SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
reside somehow in a particular body
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a
plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that
date, therefore, the Provisional
Constitution must be deemed to have
been superseded. (Effectivity is
immediately upon ratification)
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the
Constitution or to propose amendments
thereto: not inherent power of Congress
but of the people; constituent power of
Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC
The condition and limitation that all the
amendments to be proposed by the
same convention must be submitted in a
“single election” or plebiscite.
Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as
Constituent Assembly: Authority to call
constitutional convention as Constituent
Assembly in enacting implementing
details.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative
powers (and proposing amendments) is
valid in martial law.
-Amending process is a sovereign act,
although the authority to institute the
same and the procedure to be followed
(Pres. Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative would
remain entombed in a cold niche until
Congress provides for its implementation.
Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-
executing.
Lambino v. COMELEC
Essence of people's initiative: (1) people
must author; (2) they must sign the
proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in
petition
CONCEPT OF STATE
Bacani vs NACOCO
• The mere fact that the Government
happens to be a major stockholder of a
corporation does not make it a public
corporation.
• Distinction between constituent and
ministrant functions.
PVTA vs CIR
• Distinction between constituent and
ministrant functions – obsolete.
• Government has to provide for general
welfare.
Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad
• Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as
guardian of the people)
 • Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:
- abrogation of laws in conflict with the
political character of the substituted
sovereign (political law).
- great body of municipal law regarding
private and domestic rights continue in
force until abrogated or changed by new
ruler.
Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
• Continuity of Law: Law, once
established, continues until changed by
some competent legislative power (not
changed by mere change of sovereignty)
• All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov.
depts. of a de facto government are
good and valid.
• Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper – government
obtained by force or voice of the
majority
(2) paramount force – by military forces
who invade the territory
(3) independent government –
established by inhabitants through
insurrection
• Republic of the Philippines (during
Japanese occupation) was a de facto
government.
People vs Gozo
• Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of
Philippine sovereignty over American
bases – Philippine Government has not
abdicated its sovereignty over the bases
as part of the Philippine territory.
Laurel vs Misa
• Nature of Allegiance to sovereign:
Absolute and permanent
• Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty
of the government – not transferred to
occupier
Ruffy v Chief of Staff
• The rule that laws of political nature or
affecting political relations are
considered superseded or held in
abeyance during the military occupation,
is intended for the governing of the civil
inhabitants of the occupied territory and
not for the enemies in arms.
STATE IMMUNITY
Sanders v Veridiano
• Mere allegation that a government
functionary is being sued in his personal
capacity will not automatically remove
him from the protection of the laws of
public officers and doctrine of state
immunity
• Doctrine of state immunity applicable also
to other states.
Republic v Sandoval
• State cannot be held liable for the deaths
that followed the incident; liability should
fall on the public officers who committed
acts beyond their authority
• 3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name
2. when unincorporated government
agency is sued
3. when the suit is against a government
employee but liability belongs to the
government
Festejo v Fernando
• Officer or employee committing the tort
 is personally liable and maybe sued as
any other citizen and held answerable
for whatever injury
USA vs Guinto
- A state may be said to have descended
to the level of an individual and can
thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued only when it enters
into business contracts.
Veterans Manpower vs CA
- The state is deemed to have given
tacitly its consent to be sued when it
enters into a contract. However, it does
not apply where the contract relates to
the exercise of its sovereign functions.
The Merritt vs Gov’t of the Phil
- By consenting to be sued, a state simply
waives its immunity from suit. It does
not thereby concede its liability to the
plaintiff, or create any cause of action
in his favor, or extend its liability to any
cause not previously recognized. It
merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-
existing liability and submit itself to the
jurisdiction of the court, subject to its
right to interpose any lawful defense.
Amigable vs. Cuenca
The government, when it takes away a
property from a private land owner for
public use without going through the
legal process of expropriation or
negotiated sale, the aggrieved party
may properly maintain a suit against the
government without thereby violating
the doctrine of governmental immunity
from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in
perpetrating injustice to a citizen.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
- When the state files an action, it divests
itself of the sovereign character and shed
its immunity form suit, descending to the
level of an ordinary litigant.
Republic vs. Feliciano
- failure to allege in the complaint the
existence of consent by the State is a fatal
defect (construction must be strict against
conferment of waiver
- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at
any point/stage of the proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to
foreign states: States may be sued when the
proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign.
The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.
• Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic
envoy is granted immunity from the civil
and administrative jurisdiction of the
receiving state over any real action
relating to private immovable property
situated in the territory of the receiving
state which the envoy holds on behalf of
the sending state for the purposes of the
mission
Republic vs. Villasor
- Judgment against the State cannot be
enforced by execution. It may limit
claimant’s action only up to the
completion of proceedings anterior to
the state of execution. Power of courts
end when judgment is rendered.
[suability vs. liability]
- Functions and public services cannot
be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted
by the disruption of public funds.
Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
- Not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
non-suability. Distinction must still be
made between one which is executed in
the exercise of its sovereign function
and another which is done in the
proprietary capacity.
- State gives consent upon moneyed claim
arising from contract.
PNB vs. Pabalan
- State immunity from suit cannot be
validly invoked with regard to funds of
public corporations.
- [suable corporations] Public funds of
corporations which can sue and be sued
are not exempt from gaarnishment.
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan
- The character of an incorporated agency
allows it to sue and be sued without
qualification
Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing
Employees Assoc.
- Acceptance of outside work and payment
of overtime compensation does not make
work of Bureau of Printing proprietary.
- Non-suability of the State is available to
the agency even if it is shown that it is
engaged not only in governmental
functions but also, incidentally, in
proprietary enterprises (unincorporated
agency).
Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA
If an agency‘s function is deemed
proprietary, if such is a necessary incident
of the primary and gov. function of such
agency, such agency is not suable (for an
unincorporated agency only).
Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of
Appeals
- Not all government entities whether
corporate or not are immune from suits.
Immunity from suits is determined by the
character of the objects for which the
entity was organized.
- Suits against State agencies with
relation to matters in which they have
assumed to act in private or non-
governmental capacity, and various suits
against certain corporations created by
the State to engage In matters partaking
more of the nature of ordinary business
are not regarded as suits against the
State.
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v.
Judge Firme
The test of liability of the municipality
depends on whether or not the driver
acting in behalf of the municipality is
 performing governmental or proprietary
functions. It has already been remarked
that municipal corporations are suable
because their charters grant them the
competence to sue and be sued.
Nevertheless, they are generally not
liable for torts committed by them in
the discharge of governmental functions
and can be held answerable only if it
can be shown that they were acting in a
proprietary capacity. In permitting such
entities to be sued, the state merely
gives the claimants the right to show
the defendant was not acting in its
governmental capacity when the injury
was inflicted or that the case comes
under the exceptions recognized by law.
Failing this, the claimants cannot
recover.
Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v.
Fernandez
Municipal funds in possession of
municipal and provincial treasurers are
public funds exempt from execution.
Municipal funds are held in trust for the
people intended and used for the
accomplishments of the purposes for
which municipal corporations are
created and that to subject said
properties and public funds to execution
would materially impede, even defeat
and in some instance destroy said
purposes.
Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals
When a municipality fails or refuses
without justifiable reason to effect
payment of a final money judgment
rendered against it, the claimant may
avail of the remedy of mandamus in order
to compel the enactment and approval of
the necessary appropriation ordinance
and the corresponding disbursement of
municipal funds.
Fundamental Principles and State Policies
Section 1
Villavicencio v. Lukban:
Mayor’s act is unconstitutional. It was not
authorized by any law or ordinance. “Our
government is a government of laws and
not of men.”
Section 2
Kuroda v. Jalandoni:
think Japanese Lieutenant-General
charged before the military commission.
Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules
and regulations laid down on the Hague
and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding
that it is not a signatory thereto. It
embodied generally accepted principles
of international law binding upon all
states.
Agustin v. Edu:
think triangular reflectorized early
warning devices.
Held: Legislative enactment is not
necessary in order to authorize the
issuance of LOI prescribing the use of
triangular reflectorized early warning
devices. This is also an illustration of
generally accepted principles of
international law (Pacta sunt servanda).
Ichong v. Hernandez:
think Retail Trade Nationalization Law
 which is against the principle of Pacta
sunt servanda.Held: the Retail Trade
Nationalization Law is not
unconstitutional because it was passed
in the exercise of the police power
which cannot be bargained away
through the medium of a treaty.
Gonzales v. Hechanova:
Prevalence of National or Municipal law
over International law: Constitution
authorizes the nullification of a treaty,
not only when it conflicts with the
fundamental law, but also when it runs
counter to an act of Congress.
In re Garcia
A treaty cannot modify regulations
governing admission to Philippine bar
(that would be an encroachment upon
Supreme Court by the Executive)
Section 3
IBP vs. Zamora
the deployment of the Marines does not
constitute a breach of the civilian
supremacy clause. The calling of the
marines in this case constitutes
permissible use of military asset for
civilian law enforcement. x x x The
limited participation of the Marines is
evident in the provisions of the Letter of
Instruction (LOI) itself, which
sufficiently provides the metes and
bounds of the Marines’ authority. It is
noteworthy that the local police forces
are the ones charge of the visibility
patrols at all times, the real authority
belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro
Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of
the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.
