without factual basis and was in violation of administrative due process. petitioner. per Sec. the respondent ruled that Ibea’s eligibility has become moot and academic due to Ibea’s acquisition of civil service eligibility. ISSUE: WON there grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. 1981. Dimaporo. Firstly. 26. 1450 is untenable. Mamasapunod Aguam. It appears on record that the COMELEC did not consider petitioner's evidence. Rizal with back salaries and remunerations pertaining to said position from the date of his suspension to the time of his reinstatement to the service. the procedure followed. The . and Sec. In other words: This is not violative of Article X. particularly the Memorandum Report of Atty. and that is enough to say that the court “clearly and distinctly stated the facts and the law on which it is based” to render a decision. 1970. If you continuously read the case. 112 SCRA 273 FACTS: In a petition for a pre-proclamation controversy. well. v. Domingo. 9. The Supreme Court also based the decision on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Covenant on Civil and Political rights. the following. the Commission shall follow the procedure prescribed for the Supreme Court in Secs. The court cited the decision of Aquino Jr. 8 and 9. Moreover. Art. was given the seal of approval in the above Aquino decision citing the applicable section of the Article on Transitory Provisions. 1980. Jr. applies only to "election contests" and "quo warranto proceedings" which the pre. assigned as error of the COMELEC. 33 SCRA 387) while COMELEC Resolution No. He was sustained by respondent court which rendered its decision declaring the decision of the Police Commission as null and void and ordered the town mayor to "reinstate the plaintiff to his former position as patrolman in the Police Department of San Juan. to the effect that there was failure of election in Sultan Gumander. including the form the judgment takes. who lost in the election.proclamation cases are not Valladolid vs Inciong. which reads: In deciding contests. 127 SCRA 757 FACTS: Respondent Judge Lood tried a case involving the respondent police officer Simplicio Ibea. Some time during the tenure of Mayor Braulio Sto. Furthermore. HELD: Petitioner's contention that the March 31.

Ibea for lack of civil service eligibility had been rendered moot and academic upon the latter's subsequent acquisition of a civil service eligibility. which Petition the Court had previously dismissed. 169 SCRA 230 ***For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Minute Resolution of this Court of 11 May 1988 dismissing the Petition for certiorari "for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the public respondent had committed grave abuse of discretion in holding. Section 14. The Regional Director of the Commission on Audit reversed the Provincial Auditor of Basilan and denied petitioner's claim for separation pay. This mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted for decision. No decision shall be rendered by any Court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. as the case may be.092. prLL For "well-settled in this jurisdiction is the principle that when an appointment is temporary. he was subject to removal at any time without the necessity of following the procedure set up by Republic Act No. ISSUE: WON the decision does not clearly and distinctly express the facts and the law on which it is based HELD: No. Under the Civil Service Law then in force. speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses. considering that he held merely a temporary appointment. the assailed Resolution does state the legal basis for the dismissal of the Petition and thus complies with the Constitutional provision. 4864. It is not applicable to an Order or Resolution refusing due course to a Petition for Certiorari. such were sufficient to be factual basis for the decision of the Commission on the case. The Provincial Auditor opined that the claim was legal and proper but payment thereof was made subject to availability of funds and the ruling of the Regional Office of the Commission on Audit. the Supreme Court also said that since there have been testimonial evidences presented. for removal of police officers. The petitioner now contends that the previous resolution of the Supreme Court was not in accordance with Section 14.50 according to a Compromise Agreement entered into by him and the Municipal Mayor. Basilan. the same is terminable at the pleasure of the appointing power. COA Central Office denied petitioner's claim for separation pay and also disallowed the other payments made to petitioner. petitioner filed his claim for separation pay in the amount of P54. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: Sec. Domingo.e. and no cause is required to be shown for such termination. Thus. the fact that private respondent subsequently became a civil service eligible did not ipso facto render permanent the nature of his temporary appointment as to make the question moot and academic. as to Ibea’s eligibility. that the compromise agreement of the parties is not enforceable against the Municipality of Isabela. in line with the principle that "administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just. 14.” As to the issue on the decision being without factual basis.. The Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela. Lastly. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Respondent court erred in holding that the allegations on the temporary status of the appointment of private respondent Simplicio C. . among others. the latter not having been impleaded as an indispensable party in the case." Nunal vs CA. this recourse by petitioner alleging grave abuse of discretion by COA. Further. Basilan. After his services were terminated by former Mayor Sto. his reinstatement was no longer legally feasible in the face of incumbent Mayor Estrada's refusal to do so. the same was terminated after dismissal by commission. given due course and after the filing of Briefs or Memoranda and/or other pleadings." i. Supreme Court ruled that his appointment was only temporary in nature for lack of civil service eligibility at the time. "Resolution" of 11 May 1988 was not a "Decision" within the meaning of the Constitutional requirement. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was forwarded to the Commission on Audit (COA). abolished the subject position pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Code. In fine. 60 proceeding provided for is merely administrative and summary in character. FACTS: Nunal was the Municipal Administrator of Isabela. since respondent Ibea was merely a temporary appointee. On 17 September 1985. and regardless of the complaint filed against him.

Hence. Bedruz and City Administrator Emma C. ―act with justness and sincerity and ―not to discriminate against anyone. CFI and RTC denied it but CA reversed the decision. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that ―[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. It is undisputed that private respondents were in possession of the property and not the petitioners nor the spouses Jose. The respondents filed in CFI because they were deprived of their property without due process of law by trespassing. as amended (THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES). upon which its decision of May 8. violence or terror. intelligence and skill. Thus. Luna were held administratively liable for violation of the Constitution. As for Bedruz and Luna’s complaint that the Ombudsman did not express in a clear manner the law on which its decision was based. Endaya. private respondents have a right to commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the legality or illegality of possession. they are in actual possession of the land. ISSUE: Whether or not Court of Appeals committed grave error and mistake in denying the petition for certiorari. Philadelphia. professionalism. bias. San Isidro. paragraphs A(b) & (c) of R. 215 SCRA 230 Bedruz vs Office of the Ombudsman FACTS: The omission of the trial court to state the factual and legal bases of its decision is not violative of the constitutional requirement if the same can be inferred from the discussion of the decision. Rizal (the land being disputed in the case at bar. Political Law A trial court‘s omission to specify the offense committed. Clearly. Title is not involved. 6713. Resolving in the affirmative. requiring public officials and employees to ―perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence. Private respondents. are supported by the evidence on record. In short. and which were cited by the appellate court in arriving at its assailed decision.) The spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management Services to develop their property. only actual possession. they are entitled to file a forcible entry case! Since private respondents were in actual possession of the property at the time they were forcibly ejected by petitioner. From the Ombudsman’s decision. Forcible entry is merely a quieting process and never determines the actual title to an estate. 444 SCRA 329 FACTS: Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania. No. 6770 (THE OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989) in relation to Section 4.‖ It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand. On appeal. They have already acquired the proper permits to do so but they discovered that the land was occupied by the respondent with 20 other farmers (members of the Concerned of Farmer’s Association. 61 Mangelen vs CA. the same fails. it can be gathered that Bedruz and Luna violated Sections 19 of R. the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials. No.A. HELD: A review of the records of the case shows that the following factual findings of the Ombudsman. ―is not in derogation of the constitutional requirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court as long as the legal basis can be inferred from the discussion in the decision. this petition. Although the petitioners have a valid claim over ownership this does not in any way justify their act of ―forcible entry. the Deputy Ombudsman fined them in an amount equivalent to One (1) Month Salary.A. Petitioners tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and. the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. 1999 was based. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Ombudsman. German Machineries Corporation vs. Antipolo. can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner because ownership is not in issue. Petitioners Tagaytay City Engineer Samson B. USA are owners of the land situated in sitio Inarawan. and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in manifesting arrogance. Petitioners tried to appeal the decision in CA but were denied thus this appeal ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are entitled to file a forcible entry case against petitioner? RULING: YES. abuse and crystal personal interest in connection with the issuance of a permit to fence a lot. a party who can prove prior possession can recover such . demolishing and bulldozing their crops and property situated in the land. the appellate court did not err in finding that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. or the specific provision of law violated. as actual possessors. demolish and bulldoze their crops and property. thereby violating Section 14. especially the poor and the underprivileged.) These farmers have occupied the land for the last twelve to fifteen years prior to the issuance of the permits and they already have their crops all over the property.