Under the LOI, the police forces are
tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on
police patrol
procedures. It is their responsibility to
direct and manage the deployment of the
marines. It is, likewise, their duty to
provide the necessary equipment to the
Marines
and render logistic support to these
soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it
cannot be
properly argued that military authority is
supreme over civilian authority.
It is worth mentioning that military
assistance to civilian authorities in various
forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction.
The Philippine experience reveals that it
is not
averse to requesting the assistance of the
military in the implementation and
execution
of certain traditionally “civil” functions. x
x x Some of the multifarious activities
wherein
military aid has been rendered,
exemplifying the activities that bring both
the civilian and
the military together in a relationship of
cooperation are:
1. Elections;
2. Administration of the Philippine
National Red Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during
calamities and disasters;
4. Amateur sports promotion and
development;
5. Development of the culture and the
arts;
6. Conservation of the natural resources;
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform
program;
8. Enforcement of customs laws;
9. Composite civilian-military law
 enforcement activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for
elementary and high school students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
13. Sanitary inspections;
14. Conduct of census work;
15. Administration of the Civil
Aeronautic Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather
forecasting devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation
in local government units.
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss
on executive power resulting from a
systematic, unbroken, executive
practice, long pursued to the knowledge
of Congress
and, yet, never before questioned. What
we have here is a mutual support and
cooperation between the military and
civilian authorities, not derogation of
civilian
supremacy.
Section 4
People vs. Lagman
- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for
failure to register for military service
under the National Defense Act
- SC upheld the National Defense Act. To
leave an organization of an army to the
will of the citizens would be to make
this duty of the Government excusable
should there be no sufficient men who
volunteer to enlist therein.
Section 5
Chavez vs. Romulo
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and
not a constitutional right. The license to
carry a firearm is neither a property nor
a property right. Neither does it create a
vested right. Even if it were a property
right, it cannot be considered absolute as
to be placed beyond the reach of police
power. The maintenance of peace and
order, and the protection of the people
against violence are constitutional duties
of the State, and the right to bear firearm
is to be construed in connection and in
harmony with these constitutional duties.
Section 6
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
-There is no violation of the principle of
the separation of church and state. The
issuance and sale of the stamps in
question may be said to be linked with an
event of a religious character, but the
resulting propaganda, if any, received by
the Catholic Church, was not the aim and
purpose of the government. The idea
behind the issuance of the postage stamps
was to attract tourists to our country and
not primarily the religious event.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution
is religious liberty , not mere religious
toleration. However, religious freedom is
not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not a denial of its influence
in human affairs.
Austria vs. NLRC
an ecclesiastical affair involves the
relationship between the church and its
members and relates to matter of faith,
religious doctrines, worship and
governance of the congregation. Examples
of these affairs in which the State cannot
meddle are proceedings for
excommunication, ordination of religious
ministers, administration of sacraments,
and other activities to which is attached
 religious significance. In this case, what
is involved is the relationship of the
church as an employer and the minister
as an employee. It is purely secular and
has no relation whatsoever with the
practice of faith, worship or doctrine of
the church.
Section 10
Calalang vs. Williams
-Social justice is neither communism,
nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization of laws
and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be
approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the
people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to
insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society, through
the maintenance of a proper economic
and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable,
or extra-constitutionally, through the
exercise of powers underlying the
existence of all governments on the
time-honored principle of salus populi
est suprema lex. Social justice,
therefore, must be founded on the
recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and
diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and
evenly extended to all groups as a
combined force in our social and
economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective
of the state of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of
bringing about "the greatest good to the
greatest number.”
Almeda vs. CA
-There exists a tenant’s right of
redemption in sugar and coconut lands.
Pursuant to Agricultural Land Reform
Code of 1963, it recognizes share tenancy
in sugar lands which is in consonance with
the State’s promotion of social justice
wherein it may “regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, enjoyment and
disposition of private property, and
equitably diffuse property…ownership and
profits.”
Ondoy .vs. Ignacio
-The principle of social justice applied in
this case is a matter of protection, not
equality. The Court recognized the right
of the petitioner to the claim of
compensation because her son was shown
to have died while “in the actual
performance of his work.” To strengthen
the constitutional scheme of social justice
and protection to labor, The Court made
mention that “as between a laborer,
usually poor and unlettered, and the
employer, who has resources to secure
able legal advice, the law has reason to
demand from the latter the stricter
compliance.”
Salonga vs. Farrales
-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff
cannot be considered because it was
shown that no contract, either to sell or
of sale, was ever perfected between him
and the defendant. It must be
remembered that social justice cannot be
 invoked to trample on the rights of
property owners who under our
Constitution and laws are also entitled
to protection. The social justice
consecrated in our Constitution was not
intended to take away rights from a
person and give them to another who is
not entitled thereto.
Section 12
Meyer vs. Nebraska
It is incompetent for the government to
prohibit the teaching of a foreign
language to students. There is nothing
harmful in the language that will impair
the upbringing of the child.
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters
State may not require children to attend
only public schools. The child is not a
creature of the State.
Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge
Youthful Offender: A person charged
with an offense but found to be a
youthful offender could be provisionally
released on recognizance at court’s
decision.
Section 14
PT&T Co. vs. NLRC
the SC held that the petitioner’s policy
of not accepting or considering as
disqualified from work any woman
worker who contracts marriage, runs
afoul of the test of, and the right against,
discrimination, which is guaranteed all
women workers under the Constitution.
While a requirement that a woman
employee must remain unmarried may be
justified as a “bona fide occupational
qualification” where the particular
requirements of the job would demand
the same, discrimination against married
women cannot be adopted by the
employer as a general principle.
Section 16
Oposa vs. Factoran
[Intergenerational Responsibility /
Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minors
duly joined by their respective parents
pleading the cause of “inter-generational
responsibility” and “inter-generational
justice”, had a valid cause of action in
questioning the grant of Timber Licensing
Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging
purposes. The minors filed the action for
themselves as representing “their
generation as well as generations yet
unborn”. The SC, on the basis of Section
16, Article II linked with the right to
health, recognized a “right to a balanced
and healthful ecology” and “the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment”.
LLDA v. CA
The immediate response to the demands
of necessities of protecting vital public
interests gives vitality to the statement
on ecology embodied in the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of the 1987
Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a
 constitutionally guaranteed right of
every person, it carries the correlative
duty of non-impairment. This is but the
consonance with the declared policy of
the state to protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala
On the issue that the “total log ban” is a
new policy which should be applied
prospectively and not affect the rights
of petitioner vested under the Timber
Licensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc held
that this is not a new policy but a mere
reiteration of the policy of conservation
and protection the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology.
Section 17
PRC vs. De Guzman
while it is true that the SC has upheld
the constitutional right of every citizen
to select a profession or course of study
subject to fair, reasonable, and
equitable admission and academic
requirements, the exercise of this right
may be regulated pursuant to the police
power of the State to safeguard health,
morals, peace, education, order, safety
and general welfare. Thus, persons who
desire to engage in the learned
professions requiring scientific or
technical knowledge may be required to
take an examination as a prerequisite to
engaging in their chosen careers. This
regulation assumes particular
pertinence in the field of medicine, in
order to protect the public from the
potentially deadly effects of
incompetence and ignorance.
PMMS, Inc. vs. CA
the Court said that the requirement that
a school must first obtain government
authorization before operating is based on
the State policy that educational
programs and/or operations shall be of
good quality and, therefore, shall at least
satisfy minimum standards with respect to
curricula, teaching staff, physical plant
and facilities and administrative and
management viability.
Section 18
Bernardo vs. NLRC
The SC held that the Magna Carta for
Disabled Persons mandates that qualified
disabled persons be granted the same
terms and conditions of employment as
qualified able bodied employees; thus,
once hey have attained the status of
regular workers, they should be accorded
all the benefits granted by law,
notwithstanding written or verbal
contracts to the contrary. This treatment
is rooted not merely in charity or
accommodation, but in justice for all.
Section 19
Garcia vs. BOI
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion
because it repudiates the independent
policy of government to run its affairs the
way it deems best for the national
interest.
Every provision of the Constitution on the
national economy and patrimony is
 infused with the spirit of national
interest. The non-alienation of national
resources, the State full control over
the development and utilization of
contributions to the economic growth
and general welfare of the country and
the regulation of foreign investment in
accordance to national goals and
priorities are too explicit not to be
noticed and understood.
Section 20
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators
vs. PCA,
the SC said that although the
Constitution enshrines free enterprise as
a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the
Government the power to intervene
whenever necessary for the promotion
of the general welfare as reflected in
Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.
Pest Management Association of the
Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health
Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec.
Duque III
Despite the fact that “our present
Constitution enshrines free enterprise as
a policy”, it nevertheless reserves to the
Government the power to intervene
whenever necessary to promote the
general welfare. Free enterprise does
not call for removal of ‘protective
regulations’. It must be clearly
explained and proven by competent
evidence just exactly how such
protective regulation would result in the
restraint of trade.
Section 21
ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL.
vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Eminent domain is an inherent power of
the State that enables it to forcibly
acquire private lands intended for public
use upon payment of just compensation
to the owner. Private rights must yield to
the irresistible demands of the public
interest on the time-honored
justification, as in the case of the policed
power, that the welfare of the people is
the supreme law.
Section 25
BASCO VS PAGCOR
Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution
simply means the decentralization and
does not make the local governments
sovereign within the State or an imperium
imperio.
LIMBONA VS MANGELIN
Decentralization of administration is
merely delegation of administrative
powers to the LGUs in order to broaden
the base of governmental power.
Decentralization of power is the
abdication by the national government
powers.
Section 26
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
- There is no constitutional right to run
for or hold public office and, particularly,
 to seek the presidency. What is
recognized is merely a privilege subject
to limitations imposed by law. Section
26, Article II of the Constitution neither
bestows such a right nor elevates the
privilege to the level of an enforceable
right. There is nothing in the plain
language of the provision which suggests
such a thrust or justifies an
interpretation of the sort. The "equal
access" provision is a subsumed part of
Article II of the Constitution, entitled
"Declaration of Principles and State
Policies." The provisions under the
Article are generally considered not
self-executing, and there is no plausible
reason for according a different
treatment to the "equal access"
provision. Like the rest of the policies
enumerated in Article II, the provision
does not contain any judicially
enforceable constitutional right but
merely specifies a guideline for
legislative or executive action. The
disregard of the provision does not give
rise to any cause of action before the
courts.
Section 30
Legspi vs CSC
The constitutional right to information
on matters of public concern is self-
executing without the need for any
ancillary act of legislation.
Valmonte vs de Villa
The constitutional right to information is
limited on matters of public concern
and is further subject to such limitations
as may be provided by law. However,
although citizens are afforded the right
to information, the Constitution does not
accord them the right to compel the
custodians of official records to prepare
lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in
their desire to acquire information of
public concern.
Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato
- When a committee or board is created
as public in its very existence and
character such as the MTRCB, there can
be no valid claim to privacy. Here,
decisions of Board and individual voting
slips are public in character.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
In re Manzano
- Members of the SC and other courts shall
not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
- The committee performs administrative
function* which under Section 12, Article
VIII of the Constitution prohibits members
of the SC and other courts established by
law to be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions. To quote CJ
Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said
that “while the doctrine of separation of
powers is a relative theory not to be
enforced with pedantic rigor, the
practical demands of government
precluding its doctrine application, it
cannot justify a member of the judiciary
being required to assume a position or
perform a duty non-judicial in
character.”
• Administrative functions are those
 which involves the regulation and
control 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 legislative or such as
are devolved upon the
administrative agency by the organic
law of its existence.
Angara vs. Electoral Commission
- Separation of powers as actual division
than obtained through express provision
- Judiciary is the only Constitutional
Arbiter to allocate Constitutional
Boundaries
- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the
Constitution asserted by the judiciary
(not supremacy of the judiciary itself)
- Judicial Review is limited to Actual
Litigation. Judiciary does not pass upon
questions of wisdom, justice or
expediency of litigation.
- The Electoral Commission is an
independent, impartial, and non-
partisan tribunal. The sole power to
determine contests regarding the
elections, returns, and qualifications of
the members of the National Assembly
has been transferred in totality to the
Electoral Commission. Its power is clear,
complete, and exclusive.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
- Legislative discretion as to the
substantive contents of the law cannot
be delegated. What can be delegated is
the discretion to determine how the law
may be enforced.
- Completeness test and Sufficient
Standard Test:
Completeness Test = complete in all its
terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that what is left is merely
its enforcement.
Sufficient Standard Test = adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot.
- Subordinate Legislation = delegated
power to issue rules to carry out the
general provision of the statute.
(Administrative bodies implement the
broad policies by promulgating their
supplementary regulations.)
Casibang vs. Aquino
- Political Question = question of policy;
question to be decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity or full
discretionary authority
- Justiciable Question = implies a given
right, legally demandable and
enforceable; an act or omission violative
of such right, and a remedy, granted or
sanctioned by law for said breach of right.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
On whether the case is justiciable
Political questions are associated with the
wisdom of the legality of a particular act.
Where the vortex of the controversy
refers to the legality or validity of the
contested act, that matter is definitely
justiciable or non-political. If the
Constitution provides how it may be
amended, the judiciary as the interpreter
of that Constitution, can declare whether
the procedure followed or the authority
 assumed was valid or not.
On whether the President may propose
Constitutional amendments
If the President has been legitimately
discharging the legislative functions of
the interim Assembly, there is no reason
why he cannot validly discharge the
function of that Assembly to propose
amendments to the Constitution, which
is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to
its gross legislative power.
(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had
legislative powers and there was no
legislative department at the time)
Daza v. Singson
Where the legality or validity of the act
is in question and not the wisdom of the
act, the Court may take jurisdiction and
decide on the acts’ validity. Even in
political questions the Court may take
jurisdiction under the expanded judicial
power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of
the Constitution.
(“Judicial power includes the duty 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
Government.”)
Delegation of Powers
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
The Congress may authorize the
President to fix tariff rates and duties
subject to such limitations and
restrictions that they may impose. This is
expressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par
2 of the Constitution.
Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by
Congress to the President may be limited
by Congress subject to restrictions it may
provide. Congress may withdraw the
delegated power at any time. In this case,
the emergency power was withdrawn at
the time Congress became able to
exercise its legislative duties again.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
The principle of non-delegation of powers
is applicable to all three branches of
government specifically in the case of the
legislative. What can be delegated is the
discretion to determine how the law may
be enforced and not what the law shall be
since the ascertainment of the latter
subject is within the prerogative and
determination of the legislature.
Delegation of legislative power is
permitted and valid provided that is
passes the two accepted tests-
completeness test and the sufficient
standard test. The reason for such
delegation is the increasing complexity of
the task of the government and the
growing inability of the legislature to
cope directly with the myriad problems
demanding its attention.
Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of
the constitutional limitation of the
 delegation of emergency powers. It is
presumed that the National Assembly
intended it to be for a limited period.
Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546,
which was anchored to the said Act are
declared null and void and the
respondents are ordered to desist from
appropriating, releasing and allotting
expending funds set aside therein.
People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue
delegation of legislative power. The
powers of the government are
distributed among three coordinate and
substantially independent organs: the
legislative, the executive and the
judicial. Each of the departments of the
government derives its authority from
the Constitution.
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
If the act within itself does not define a
crime and is not complete, legislative
act remains to be done to make it a law
or a crime, the doing of which is vested
in the Gov, generally, the act is a
delegation of legislative power, and is
thus unconstitutional and void.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials
must observe in determining to whom to
distribute the confiscated carabaos and
carabeef. There is thus an invalid
delegation of legislatie power.
Tablarin vs. Gutierez
Because the necessity standards are set forth
in the statute (RA No. 2383), providing for
standardization and regulation of education,
delegation is valid.
Pelaez vs. Auditor General
The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient
Standard test) must be applied together.
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Where the effectivity of the law is made
dependent on the verification by the executive
of the existence of certain conditions, the
verification is delegated to the executive. (This
is an example of contingent legislation - a valid
delegation of law execution).
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 5
Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a new congressional
district is but a natural consequence of a
municipality’s conversion into a city. The
Constitution provides that “a city should
have a population of at least 250,000”
and is entitled to at least 1
representative.
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec
As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the
Constitution provides that the
compositions of the House should not be
more than 250 members, unless otherwise
provided by law. The natural result in the
creation of a new legislative from a
special law whose purpose is to convert a
municipality into a city is sanctioned by
the Constitution.
Montejo v. Comelec
The Comelec has no power to reapportion
 districts but only to make minor
adjustments.
Republic Act No. 7941 “An act providing
for the election of the party-list
representatives through the party-list
system and appropriating funds
therefrom.
Section 13
Zandueta vs. De la Costa
When a judge of first instance, presiding
over a branch of a Court of First
Instance of a judicial district by virtue
of a legal and valid appointment,
accepts another appointment to preside
over the same branch of the same Court
of First Instance, in addition of another
Court of First Instance to the old one,
enters into the discharge of the
functions of his new office and receives
the corresponding salary, he abandons
his old office and cannot claim to be
entitled to repossess it or question the
constitutionality of the law by virtue of
which his new appointment has been
issued; and, said new appointment
having been disapproved by the
Commission on Appointments of the
National Assembly, neither can he claim
to continue occupying the office
conferred upon him by said new
appointment, having ipso jure ceased in
the discharge of the functions thereof.
Section 14
Puyat vs. De Guzman
No Member of the Batasang Pambansa
shall appear as counsel before any court
without appellate jurisdiction, before any
court in any civil case wherein the
Government, or any subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality thereof is the adverse
party, or in any criminal case wherein any
officer or employee of the Government is
accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office,or before any
administrative body.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be
interested financially in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special
privilege granted by the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned
or controlled corporation, during his term
of office.
He shall not accept employment to
intervene in any cause or matter where
he may be called to act on account of his
office.
Section 16
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.