1975. Marcelino is now contending that the court can no longer promulgate judgment because by January 1976. The promulgation of the decisions was scheduled in January 1976. Art 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “upon the effectivity of this constitution. if he has in his favor priority in time. When possession has already been lost. 98 SCRA 424 Malacora vs CA. 1975. his decision bears the same date of November 28. Judge Cruz was able to rule on the case within the 3-month period because November 28. He who believes that he has an action or right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period. . (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pending.. could not serve as the reckoning date because the same necessarily comes at a later date. 1975 (date of last day of filing of the memoranda by the respective parties). Fernando Cruz. 18 months for the Supreme Court. Is the period to decide provided for by the Constitution mandatory? Section 11 (1). the 3-month period begins to run so Judge Cruz had until December 4. shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination. the owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of property. From that day. As clearly stated in Article 536. On August 4. 1975. Sec. On November 28. On the same date. which the petitioners were using to justify their actions. 15: (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court. brief. and. (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period. Jr.―In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. 1975. are not applicable in the case because it can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession which is absent in the case at bar (in fact they are the ones who are threatening to remove the respondents with the use of force. 1975 to rule on the case. The presiding judge. the court. the maximum period within which case or matter shall be decided or resolved from the date of its submission shall be. if holder should refuse to deliver the thing. Corpus vs CA. he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. Judge Cruz made a rendition of his decision on November 28. and three months for all other lower courts. gave them 30 days or until September 4. thus. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period. 227 SCRA 435 Marcelino vs Cruz. 1975. 1975. unless reduced by the Supreme Court. Whatever may be the character of his possession. without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof. The date of promulgation of a decision. Judge Cruz filed with the Clerk of Court a copy of his decision. Hence. the 3-month period (90 day period) within which lower courts must decide on cases had already lapsed. the prosecution finished presenting evidence against Marcelino and rested its case. 62 possession even against the owner himself. 1975 was merely the 85th day from September 4. and served upon the parties. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Cruz had resolved the case within the allotted period. Only Marcelino submitted a memoranda. HELD: Yes. the lower court lost its jurisdiction over the case. twelve months for all lower collegiate courts. in this case it was set in January 1976. or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. The date of rendition is the date of filing of the decision with the clerk of court.) Article 536 basically tells us that the owner or a person who has a better right over the land must resort to judicial means to recover the property from another person who possesses the land. a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter. The case is deemed submitted for decision on September 4. 121 SCRA 51 FACTS: Bernardino Marcelino was charged for the crime of rape. The doctrine of self help. without further delay. the attorneys of both parties in the criminal case moved for time within which to submit their respective memoranda.

within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress. submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary. the SC warned lower court judges to resolve cases within the prescribed period and not take this liberal construction as an excuse to dispose of cases at later periods. 152 SCRA 205 Sec. Nevertheless. In practice. The provision is mandatory. Extensions can be granted in meritorious cases. . 16: The Supreme Court shall. 63 12 months for the inferior courts and 3 months for lower courts. De Roma vs CA. the Supreme Court is liberal when it comes to this provision. To interpret such provision as mandatory will only be detrimental to the justice system. its merely directive.