Where no provision of the Constitution,
the laws or even the rules of the Senate
has been clearly shown to have been
violated, disregarded or overlooked,
grave abuse of discretion cannot be
imputed to Senate officials for acts done
within their competence and authority.
Avelino vs. Cuenco
The constitutional grant to the Senate of
the power to elect its own president
should not be interfered with, nor taken
over, by the judiciary.
 When the constitution declares that a
majority of “each House” shall
constitute a quorum, it does not mean
all of its members. Majority of all the
members constitute the House. Hence,
12 senators who unanimously voted
constitute a majority of 23 senators (10
walked out, 1 out of the country).
OSMEÑA VS. PENDATUN
The House is the judge of what
constitutes disorderly behavior as
conferred upon by the Constitution.
Also, Congress has the inherent
legislative prerogative of suspension.
PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan has the authority to
suspend a district representative in
violation of the Anti-Graft Law as it is
being imposed on the representative
NOT as a member of the House.
U.S. VS PONS
The Court may not go beyond the the
recitals of the legislative journals for
the purpose of determining the date of
adjournment when such journal are
clear and explicit. To inquire the
veracity of journals, when they are
clear and explicit, would be to violate
both the letter and spirit of the laws, to
invade the coordinate and independent
department of the government and to
interfere with the legitimate powers
and functions of the Legislature.
CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ
Enrolled bill doctrine- the term “urea
formaldehyde” is conclusive upon the
courts as regards the tenor of the
measure passed by the Congress and
approved by the President.
Section 18
Daza vs Singson
- The sense of the Constitution is that the
membership in the COA must always reflect
political alignments and must adjust to changes.
Nowhere, however, in the Constitution require
that the party must be a registered party.
Coseteng vs Mitra
- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA)
cannot be counted in favor of a representative if
they do not belong to the latter's party.
Guingona vs Gonzales
- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not
mandatory
Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it
would deprive other parties of seats in COA.
Sec. 21:
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation
where it merely aims at determining whether a
law is violated. To allow such investigation is to
violate separation of powers.
Arnault vs Nazareno
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish
a contumacious witness for contempt.
Experience has shown that mere requests for
information are frequently unavailing.
- “In aid of legislation” - not difficult to satisfy.
Necessity or lack of necessity for legislative
action is determined by the sum total of
information to be gathered as a result of
investigation, and not by a fraction of such
information elicited from single question. It is
sufficient that the question is germane to the
subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for
it to be directly related or connected to
possible legislation.
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive
Privilege (which is extended to all close
advisors of the President)
- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for
contempt where executive privilege is properly
invoked.
- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1)
invitations to Neri did not include possible
statute; (2) contempt order lacks required # of
votes; (3) Senate did not first rule on the claim
of executive privilege and instead dismissed
Neri's explanation; (4) rules of procedure on
inquiries in aid of legislation – not duly
published.
Sec. 21 and 22:
Senate vs Ermita
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed
on how department heads are implementing
the statutes, it is not imperative.
- The “oversight function” of Congress may be
facilitated by compulsory process only to the
extent that it is performed in pursuit of
legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question
hour is discretionary.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry,
the only way for the department heads to
exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid
claim of privilege.
- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE – privilege based on
doctrine of separation of powers, exempting
executive from disclosure requirements where
such exemption is necessary to the discharge
of highly important executive responsibilities.
It covers “categories of information” not of
persons.
Sec. 24:
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
- The phrase “originate exclusively” does not
refer to the appropriations law but to the
appropriations bill. It is sufficient that the House
of Rep. initiated the passage of the bill.
Alvarez vs Guingona
- A bill of local application, such as one asking
for the conversion of a municipality into a city,
is deemed to have originated from the House
provided that the bill of the House was filed
prior to the filing of the bill in the Senate even
if, in the end, the Senate approved its own
version.
- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
anticipation of its receipt of the bill does not
contravene the constitutional requirement as
long as the Senate does not act thereupon until
it receives the House bill.
Sec. 25:
Garcia vs Mata
- RIDER – a provision not related to the
appropriation act (is prohibited)
Demetria vs Alba
- transfer of appropriations – prohibited
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- The list of those who may be authorized to
transfer funds is exclusive.
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to
determine the necessity of realignment, but
House Speaker or Senate Pres. will have to
approve the realignment before items are
realigned.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give
authority to realign appropriations.
Sec. 26:

Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the
regulation of video industry where the title is
comprehensive enough to include such subject
(taxation) related to the general purpose
(creation of Videogram Board)
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is
germane to the object of the title, which is to
create postal service system. Hence, the same
is embraced in the title/
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26
(1)]
- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before
is embraced in the subject of the title which is
to widen the tax base
Tan vs Del Rosario
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-
rolling legislation
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislature by means of provisions which might
be overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the
subjects of legislation
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative
district is germane to the subject of the bill
creating the City of Mandaluyong
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26
(2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being
dispensed by presidential certification, the
time saved would be so negligible as to be of
any use in ensuring immediate enactment.
(Printing and Readings on separate days – both
dispensable by pres. certification)
- Where no Senators controverted the reality
of the factual basis of certification, growing
budget deficit may be considered as basis for
presidential certification. Senators, in
responding to the call of the Pres. by voting on
the bill, manifested their belief in the urgent
need for certification of the bill.
Sec. 27:
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
- It is within the power of a conference
committee to include in its report an entirely
new provision not found in either House Bill or
Senate Bill. (Amendment in the nature of
substitution is warranted as long as amendment
is germane to the subject matter of the bill)
- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the
respect due the other 2 departments.
Gonzales vs Macaraig
- President can veto an item
- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions – a
provision that is constitutionally inappropriate
may be singled out for veto if it is not an
appropriation or revenue item. An inappropriate
provision in an appropriations bill is an item in
itself.
Bengzon vs Drilon
- President's power to veto an item does not
grant authority to veto part of an item (or
provisions).
- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Provisions that are germane to the specific
appropriations cannot be vetoed.
- Requirement of Congressional approval for
release of funds for modernization of AFP can be
incorporated in separate bill and hence
inappropriate. It was properly vetoed.
- Executive Impoundment – refusal of the
President to spend funds already allocated by
Congress for a specific purpose (the duty to
implement the law includes the duty to desist
from implementing it when implementation
would prejudice public interest). The Court,
however, did not rule on this issue, and rather
declared the provision concerning benefits of
CAFGUs as an inappropriate provision.
Sec. 28:
Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs
Tan
- a tax is considered uniform when it operates
with the same force and effect in every place
where the subject may be found.
Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
- Where a lot is not used exclusively for
educational purpose, it may be taxed if the use
is not incidental to the attainment of main
purpose.
Tan vs Del Rosario
- Uniformity of taxation means:
(a) standards that are used are
substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve
legislative purpose
(c) law applies, all things being equal,
to both present and future conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to
all those belonging to the same class
Sec. 29:
Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works
- Appropriation for a road owned by a private
individual is invalid because it is not for a
public purpose. Subsequent donation did not
validate the law because validity of a statute
depends upon the power of Congress at the
time of its approval and not upon subsequent
events.
Aglipay vs Ruiz
- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid
as it is not specifically made to benefit a
religious denomination but for a public purpose.
The benefit acquired by the Church is incidental
only.
Guingona vs Carague
- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for
servicing foreign debts is valid because the
amount is fixed by the parameters of the law
itself which requires the simple act of looking
into the books of Treasure (the amount is
determinable).
- Budgetary process:
(a) budget preparation
(b) legislative authorization
(c) budget execution
(d) budget accountability
Osmena vs Orbos
- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the
Terminal Fund Balance deficit is valid as it was a
valid exercise of police power.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget
allowing members of Congress to perform
executive function of spending money
appropriated are not in violation of separation
of powers because Congress itself had specified
the uses of the fund and the power given was
merely recommendatory to the President who
could approve or disapprove the
recommendation.
Sec. 30:
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA
- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to CA over the decisions of quasi-
judicial bodies is not superseded by Omnibus
Investments Code of 1987 providing that
decisions of BOI are appealable to SC because
advice and concurrence of SC was not sought.
Diaz vs CA
- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating “a party
adversely affected by a decision of ERB may
file a petition with SC” was superseded by the
Constitution stating that jurisdiction of SC
cannot be made to increase without its advice
and concurrence.
Sec. 32:
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate;
the process of law-making by the people
themselves
- Referendum consists merely of the electorate
approving or rejecting what has been drawn
up or enacted by a legislative body.
- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing
a Resolution when respondents filed petition
for Initiative and not Referendum.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Marcos vs Manglapus
- The President has “residual powers.” The
President is more than the sum of specific
powers enumerated in the Constitution.
- What is not part of the legislative and
judicial departments is deemed part of the
executive.
- The 1987 Constitution provided for a
limitation of specific powers of the President,
particularly those relating to the commander-
in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the
general grant of executive power.
Soliven vs Makasiar
- The privilege of immunity from suit is to
assure the exercise of Presidential duties free
from any hindrance or distraction considering
that being the Chief Executive demands
undivided attention.
- The privilege pertains to the President by
virtue of the office and may be invoked only by
the holder of the office. There is nothing which
prohibits the President to waive this privilege.
Estrada vs Desierto
- A non-sitting President does not enjoy
immunity from suit (immunity is only during the
tenure)
- Even a sitting President is not immune from
suit for non-official acts or from wrongdoing.
(Public office is a public trust. The rule is that
unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of
the State and the officer who acts illegally is not
acting as such but stands in the same footing as
any other trespasser.)
Sec. 13:
Doromal vs Sandiganbayan
- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case
where the accused has not signed any document
of any bid of the family corporation of which he
is a member, submitted to any government
department.
- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect
interest with the transaction with DECS and
NMYC.
Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows
a member of the Cabinet to hold not more than
two positions in the government. (Respondent's
contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception
would defeat the obvious legislative intent
which is to prohibit cabinet members from
holding multiple offices.)
Aytona vs Castillo
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it
cannot be reconsidered where the appointee has
qualified. Exception: ad interim appointments
issued in the last hours of an outgoing Chief
Executive (midnight appointments – made for
buying votes).
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make
appointments within 2 months prior to the
next Presidential election) is applicable to the
members of the Judiciary.
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan
considerations.
De Castro vs. JBC
Sec. 16:
Binamira vs Garrucho
- Appointment or designation involves exercise
of discretion which cannot be delegated. Even
if it be assumed that the power could be
exercised by Minister of Tourism, it could be
recalled by the President.
- Designation is considered only an acting or
temporary appointment, which does not confer
security of tenure.
Sarmiento vs Mison
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall
appoint:
(a) heads of the executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
whose appointments are vested in him in this
Constitution
(b) all other officers of the Government
whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for by law
(c) those whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose
appointments the Congress may by law vest in
the President alone.
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not
needed in appointment of Commissioner of
Bureau of Customs because a bureau head is
not among those within the first group of
appointments where consent of COA is required.
Bautista vs Salonga
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in
appointment of Chairman of Commission of
Human Rights because such appointment is not
vested in the President in the Constitution. The
President appoints Chairman of CHR pursuant to
EO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the 3rd
group of officers)
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives
requires confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. The seats reserved for sectoral
representatives may be filled by appointment by
the President by express provision of Sec.7,
Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral
representatives are within the 1st group of
officers)
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st
group: (1) Ombudsman and his deputies, and (2)
members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts.
Calderon vs Carale
- Confirmation by COA is required only for
presidential appointees that are within the 1st
group of officers as mentioned in Sarmiento vs
Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of
appointments needing confirmation.
- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA
confirmation in appointments of NLRC Chairman
and Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art.
VII. The appointments of NLRC Chairman and
Commissioners do not need COA confirmation
because they fall under the 3rd group of officers.
Tarrosa vs Singson
- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank
Governor does not need COA confirmation.
Flores vs Drilon
- A law which limits the President to only one
appointee is an encroachment to the
prerogative of the President because
appointment involves discretion to choose who
to appoint.
Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- CSC is without authority to revoke an
appointment because of its belief that another
person was better qualified, which is an
encroachment on the discretion vested solely
in the appointing authority.
- The permanent appointment made by the
appointing authority may not be reversed by
CSC and call it temporary.
Pobre vs Mendieta
- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of
the Professional Regulation Commission cannot
be filled by the Senior Associate Commissioner
by operation of law (or by succession) because
it will deprive the President of the power to
appoint the Chairman.
Sec. 17
Drilon vs Lim
- Distinction between power and control:
An officer in control lays down the rules
in the doing of an act. if they are not
followed, he may, in his discretion, order
the act undone or re-done by his
subordinate or he may even decide to do it
by himself.
Supervision does not cover such
authority. The supervisor merely sees to it
that rules are followed, but he himself does
not lay down such rules, nor does he have
the discretion to modify or replace them. If
the rules are not observed, he may order
the work done or re-done but only to
conform to the prescribed rules. He may not
prescribe his own manner except to see to it
that the rules are followed.
(Note) Power of control pertains to power of
an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside
what a subordinate has done in the performance
of his duties and to substitute his judgment to
that of the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]
Villena vs Secretary of the Interior
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter
ego principle) -acts of the Secretaries of
Executive Departments, when performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business or
unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief
Executive, are presumptively the acts of the
Chief Executive
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is
invested with the authority to order the
investigation of the charges against the
petitioner and to appoint a special investigator
for that purpose.
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano
- Department heads are President's “men of
confidence.” His is the power to appoint them;
his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them at
pleasure. Normally, he controls and directs their
acts. Implicit then is his authority to go over,
confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by
his department secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his
Executive Secretary, may undo an act of the
Director of Lands
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands
- The President has the power to grant portions
of public domain to any government entity like
the City of Iligan because he has control over
the Director of Lands, who has direct executive
control in the lease, sale or any form of
concession or disposition of the land of public
domain.
Gascon vs Arroyo
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power
and authority to enter into the Agreement to
Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he acted for and
in behalf of the President when he signed it.
Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez
- An administrative officer has only such
powers as are expressly granted to him and
those necessarily implied in the exercise
thereof. These powers should not be extended
by implication beyond what may be necessary
for their just and reasonable execution.
Angangco vs Castillo
- The power to remove is inherent in the power
to appoint, but not with regard to those
officers or employees who belong to the
classified service for as to them the inherent
power cannot be exercised
NAMARCO vs Arca
- Executive power of control extends to
government-owned corporations.
Sec. 18:
Guazon vs De Villa
- The President has the power to ordain
saturation drives. There is nothing in the
Constitution which denies the authority of the
Chief Exec. to order police actions to stop
unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and
alarming communist activities.
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of
the executive power, provided by the Congress
for the President as Commander in chief to aid
him in properly commanding the army and
navy and enforcing discipline therein and
utilize under his order those of his authorized
military representatives.
Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34
- Due process of law demands that in all
criminal prosecutions the accused be entitled
to a trial. The trial contemplated by the due
process clause is trial by judicial process.
Military Commissions are not courts within the
Philippine judicial system. Judicial power is
vested only in the courts. Military commissions
pertain to the executive department and are
instrumentalities of the President as
commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing
discipline in the armed forces.
Quilona vs General Court Martial
Gudani vs Senga
- The President has constitutional authority to
prevent a member of the armed forces from
testifying before a legislative inquiry, by virtue
of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as
a consequence, a military officer who defies
such injunction is liable under military justice.
At the same time, the Court also holds that any
chamber of Congress which seeks the
appearance befoe it of a military officer against
the consent of the President has adequate
remedies under law to compel such attendance.
Any military officer whom the Congress summons
to testify before it may be compelled to do so by
the President. If the President is not so inclined,
the President may be commanded by judicial
order to compel the attendance of the military
officer. Final judicial orders have the force of
the law of the land which the President has the
duty to faithfully execute.
Sec. 19:
Torres vs Gonzales
- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in
determining whether the conditions in the
pardon are violated. The determination of
whether there is a violations of the conditions
rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the
President.
Monsanto vs Factoran
- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party
pardoned from all punitive consequences of his
criminal act, it relieves him from nothing more.
It does not, therefore, restore a convicted felon
to public office forfeited by reason of
conviction.

People vs Salle, Jr.
- Pardon may be granted only by final
judgment. Where the judgment of conviction is
still pending appeal, executive clemency may
not yet be granted. Before an appellant may
be granted pardon, he must first ask for the
withdrawal of his appeal.
Garcia vs COA
- President's grant of executive clemency to a
person dismissed from his office pursuant to an
administrative case (but where the latter has
been acquitted in a criminal case based on the
same facts alleged in the criminal case)
entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement
and backwages.
Sabello vs DECS
- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the
individual from all the penalties and
disabilities and restores him to all his civil
rights. Although such pardon may restore a
person's eligibility to public office, it does not
entitle him to automatic reinstatement. He
should apply for reappointment to said office.
- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]
Llamas vs Orbos
- In granting the power of executive clemency,
the Constitution does not distinguish between
criminal and administrative cases.
Sec. 18:
Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia
- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-
back and bond-conversion schemes, entered
into pursuant to Financing Program are not
beyond the powers granted to the President
under Sec. 20, Art. VII. The only restriction
that the Constitution provides, aside from the
prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is
that loans must be subject to limitations
provided by law. Accordingly, the contention
that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are
neither “loans” nor “guarantees,” and hence
beyond the President’s power to execute, are
without merit.
Sec. 21:
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea
Trading (1961)
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is
required by our fundamental law in the making
of treaties which are however distinct and
different from executive agreements which may
be validly entered without such concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.
- The power to ratify is vested in the President,
subject to concurrence of the Senate. The role
of the Senate is limited only to giving or
withholding its consent or concurrence to the
ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of
the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the
Senate or having secured its consent for its
ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to
ratify lies within the President's competence
alone.
- 4 steps in treaty-making process:
(a) negotiation
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means
of authenticating the instrument and a symbol of
good faith)
(c) ratification (formal act by which a
statute confirms and accepts the provisions of a
treaty)
(d) exchange of instruments of
ratification
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely
signed.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Santiago vs Bautista
- The courts may not exercise judicial
power when there is no applicable law.
- Case at bar: An award of honors to a
student by a board of teachers may not
be reversed by a court where the
awards are governed by no applicable
law.
Daza v Singson
- Even if the issue presented was
political in nature, the Court is still not
be precluded from resolving it under the
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it
that now covers, in proper cases, even
the political question.
- That where serious constitutional
questions are involved, "the
transcendental importance to the public
of these cases demands that they be
settled promptly and definitely brushing
aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure."
Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals
- There can be no justification for
judicial interference in the business of
an administrative agency, except when
it violates a citizen's constitutional
rights, or commits a grave abuse of
discretion, or acts in excess of, or
without jurisdiction.
- Courts may not substitute their
judgment for that of the Asset
Privatization Trust (administrative
body), nor block, by an injunction, the
discharge of its functions and the
implementation of its decisions in
connection with the acquisition, sale or
disposition of assets transferred to it.
Malaga v Penachos, Jr.
- It was previously declared the
prohibition pertained to the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders by courts
against administrative acts in
controversies involving facts or the
exercise of discretion in technical cases.
The Court observed that to allow the
courts to judge these matters would
disturb the smooth functioning of the
administrative machinery. On issues
definitely outside of this dimension and
involving questions of law, courts could
not be prevented by any law (in this case,
P.D. No. 605) from exercising their power
to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
PACU v Secretary of Education
- Judicial power is limited to the decision
of actual cases and controversies.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of
Education might under the law withdraw
the permit of one of petitioners does not
constitute a justiciable controversy.)
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere
academic questions to satisfy scholarly
interest therein however intellectually
solid the problem may be. This is
especially true where the issues "reach
constitutional dimensions, for then there
comes into play regard for the court's
duty to avoid decision of constitutional
issues unless avoidance becomes evasion.
Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC
- Considering that those contingencies
mentioned by the petitioners may or may
not happen, petitioners merely pose a
hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen
to an actual case or controversy.
Petitioners who are residents of Taguig
(except Mariano) are not also the proper
parties to raise this abstract issue (city of
Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this
 futuristic issue in a petition for
declaratory relief over which this Court
has no jurisdiction.
Macasiano v National Housing Authority
-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our
jurisprudence that the constitutionality
of an act of the legislature will not be
determined by the courts unless that
question is properly raised and
presented in appropriate cases and is
necessary to a determination of the
case.
J. Joya v PCGG
- The rule is settled that no question
involving the constitutionality or validity
of a law or governmental act may be
heard and decided by the court unless
there is compliance with the legal
requisites for judicial inquiry, namely:
that the question must be raised by the
proper party; that there must be an
actual case or controversy; that the
question must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity; and, that the
decision on the constitutional or legal
question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself. But the
most important are the first two (2)
requisites.
- Not every action filed by a taxpayer
can qualify to challenge the legality of
official acts done by the government. A
taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the
governmental acts being questioned
involve disbursement of public funds
upon the theory that the expenditure of
public funds by an officer of the state
for the purpose of administering an
unconstitutional act constitutes a
misapplication of such funds, which may
be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer.
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
- It becomes apparent that when a
Mandamus proceeding involves the
assertion of a public right, the
requirement of personal interest is
satisfied by the mere fact that the
petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part
of the general "public" which possesses
the right.
-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive
term. Properly construed, it embraces
every person.
Dumlao v COMELEC
- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties
and actions. One petitioner does not join
other petitioners in the burden of their
complaint, nor do the latter join the
former in his. They, respectively, contest
completely different statutory provisions.
- For another, there are standards that
have to be followed in the exercise of the
function of judicial review, namely: (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;
and (4) the necessity that the
constitutional question be passed upon in
order to decide the case.
Bugnay Const. and Dev’t. Corp. v Laron
- The doctrine holds that only when the
act complained of directly involves an
illegal disbursement of public funds raised
by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be
allowed. The essence of a taxpayer's right
to institute such an action hinges on the
 existence of that requisite pecuniary or
monetary interest.
- It is not enough that the taxpayer-
plaintiff sufficiently show that he would
be benefited or injured by the judgment
or entitled to the avails of the suit as a
real party in interest.
Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.
- A party's standing before this Court is a
procedural technicality which it may, in
the exercise of its discretion, set aside
in view of the importance of the issues
raised.
- In line with the liberal policy of this
Court on locus standi, ordinary
taxpayers, members of Congress, and
even association of planters, and non-
profit civic organizations were allowed
to initiate and prosecute actions before
this Court to question the
constitutionality or validity of laws,
acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of
various government agencies or
instrumentalities.
PHILCONSA v Enriquez
- The Senators have legal standing to
question the validity of the veto. When
a veto was made in excess of the
authority of the President, it
impermissibily intrudes into the domain
of the Legislature. A member of
Congress can question an act of the
Executive which injures Congress as an
institution.
Tatad v Garcia, Jr.
-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's
suits are to allow taxpayers to question
contracts entered into by the national
government or government-owned or
controlled corporations allegedly in
contravention of the law and to disallow
the same when only municipal contracts
are involved (just like in Bugnay case
since no public money was involved).
Oposa v Factoran, Jr.
- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the
complaint is of common and general
interest not just to several, but to all
citizens of the Philippines. Consequently,
since the parties are so numerous, it
becomes impracticable, if not totally
impossible, to bring all of them before
the court.
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based
on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned.
- Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful
ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors` assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same
time, the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for
the generations to come.
Lozada v COMELEC
- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file
the instant petition, for nowhere therein
is it alleged that tax money is being
illegally spent. It is only when an act
complained of, which may include a
legislative enactment or statute, involves
the illegal expenditure of public money
 that the so-called taxpayer suit may be
allowed.
- The unchallenged rule is that the
person who impugns the validity of a
statute must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that
he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
injury as a result of its enforcement.
Concrete injury, whether actual or
threatened, is that indispensable
element of a dispute which serves in
part to cast it in a form traditionally
capable of judicial resolution. When
the asserted harm is a "generalized
grievance" shared in substantially equal
measure by all or a large class of
citizens, that harm alone normally does
not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.
Kilosbayan v Morato
- The voting on petitioners' standing in
the previous case was a narrow one,
seven (7) members sustaining
petitioners' standing and six (6) denying
petitioners' right to bring the suit. The
majority was thus a tenuous one that is
not likely to be maintained in any
subsequent litigation. In addition, there
have been charges in the membership of
the Court, with the retirement of
Justice Cruz and Bidin and the
appointment of the writer of this
opinion and Justice Francisco. Given this
fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the
maintenance of the ruling as to
petitioners' standing.
SECTION 3
Bengzon v Lim
- What is fiscal autonomy? It
contemplates a guarantee of full
flexibility to allocate and utilize their
resources with the wisdom and dispatch
that their needs require. It recognizes the
power and authority to levy, assess and
collect fees, fix rates of compensation not
exceeding the highest rates authorized by
law for compensation and play plans of
the government and allocate and disburse
such sums as may be provided by law or
prescribed by them in the course of the
discharge of their functions. Fiscal
autonomy means freedom from outside
control.
- The Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman must
have the independence and flexibility
needed in the discharge of their
constitutional duties. The imposition of
restrictions and constraints on the manner
the independent constitutional offices
allocate and utilize the funds
appropriated for their operations is
anathema to fiscal autonomy and
violative not only of the express mandate
of the Constitution but especially as
regards the Supreme Court, of the
independence and separation of powers
upon which the entire fabric of our
constitutional system is based
SECTION 4
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of
Appeals, et.al.
- Reorganization is purely an internal
matter of the Court to which petitioner
certainly has no business at all.
- The Court with its new membership is
not obliged to follow blindly a decision
upholding a party's case when, after its
re-examination, the same calls for a
rectification.
SECTION 5
Drilon v Lim
- The Constitution vests in the Supreme
Court appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments and orders of lower courts in
all cases in which the constitutionality
or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is
in question.
- In the exercise of this jurisdiction,
lower courts are advised to act with the
utmost circumspection, bearing in mind
the consequences of a declaration of
unconstitutionality upon the stability of
laws, no less than on the doctrine of
separation of powers. As the questioned
act is usually the handiwork of the
legislative or the executive
departments, or both, it will be prudent
for such courts, if only out of a
becoming modesty, to defer to the
higher judgment of this Court in the
consideration of its validity, which is
better determined after a thorough
deliberation by a collegiate body and
with the concurrence of the majority of
those who participated in its discussion.
Larranaga v Court of Appeals
(Transfer the venue of the preliminary
investigation from Cebu City to Manila
because of the extensive coverage of
the proceedings by the Cebu media
which allegedly influenced the people's
perception of petitioner's character and
guilt.)
- The Court recognizes that pervasive
and prejudicial publicity under certain
circumstances can deprive an accused of
his due process right to fair trial. It was
previously held that to warrant a finding
of prejudicial publicity there must be
allegation and proof that the judges have
been unduly influenced, not simply that
they might be, by the barrage in publicity.
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records
shows that the tone and content of the
publicity that attended the investigation
of petitioners fatally infected the fairness
and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court
a measure of control over cases paced
under its appellate jurisdiction. For the
indiscriminate enactment of legislation
enlarging its appellate jurisdiction. For
the indiscriminate enactment of
legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the
Court and thereby undermine its essential
function of expounding the law in its most
profound national aspects.
Aruelo v Court of Appeals
- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC
can not adopt a rule prohibiting the filing
of certain pleadings in the regular courts.
The power to promulgate rules concerning
pleadings, practice and procedure in all
courts is vested on the Supreme Court.
Javellana v DILG
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code
of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular
No. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII.
Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither the
statute nor the circular trenches upon the
Supreme Court's power and authority to
prescribe rules on the practice of law.)
- The Local Government Code and DLG
 Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply
prescribe rules of conduct for public
officials to avoid conflicts of interest
between the discharge of their public
duties and the private practice of their
profession, in those instances where the
law allows it.
SECTION 6
Maceda v Vasquez
- In the absence of any administrative
action taken against a person 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.
- 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
Court for determination whether said
Judge or court employee had acted
within the scope of their administrative
duties.
Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
- The rules even in an administrative
case demands that if the respondent
Judge should be disciplined for grave
misconduct or any graver offense, the
evidence presented against him should
be competent and derived from direct
knowledge. The judiciary, to which
respondent belongs, no less demands
that before its member could be
faulted, it should be only after due
investigation and based on competent
proofs, no less. This is all the more so
when as in this case the charges are penal
in nature.
('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful
intention and not a mere error of
judgment. It results that even if
respondent were not correct in his legal
conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot
be regarded as grave misconduct, unless
the contrary sufficiently appears.)
SECTION 10
Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- The clear intent of the Constitutional
Commission was to delete the proposed
express grant of exemption from payment
of income tax to members of the
Judiciary, so as to "give substance to
equality among the three branches of
Government.”
SECTION 11
De La Llana v Alba
-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial
security of tenure. This Court is
empowered "to discipline judges of
inferior courts and, by a vote of at least
eight members, order their dismissal."
Thus, it possesses the competence to
remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act,
it was the President who was vested with
such power. Removal is, of course, to be
distinguished from termination by virtue
of the abolition of the office. There can
be no tenure to a non-existent office.
After the abolition, there is in law no
occupant. In case of removal, there is an
office with an occupant who would
thereby lose his position. It is in that
sense that from the standpoint of strict
law, the question of any impairment of
security of tenure does not arise.
 Nonetheless, for the incumbents of
inferior courts abolished, the effect is
one of separation. As to its effect, no
distinction exists between removal and
the abolition of the office. Realistically,
it is devoid of significance. He ceases to
be a member of the judiciary.
People v Gacott, Jr.
- To require the entire Court to
deliberate upon and participate in all
administrative matters or cases
regardless of the sanctions, imposable
or imposed, would result in a congested
docket and undue delay in the
adjudication of cases in the Court,
especially in administrative matters,
since even cases involving the penalty of
reprimand would require action by the
Court en banc.
- Yet, although as thus demonstrated,
only cases involving dismissal of judges
of lower courts are specifically required
to be decided by the Court en banc, in
cognizance of the need for a thorough
and judicious evaluation of serious
charges against members of the
judiciary, it is only when the penalty
imposed does not exceed suspension of
more than one year or a fine of
P10,000.00, or both, that the
administrative matter may be decided
in division.
SECTION 12
In Re: Manzano
- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form
part of the structure of government.
Their integrity and performance in the
adjudication of cases contribute to the
solidity of such structure. As public
officials, they are trustees of an orderly
society. Even as non-members of
Provincial/City Committees on Justice,
RTC judges should render assistance to
said Committees to help promote the
landable purposes for which they exist,
but only when such assistance may be
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of
their judicial duties.
SECTION 14
Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals
- The Court is not duty bound to render
signed decisions all the time. It has ample
discretion to formulate decisions and/or
minute resolutions, provided a legal basis
is given, depending on its evaluation of a
case.
- As it is settled that an order dismissing a
case for insufficient evidence is a
judgment on the merits, it is imperative
that it be a reasoned decision clearly and
distinctly stating therein the facts and the
law on which it is based.
Mendoza v CFI
- What is expected of the judiciary "is
that the decision rendered makes clear
why either party prevailed under the
applicable law to the facts as established.
Nor is there any regid formula as to the
language to be employed to satisfy the
requirement of clarity and distinctness.
The discretion of the particular judge in
this respect, while not unlimited, is
necessarily broad. There is no
sacramental form of words which he must
use upon pain of being considered as
having failed to abide by what the
Constitution directs."
- The provision has been held to refer only
to decisions of the merits and not to
 orders of the trial court resolving
incidental matters such as the one at
bar. (content of the resolution: incident
in the prosecution of petitioner)
Borromeo v Court of Appeals
- The Court reminds all lower courts,
lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of
the bulk of its cases by minute
resolutions and decrees them as final
and executory, as where a case is
patently without merit, where the
issues raised are factual in nature,
where the decision appealed from is
supported by substantial evidence and is
in accord with the facts of the case and
the applicable laws, where it is clear
from the records that the petition is
filed merely to forestall the early
execution of judgment and for non-
compliance with the rules. The
resolution denying due course or
dismissing the petition always gives the
legal basis.
- When the Court, after deliberating on
a petition and any subsequent
pleadings, manifestations, comments, or
motions decides to deny due course to
the petition and states that the
questions raised are factual or no
reversible error in the respondent
court's decision is shown or for some
other legal basis stated in the
resolution, there is sufficient
compliance with the constitutional
requirement.
- Minute resolutions need not be signed
by the members of the Court who took
part in the deliberations of a case nor
do they require the certification of the
Chief Justice.
Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of
Appeals
- It has long been settled that this Court
has discretion to decide whether a
"minute resolution" should be used in lieu
of a full-blown decision in any particular
case and that a minute Resolution of
dismissal of a Petition for Review on
Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on
the merits of the controversy or subject
matter of the Petition. It has been
stressed by the Court that the grant of
due course to a Petition for Review is "not
a matter of right, but of sound judicial
discretion; and so there is no need to fully
explain the Court's denial. For one thing,
the facts and law are already mentioned
in the Court of Appeals' opinion."
Prudential Bank v Castro
- The Constitutional mandate that "no . . .
motion for reconsideration of a decision
of the court shall be . . . denied without
stating the legal basis therefor" is
inapplicable in administrative cases. And
even if it were, said Resolution stated the
legal basis for the denial and, therefore,
adhered faithfully to the Constitutional
requirement. "Lack of merit," which was
one of the grounds for denial, is a legal
basis.
-(certification issue) The requirement of a
certification refers to decisions to judicial
cases and not to administrative cases.
Besides, since the decision was a per
curiam decision, a formal certification is
not required.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of
Appeals
- The constitutional mandate that no
 decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which
it is based does not preclude the validity
of "memorandum decisions" which adopt
by reference the findings of fact and
conclusions of law contained in the
decisions of inferior tribunals.
SECTION 14 (not 16)
Valdez v Court of Appeals
- The (lower) court statement in the
decision that a party has proven his case
while the other has not, is not the
findings of facts contemplated by the
Constitution and the rules to be clearly
and distinctly stated.
- This Court has said again and again
that it is not a trier of facts and that it
relies, on the factual findings of the
lower court and the appellate court
which are conclusive.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Aruelo v. CA
The rule of the Commission should
prevail if the proceeding is before a
Commission. But if the proceeding is
before a court, the Rules of Court
prevails. (Sec. 6)
Cua v. Comelec
The 2-1 decision rendered by the First
Division was a valid decision under
Article IX-A, Section 7 of the
Constitution. (Sec.7)
Vital-Gozon v. CA
Execution of the Civil Service
Commission's decision should have been
ordered and effected by the Commission
itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion
therefor. It declined to do so, however, on
the alleged ground, as de la Fuente claims
he was told, that it "had no coercive
powers unlike a court to enforce its
final decisions/resolutions." That
proposition, communicated to de la
Fuente, of the Commission's supposed
lack of coercive power to enforce its final
judgments, is incorrect. It is inconsistent
with previous acts of the Commission of
actually directing execution of its
decisions and resolutions, which this
Court has sanctioned in several cases; and
it is not in truth a correct assessment of
its powers under the Constitution and the
relevant laws
Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v.
Ferrer
While it may be true that the lower court
has the jurisdiction over controversies
dealing with the COMELEC's award of
contracts, the same being purely
administrative and civil in nature,
nevertheless, herein petitioner has no
cause of action on the basis of the
allegations of its complaint.
"The Commission on Elections shall have
exclusive charge of the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the
conduct of elections and shall exercise all
other functions which may be conferred
upon it by law. It shall decide, save those
involving the right to vote, all
administrative questions affecting
elections, including the determination of
the number of location of polling places,
and the appointment of election
 inspectors and of other election officials
. . . The decisions, orders and rulings of
the Commission shall be subject to
review by the Supreme Court."
Mateo v. CA
The hiring and firing of employees of
government-owned and controlled
corporations are governed by the
provisions of the Civil Service Law and
Rules and Regulations.
SC Revised Administrative Circular No.
1-95. Final resolutions of the Civil
Service Commission shall be appealable
to the Court of Appeals. In any event,
whether under the old rule or the
present rule, Regional Trial Courts have
no jurisdiction to entertain cases
involving dismissal of officers and
employees covered by the Civil Service
Law.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Section 2
TUPAS v. NHC
Civil service now covers only
government-owned or controlled
corporations with original or legislative
charters, that is those created by an act
of Congress or by special law, and not
those incorporated under and pursuant
to a general legislation.
NHC is not covered by civil service so its
employees undoubtedly have the right
to form unions or employees'
organizations. The right to unionize or
to form organizations is now explicitly
recognized and granted to employees in
both the governmental and the private
sectors.
De los Santos v. Mallare
The office of city engineer is neither
primarily confidential, policy-
determining, nor highly technical. These
positions mentioned are excluded from
the merit system and dismissal at
pleasure of officers and employees
appointed therein is allowed by the
Constitution. Thus, the city engineer
cannot be removed without just cause.
Salazar v. Mathay
The tenure of officials holding primarily
confidential positions ends upon loss of
confidence because their term of office
lasts only as long as confidence in them
endures.
Corpus v. Cuaderno
Highly technical employees cannot be
removed by reason of lack or loss of
confidence by the one making the
appointment.
Luego v. Civil Service Commission
The CSC has no authority to disapprove or
revoke a permanent appointment on the
ground that another person is better
qualified than the appointee. The CSC is
not empowered to determine the kind or
nature of the appointment extended by
the appointing officer, its authority being
limited to approving or reviewing the
appointment in the light of the
requirements of the Civil Service Law.
Approval is more appropriately called an
attestation, that is, of the fact that the
appointee is qualified for the position to
which he has been named.
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA
Lack of civil service eligibility makes an
 appointment temporary; thus, the
appointment is revocable at any time
(without a fixed and definite term) or
dependent upon the pleasure of the
appointing power. Obtaining the civil
service legibility later on does not ipso
facto convert a temporary appointment
into a permanent one.
SSS Employees Association v. CA
The right of government employees to
organize does not include the right to
strike.
Section 7
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
While all other appointive officials in
the civil service are allowed to hold
other office or employment in the
government during their tenure when
such is allowed by tlaw and the primary
function of their office, Cabinet
members, their deputies, and assistants
may only do so when expressly
authorized by the Constitution itself.
Flores v. Drilon
The proviso which states, “Provided,
however, that for the first year of its
operations from the effectivity of this
Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo
shall be appointed as the chairman and
chief executive officer of the Subic
Authority”, violates the constitutional
prohibition against appointment or
designation of elective officials to other
government posts.
Section 8
Quimson v. Ozaeta
The employment of a person as an agent
collector is not itself unlawful because
there is no incompatibility between aid
appointment and his employment as
Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal
Treasurer. There is no legal objection to
government official occupying two
government offices and performing
functions to both as long as there is no
incompatibility. The Constitutional
prohibition refers to double appointments
and performance of functions of more
than one office.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1
Cayetano v. Monsod
Practice of law means any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service which device
or service requires the use in any degree
of legal knowledge or skill.
Brillantes v. Yorac
The President has no authority to make
designation of a Comelec Chairman in an
Acting Capacity. The choice of temporary
Chairman in the absence of the regular
chairman comes under the discretion of
the Comelec. It cannot be exercised by
the President. A designation As Acting
Chairman is by its very terms essentially
temporary and therefore revocable at
will. No cause need be established to
justify its revocation.

Lindo v. Comelec
Comelec’s statement that fake and
spurious ballots may have been
introduced to increase the votes of
protestant cannot be made a basis for
denying the execution pending appeal.
Section 3
Sarmiento vs. Comelec
Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it
provides:
"All pre-proclamation cases pending
before the Commission shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term
of the office involved and the rulings of
the boards of canvassers concerned shall
be deemed affirmed, without prejudice
to the filing of a regular election protest
by the aggrieved party. However,
proceedings may continue when on the
basis of the evidence thus far
presented, the Commission determines
that the petition appears meritorious
and accordingly issues an order for the
proceeding to continue or when an
appropriate order has been issued by
the Supreme Court in a petition for
certiorari."
Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro
All election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies, must be
decided by the COMELEC in division.
Should a party be dissatisfied with the
decision, he may file a motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC en
banc. It is, therefore, the decision,
order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc
that, in accordance with Art. IX, A,
Section 7, "may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari."
Section 4
National Press Club vs. Comelec
The Comelec has also been granted the
right to supervise and regulate the
exercise by media practitioners
themselves of their right to expression
during plebiscite periods. Media
practitioners exercising their freedom of
expression during plebiscite periods are
neither the franchise holders nor the
candidates. In fact, there are no
candidates involved in a plebiscite.
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of
the Philippines vs GMA
It is argued that the power to supervise or
regulate given to the COMELEC under Art.
IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution does
not include the power to prohibit. In the
first place, what the COMELEC is
authorized to supervise or regulate by Art.
IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution, among
other things, is the use by media of
information of their franchises or permits,
while what Congress (not the COMELEC)
prohibits is the sale or donation of print
space or air time for political ads. In
other words, the object of supervision or
regulation is different from the object of
the prohibition. It is another fallacy for
petitioners to contend that the power to
regulate does not include the power to
prohibit. This may have force if the
object of the power were the same.
Adiong vs. COMELEC
The posting of decals and stickers on cars,
 calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other
moving vehicles needs the consent of
the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the
preference of the citizen becomes
crucial in this kind of election
propaganda not the financial resources
of the candidate. Whether the
candidate is rich and, therefore, can
afford to doleout more decals and
stickers or poor and without the means
to spread out the number of decals and
stickers is not as important as the right
of the owner to freely express his choice
and exercise his right of free speech.
The owner can even prepare his own
decals or stickers for posting on his
personal property. To strike down this
right and enjoin it is impermissible
encroachment of his liberties.
Sanidad vs. COMELEC
Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time
may provide a forum for expression but
they do not guarantee full dissemination
of information to the public concerned
because they are limited to either
specific portions in newspapers or to
specific radio or television times.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
SECTION 2
GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ
The Auditor-General has no madate to
disapprove expenditures which in his
opinion are excessive and extravagant.
His authority is limited to the auditing in
expenditures of funds and properties.
such function is limited to a
determination of whether there is a law
appropriating funds for a given purpose;
whether a contract entered made by the
proper officer has been entered in
conformity with the said appropriation
law; whether the goods and services
covered by the said contract have been
delivered or rendered in pursuance
thereof, as attested by the proper officer;
and whether payment therefore has been
authorized by the officials of the
corresponding department or bureau. If
these requirements have been fulfilled, it
is the ministerial duty of the Auditor
General to approve and pass in audit the
voucher and treasury warrant for said
payment. No discretion to disapprove
said payment on the ground that contract
was unwise or unreasonable.
OROCIO VS COA
To determine whether an expenditure of a
government agency or instrumentality is
irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
extravagant and unconscionable, the COA
should not be bound by the opinion of the
legal counsel of a particular agency.
Legal counsel can only offer legal advice.
OSMENA VS COA
A compromise agreement between a
municipal corporation (Cebu City) and the
parents of victim (Spouses dela Cerna)
was constitutional. The participation of
the city in an amicable settlement and
eventual execution of a compromise is
indubitable within the power and
authority of a municipal corporation.
Notably, the compromise agreement was
submitted to its legislative council, which
approved it conformably with its
established rules and procedure.
SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA
COA has the regulatory power to ensure
 that government funds and properties
are fully protected and conserved and
that irregular unnecessary, excessive, or
extravagant expenditures or uses of
funds owned by, or pertaining to the
Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies of instrumentalities are
prevented.
BUSTAMANTE VS COA
Discretion exercised by COA in the
denial of the appeal (on the decision of
a Regional Auditor) is within its power.
Also, conclusions of a Board of Directors
of a government-owned and controlled
corporation in safeguarding the proper
use of the government’s and people’s
property cannot prevail over the
constitutional mandate on COA.
BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION
COA, the agency that adopted the rules
on bidding procedure to be followed by
government offices and corporations,
upheld the legality of bidding although
there is only one offeror (2 were
disqualified- bid below floor price and
technical reasons) since the COA Circular
does not speak of accepted bids but of
offerors, without distinction as to
whether they were disqualified. The
interpretation of an agency of its own
rules should be given more weight than
the interpretation by the agency of the
law it is merely tasked to administer.

SALIGUMBA VS COA
Supreme Courts power to review COA
decisions refers to money matters and
not to administrative cases (rape case
vs. auditing examiner-respondent)
involving the discipline of its personnel.

SECTION 3

PHIL AIRLINES VS COA (more on section 2)

COA has the exclusive authority, subject

to limitations, to define the scope of its
audit and examination, establish the
techniques and methods required
therefore. COA can adopt as its own,
simply by reiteration or by reference,
without the necessity of
repromulgation, already existing rules
and regulations. It may also expand the
coverage thereof to agencies or
instrumentalities under its audit
jurisdiction. COA can advised PAL to
desist from bidding the its fuel upon
expiration of contracts